A RENOWNED Oxford doctor who was struck off for giving "misleading" expert evidence in court has vowed to take her appeal to the Supreme Court if necessary.

Speaking for the first time since the verdict Dr Waney Squier insisted she would fight the allegations "all the way" through the appeals process and said it was "an important issue of justice".

Dr Squier was removed from the medical register in March for her conduct during 'shaken baby' trials between 2007 and 2010.

The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) found the 67-year-old provided "deliberately misleading and dishonest evidence" in cases where parents were accused of killing their children.

Since being struck off she has been unable to work as a consultant neuropathologist at the John Radcliffe Hospital or carry out research there, but she will now appeal against her suspension at the High Court.

Dr Squier admitted her view that shaken baby syndrome does not exist was in "the minority", with the majority of experts in the field arguing the so-called triad – swelling of the brain, bleeding between the skull and brain, and bleeding in the retina – is a strong indicator of trauma.

But she warned the MPTS verdict set a "dangerous precedent" that would stifle open debate and result in children being wrongly removed from their parents' custody.

On a visit to America, she was recently given an award for being a 'champion of justice' by the International Innocence Network.

Dr Squier told the Oxford Mail: "What is happening to me is far less important than what is happening in the courts, because every day children are being taken from their families on the basis of an unfounded hypothesis.

"But in this country people are not going to say publicly that I could be right, because challenging the mainstream view has been shown to be dangerous.

"My consolation is that eventually the science will prevail. But it might take some time."

The mother-of-two says the hardest part of being struck off has been the inability to conduct research for a textbook on neuropathology she is writing.

In its ruling that Dr Squier's fitness to practice was impaired, the panel said: "This case simply concerns your work as an expert witness...You deliberately and dishonestly misled the courts by putting forward theories insufficiently founded upon the evidence, by giving evidence outside your field of expertise and by misquoting research and literature."

But Dr Squier insists she would not have done anything differently: "What I have said is backed by my best understanding of the science and I will take this all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.

"I have no doubt people abuse children, but we have to be sure we make the right diagnosis or you can wrongly break up families."

A spokeswoman for the General Medical Council, which prosecuted Dr Squier, declined to comment.