EXPERT WITNESS BIDS TO OVERTURN DISCIPLINARY RULING
A leading paediatric expert witness, struck off the medical register for serious professional misconduct, has launched an appeal to be reinstated.
Dr David Southall aims to persuade three senior judges that the High Court was wrong to back the original decision by a General Medical Council panel that he had acted unprofessionally when dealing with a mother whose 10-year old son had hanged himself in 1996.
Lord Justices Waller, Dyson and Leveson are being asked to grant Dr Southall permission to challenge an earlier decision of Mr Justice Blake, who had said, in his judgement, that the medical practitioner had made, what he called, "truly shocking" and unjustified accusations that a mother, Mrs M from Shropshire, had drugged and murdered her son.
Dr Southall's involvement started when he was called in by a County Council to provide an independent report on the safety of the lady's surviving son.
In December 2007, a GMC Fitness to Practice panel accused Dr Southall of having a "deep-seated attitudinal problem", saying that his actions had added to the distress of Mrs M.
In his first and unsuccessful legal challenge to the Panel ruling, Dr Southall had argued, through his lawyers, that the tribunal had not taken any or adequate weight to inconsistencies in the evidence of Mrs M and to the testimony of other witnesses including social workers.
It was also argued, on the doctor's behalf, that the panel `'did not understand ... what child protection involved and the part played by doctors like him".
Dismissing that appeal, Mr Justice Blake said: "The unjustified accusation of murder ... was an abuse of the role of consultant and expert instructed in ongoing litigation." He had ruled that the doctor's conduct with regard to Mrs M justified striking off.
The High Court decision led to a call by campaigning organisation Professionals Against Child Abuse (PACA) that it could have "further serious and negative effects" on the willingness of doctors to engage in child protection work.
Submitting an argument for leave to challenge Mr Justice Blake's decision, Mary O'Rourke QC, Counsel for Dr Southall, told the three senior judges that the case raised points of "principle and public importance".
She said rulings in Dr Southall's case had caused "confusion" among paediatricians and others in child protection over how to handle cases where parents and carers were potential abusers.
In other high profile cases, professionals had been accused of being "too trusting" and not being sufficiently vigorous in the questioning of family members.
But Dr Southall had been sanctioned because he was said to have been "over vigorous" in his questioning of Mrs M.
She told the judges: "It is of fundamental importance that paediatricians and specialists in child care fearlessly investigate the possibility that a child may be at risk or actually suffering from harm."
Dr Southall had denied ever accusing Mrs M of murder or conducting the interview with her in an aggressive and hostile manner.
It was argued at the present appeal hearing that Mrs M may have been under a "misperception".
Mrs O'Rourke also told the judges that a social worker at the interview did not record Dr Southall asking the questions he is accused of putting to the mother.
The judges are expected to reserve their decision.
ENDS