Disgraced Pathologist Michael Heath's career as a forensic pathologist ended in disgrace as he lost his status as a Home Office forensic pathologist, following a disciplinary tribunal in 2006. However, the limitations of Heath's conduct, expertise and evidence had been known about since the 1990s. It took him almost a decade to secure the status of Home Office pathologist, because he repeatedly failed his exams. That emerged in a cross-examination of him during an inquest nine years before the Home Office Pathology Advisory Board tribunal that ended his career as a top forensic pathologist.
Among the conclusions that the tribunal, chaired by John McGuinness QC reached was the following damning indictment of Heath's methods: "We think that his reference to these statements is an extremely good example of Dr Heath vigorously advancing forensic pathological conclusions based on an unacceptable level of speculation without evidential foundation and demonstrating a degree of inflexibility when confronted with reasoned contrary opinions by colleagues which might be dangerous to the objective presentation of expert testimony."
Heath has become notorious for intransigence and inflexibility of his opinions, but evidence of this had existed for several years. It had been ignored even when there were several proven examples in forensic case-work that went far beyond differences in expert opinion.
Inadequate Heath's fall from grace was spectacular, but the then Attorney General, Baron (Peter) Goldsmith shamefully abdicated his responsibilities. Meanwhile, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) began a review of its cases that involved Heath. It was conducted by one of its Commissioners, David Jessel, erstwhile presenter of Rough Justice and then Trial And Error. Jessel was a journalist, not a forensic pathologist. He chose to look only at cases that involved medical issues. Why?
This approach betrayed a fundamental lack of understanding of forensic pathology. It was one scientific discipline and the conduct of the forensic pathologist could affect the ability of other forensic scientists – forensic entomology, for example. If the pathologist failed to understand the need for an integrated approach to other scientific disciplines, it could prove disastrous in forensic case-work.
Pathologists like Heath were a liability as they prevented other evidence from being obtained due to personal opinions that were not supported by evidence. His intransigence in the face of the importance of a rounded approach to the potential contribution of other disciplines was disastrous and this occurred in circumstances that affected people's lives.
At least two cases that we have reported on previously – Neil Sayers and Michael Stone – involved pathology-related issues and needed an integrated approach to forensic science. Sadly, both cases have never had that at any stage from the original investigation right through to the CCRC's review of Heath, but his pathology had played a huge part in both cases for vastly different reasons.
|
Add comment
|
|
Like Fitted In?
Get the book

Fitted In
Inscribed to you, signed by and direct from the author Satish Sekar.
Please email Satish@fittedin.com for details.
Fitted In - to Britain £15.00
Fitted In - to Europe £17.50
Fitted In - The Rest of the World £20.00
|