title: Professional disciplinary proceedings against expert medical witnesses.
abstract: Witnesses in legal proceedings are protected from civil liability based on their evidence. This immunity is founded on public policy considerations, particularly the belief that witnesses would be less willing to provide full and frank evidence if they were at the risk of civil proceedings based on their evidence. But witness immunity now appears to be subject to an important qualification. The English Court of Appeal has confirmed that witness immunity does not prevent the commencement of professional disciplinary proceedings against an expert witness. In General Medical Council v Meadow [2006] EWCA 1390 the court upheld a disciplinary complaint made against an expert medical witness, even though the complaint was based on that doctor's witness evidence. The Court of Appeal reasoned that the underlying purpose of professional disciplinary proceedings, which is to protect the public, could sit comfortably with witness immunity. The result seems to be that people unhappy with witness evidence cannot sue the witness but can make a professional disciplinary complaint. This apparent gap in witness immunity is important to all professionals who might give evidence.
authors.affiliation: Supreme Court of Victoria.
authors.forename: Matthew
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Groves
mesh_terms: D004739:England; D005104:Expert Testimony / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006801:Humans; D007603:Jurisprudence; D016365:Liability, Legal; D011640:Public Policy