---

Forensic Science

It has been a pleasure to serve on the Select Committee under the chairmanship both of the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who spoke so eloquently earlier, and of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who introduced the debate so well. He demonstrated his acquisition of knowledge from an inquiry that took place in the main before he became Chairman, although we had an evidence session with Ministers under his chairmanship. That shows that he has quickly grasped the nuances of the scientific world, of the Committee and perhaps even of Committee members. He has also done that on all the other issues that we are dealing with. This has been an enjoyable debate. I am sad that I was prevented from hearing 20 minutes of it by being detained outside the House. I apologise to you, Mr. Pope, and to other hon. Members for that. So much in the report could be raised, but I shall raise only two matters that were the subject of recommendations. First, paragraph 162, which talks about the prosecutor's fallacy and the presentation of DNA evidence, states:"““We are of the view that there is significant room for improvement in the way that statistical evidence, including risks and probabilities, is presented to juries. In order for this to occur, there needs to be a better understanding of the forms of wording and presentation that are easiest to understand, and least misleading, to members of the general public.””" The Government response stated:"““The Home Office is considering the issues raised with regard to DNA evidence and have arranged a meeting with Mr Cooke””—" one of our witnesses—"““appropriate officials from the department, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Forensic Science Service to establish the issues which need to be addressed.””" However, we recently heard from Mr. Cooke that no such meeting has taken place. I should be grateful if the Minister explained what the problem is, because the Government volunteered to have a meeting and my knowledge of Mr. Cooke is that he has strong views on the issues. The Committee had regard to them and he is unlikely to let the matter drop until the Government deal with it. We expect the Government to follow up the conclusion and I am sure that they wish to do so. The second matter, on which I shall spend more time, is the scrutiny of expert evidence, with particular regard to the case of Professor Sir Roy Meadow. I should say at the outset that I do not know him. I do not believe that I have ever met him or spoken to him on the telephone. However, I feel strongly that there has been great unfairness in the way in which he has been treated and that that has huge implications for expert witnesses, as we mentioned in our report. I should, however, declare an interest in that my father is a retired professor of paediatrics, as is Professor Meadow, and I believe that he knows Sir Roy Meadow. One thing that I do know about paediatricians, retired or otherwise, is that there is no private practice in paediatrics. There is a hard slog of long hours working for the health service, dealing in many cases either with critically ill children—some of the most distressing cases that one can deal with, in which life-and-death decisions are made in clinical practice—or with child protection, which involves highly controversial issues and in which, when there is a contested action, it is hard to conceive of feelings not being raised strongly on both sides. There is a duty on the prosecution in such cases to do what it can to protect children, and clearly it is of huge interest to the accused, innocent or otherwise, to defend themselves against heinous allegations. I think that Professor Sir Roy Meadow was wronged in at least four ways. I am referring to the decision of the General Medical Council to bring a case against him, the decision of the GMC's fitness to practise panel to find against him on the charges brought, the subsequent decision to strike him off and, in particular, the press vilification to which he was subjected. I am not sure that we have dealt with that issue. I raise it because there can be miscarriages of justice. I hope that the GMC will learn from this case, given that Sir Roy Meadow was successful in his appeal against both the judgment and the sentence. The press vilification is particularly unfair to him because he is not in a position to respond when cases are sub judice or he knows of certain medical information or he is advised by his legal advisers that he cannot respond, whereas people who are accusing him can and do. The reporting was overblown and turned out to be wrong, given that he was cleared in the courts. Sir Roy Meadow is still referred to as discredited despite having won his appeal, but I do not think that he is discredited. I hope that the Minister will agree with me that not only in Sir Roy Meadow's case but because we need expert medical witnesses to come forward to support the Courts Service, the press need to show responsibility when attacking someone before they are convicted by a disciplinary panel and, indeed, when they have been cleared by a court of that panel's finding. Paragraph 170 of the report, which was written before Mr. Justice Collins's ruling in the High Court overruling the GMC decision, states:"““Expert witnesses have been penalised far more publicly than the judge or lawyers in cases where expert evidence has been called into question. These cases represent a systems failure. Focussing criticism on the expert has a detrimental effect on the willingness of other experts to serve as witnesses and detracts attention from the flaws in the court process and legal system which, if addressed, could help to prevent future miscarriages of justice.””" That key recommendation should have given the Government pause for thought. However, their response was simply:"““The Committee's comments are noted.””" Given the crucial role of expert witnesses and the importance of their being willing to come forward, the Government response is not satisfactory. They have must have a view on whether Professor Sir Alan Craft, president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, was correct when he said that the campaign against paediatricians in the field of child abuse"““has had an absolutely enormous effect on paediatricians. Paediatricians are frightened of getting involved in child protection work . . . I do not think you can actually underestimate what being reported to the GMC actually does to you—and paediatricians, I think, are pretty sensitive people, that is probably why they are paediatricians—and they do take it incredibly personally when the letter drops through the door saying that they have been reported to the GMC . . . so it is not surprising, given all this, that they are fearful of being involved in child protection.””" That was quoted in the judgment of Mr. Justice Collins given on 17 February 2006 in the case between Meadow and the General Medical Council. It is children who suffer if expert medical witnesses do not come forward. In saying that, I want to record my concern and my feelings for Sally Clark, who clearly suffered a miscarriage of justice. That was seen to be the case in the second appeal, at which the evidence from Dr. Williams, which was not adduced at an earlier stage, was found to be so critical that the judges did not even seek a retrial. There is no doubt, therefore, that her conviction was unsound, but that unsoundness was not based, as a succession of judicial authorities have found, on the evidence of Sir Roy Meadow or his conduct.