Expert witnesses who give flawed evidence in court must be able to be disciplined by regulators if rogue practitioners are to be deterred, three appeal judges were told yesterday.

"Dangerous expert witnesses and practitioners ... should be prevented from continuing to endanger the court process," Roger Henderson QC, for the General Medical Council, told the hearing at the appeal court in London. The GMC is appealing against a high court ruling last February clearing a retired paediatrician, Professor Sir Roy Meadow, of serious professional misconduct. Sir Roy gave misleading statistical evidence at the trial of Sally Clark, who served nearly four years in prison before her convictions for murdering her two young sons were quashed in 2003 on a second appeal.

The doctors' disciplinary body is appealing against findings by Mr Justice Collins that not only was Prof Meadow not guilty, but also that experts in general cannot be disciplined by regulators over courtroom evidence unless their case is referred by a judge.

Mr Henderson said Mr Justice Collins' judgment "subjugated a public interest" - that the GMC should be able to protect the public from practitioners who are unfit to practise - to the private interest of the practitioner to be immune from regulatory action.

Lord Justice Thorpe, one of the three appeal judges hearing the case, said the aftermath of the Clark case and that of Angela Cannings, whose convictions for murdering two babies were also quashed, "was having a dire effect on the willingness of practitioners to give evidence in the family courts". Prof Meadow gave evidence for the prosecution in both cases.

The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, who intervened in the appeal to support the GMC, said the problem was the subject of a major review, which would be published soon. He told the three judges, headed by the master of the rolls, Sir Anthony Clarke, that it was not up to a court to decide whether expert witnesses should be given immunity from their own disciplinary bodies.