A DOCTOR who repeatedly misled the courts and acted "deplorably" has been struck off the medical register.

Internationally-renowned Dr Waney Squier, who worked at the John Radcliffe hospital as a consultant neuropathologist, was an expert witness in so-called shaken baby trials. 

The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service today confirmed it had erased the 67-year-old's name from the register, branding her actions "deplorable" and "morally culpable". 

It said she gave "deliberately misleading and dishonest evidence" in court and demonstrated a "complete lack of insight" - blows which have crushed her 32-year medical career to a halt. 

The panel concluded: "The gravity of your misconduct is such that public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process would be undermined.

"The tribunal has determined that your fitness to practise is currently impaired by reason of your misconduct."

At a hearing in Manchester earlier this month, the panel examined six cases outside Oxfordshire between 2007 and 2010. 

In each case Dr Squier tried to convince the court that the brain damage was not due to inflicted injuries, dismissing experts' views that the shaken baby triad - swelling of the brain, bleeding between the skull and brain and bleeding in the retina - is a strong indicator of trauma.

During the hearing, the tribunal's panel noted that Dr Squier was "dogmatic, inflexible and unreceptive to any other view" when sharing information on shaken baby syndrome. 

Niall Dickson is chief executive of the General Medical Council, which is responsible for the medical register.

He said: "This case was not about the science - it was about Dr Squier’s conduct as a doctor acting as an expert witness. It was brought following criticism of her evidence by no fewer than four senior judges presiding over some of the most serious matters the courts have to deal with.

"A doctor giving evidence in court is bound by the same standards as a doctor in clinical practice and by additional rules set down by the courts. They have a duty to act with honesty and integrity at all times, their work should be rigorous and their opinion presented objectively and fairly.

"Cases involving allegations of injury to children are often complex and the courts must rule on matters that will affect the safety and custody of children and sometimes the liberty of adults – as such judges have the right to expect high standards of accuracy and objectivity from expert witnesses.

"If it becomes clear that a doctor has lost objectivity – by cherry-picking facts or research to suit their views or by working outside their area of expertise – that is a problem which we must look at."

Dr Squier, who denied misconduct, has the right to appeal the tribunal’s decision.