The Reprehensible Dr. Charles Smith

"Your transgressions were egregious in nature, repulsive in result, caused irreparable harm to many innocent victims." Dr. Marc Gable, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario

This was the opinion of a panel of five doctors acting on behalf of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, who sat to determine the College's response as a disciplinary measure to be levelled against Dr. Charles Smith whose professional misconduct as a highly respected paediatric coroner was found so lacking in professionalism and ethics as to declare him incompetent, strip his medical license to practise in Ontario and fine him a paltry $3,650.

This is the man considered during the 1980s and 1990s to be Canada's leading expert in the field of child pathology, who was trusted to give testimony at trials for hundreds of cases involving the premature deaths of children, many of which featured family members being held responsible for those deaths. Dr. Smith's highly respected testimony led to many wrongful convictions.

This medical professional had no formal accreditation in forensic pathology, nor did he ever experience any manner of formal forensic training. Yet he never undertook to excuse himself, never explained that he lacked credentials and knowledge, was not fit to give the testimony that judges and juries relied upon to help them form their opinions that occasionally led to guilty verdicts. He has since been held responsible for providing inaccurate evidence at child-murder trials.

Because of Dr. Smith's invention of himself as a forensic pathology expert and his masquerading as a reliable medical pathologist, more than a few innocent people spent too many years incarcerated, having been found guilty of the murder of their children. Some of those convictions have since been overturned by the Ontario Court of Appeal after the Ontario chief coroner launched a 2-year investigation into Dr. Smith's work.

The discovery was made that in at least 20 of 44 autopsies which Dr. Smith performed, 20 had major problems associated with them. And twelve of those cases had concluded with charges or convictions against family members or caregivers or parents who were then held to be the cause of the deaths of children which were in fact occasioned by accident or through natural causes.

The College was disappointed that Dr. Smith ignored their order to him to present himself at the reprimand hearing. One of the mothers who had been convicted in the death of her infant and who had served fourteen years in prison for her 'crime' of which she was latterly exonerated did show up at the hearing, in the hopes she could confront her tormentor.

She obviously did not take fully seriously Dr. Smith's apology for the 'errors' he had made, and his humble statement that they had been unintentional in nature. The man was the very picture of hubris when he testified in court as an expert pathologist, knowing full well that his testimony would be damning to the accused, but he feels he has acquitted himself of responsibility by his apology.

His apology does nothing to restore the lost years, the public shame, the misery in which he left families through their traumatic experiences, but he is free to resume his life unfettered by any further concerns.