Finlay Scott
Chief executive, General Medical Council

This is a very important judgment with far reaching implications. Until now, the courts had consistently ruled that the GMC has the duty to investigate any complaint that has the potential to reach the relevant threshold: that a doctor's fitness to practice has been impaired. Before this ruling no judge suggested that there were exceptions to this. A new law has in effect been made. The judge has placed a limit on the duties and the powers, created by parliament through legislation, of the GMC. There are three possible outcomes following this ruling: at one extreme the GMC will be driven to pursue every complaint whatever its merit. The other extreme, which is the effect of the judgment, is that we can't investigate unless a judge makes a complaint. There is a middle ground, which is where I thought we were, which is to allow us to investigate where there has been substantial criticism. This would allow us to minimise the oppression of good doctors who give competent evidence and to protect the public from experts who fall short of expected standards. This ruling has moved us from where we want to be.

Michael Summers
Chairman, Patients Association

I'm not sure this ruling is good news for patients. The judgment appears to give carte blanche to expert witnesses to be able to give their evidence without any fear of what is said. There is the implication that expert witnesses are now above the law and it makes patients more vulnerable. If an expert witness in court strays beyond their own expertise, and fails to disclose that, and that evidence has a devastating effect on somebody's life, then they should be accountable to their professional regulatory body.

Sir Alan Craft
President, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health

This is a very important judgment for children, paediatricians and healthcare professionals. It is very good news. It means that anybody giving expert witness evidence in good faith has immunity. It's what we have been asking for for the last three years: that the GMC should only be allowed to take cases referred by a judge at a time of hearing when the judge decides that the expert witness gives evidence that isn't up to scratch. The public has as much protection as it had before because the judge has the option to refer expert witnesses to the GMC where they can be struck off. I don't think this ruling gives expert witnesses carte blanche to say what they like. There is still an onus on the expert witness to be explicit about where they are coming from and not to stray from their level of expertise.

Mike Wardle
Deputy chief executive, General Social Care Council

There is a long established principle that civil action cannot be pursued against expert witnesses in relation to the evidence they give; it gives confidence to witnesses that if they manage to convict somebody they cannot, for example, be sued for damages. The judge has extended that immunity principle to cover professional regulatory action; that clarification is very welcome. It means that when a professional acts in good faith but makes a genuine mistake, unless it is so beyond the bounds of the ordinary to make the judge refer it to the regulatory body, the individual can't be disciplined. If you act dishonestly or in bad faith then the immunity doesn't apply. That is exactly how it ought to be. The ruling would only damage the protection of the public if it meant blanket immunity.

Stephanie Bown
Director of education and communications, Medical Protection Society

This ruling has an impact beyond the medical profession to all those who undertake expert work and give evidence. It recognises the role that professional experts have in the administration of justice. In child protection, issues are very emotive and complex involving vulnerable people, and require assistance from professional experts to be able to come to a fair decision. This judgment is important because professional experts are immune from disciplinary proceedings brought before their regulators as a result of complaint by a party who has been upset by the evidence. It is a welcome protection. It doesn't dilute the professional accountability of the expert. This judgment makes it clear that if the judge hearing evidence in court considers the expert conduct to be so seriously detracting from what is acceptable, then referral can be made to the expert's regulator. I don't think this ruling puts patients at more risk. The real risk was that [before this judgment] court proceedings were going to suffer from a lack of robust experts available for these kind of proceedings.

Marc Seale
Chief executive, Health Professions Council

The ruling has clarified in law how far a professional expert witness is allowed to give evidence and, if they get it wrong, whether a judge makes a complaint [to their regulator]. It's always good when you get a court ruling about where a boundary is. As a regulator we are there to protect the public but also to look after the human rights of the registrant. I wouldn't say I welcome this ruling, but it is beneficial to have the clarification.

Tom Magner
Founder member, Society of Expert Witnesses

The judgment sends a reassuring message to expert witnesses and to the criminal justice system. This ruling does not protect expert witnesses from the law. The person in court who decides how much weight should be given to the evidence of an expert witness is the judge. I have every confidence that if a judge believes a serious mistake has been made they would refer that person to the regulator. People think this ruling offers a blanket immunity for witnesses - it doesn't. If an expert witness has acted dishonestly or grossly unreasonably then the court can say this person does not have immunity and will be referred to the regulatory body. It is at the discretion of the court and the judge is the arbiter of evidence in court.

Ian Johnston
Director, British Association of Social Workers

Social workers can be expert witnesses in all kinds of cases, such as custody of children in marital disputes and adoption and child abuse cases. I would expect that if a social worker [as an expert witness] did something that discredited their profession then that should be an issue for their regulatory body. I am surprised at this ruling. I think the public is entitled to expect if a health professional or social worker gives evidence, that the evidence is soundly based. If it is not then it should be an issue for the regulator.