Disciplinary Committee Accepts 18-Month Undertakings From NE Lincs Vet

LONDON - Following two postponed hearings and a stayed Judicial Review, the Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons last week [1 May 2009] accepted a wide-ranging 18-month programme of undertakings from a veterinary surgeon found guilty of serious professional conduct, to address his “serious deficiencies” and “practice failings”.

In October 2006, Mr Joseph Holmes MRCVS, of the Waltham Veterinary Clinic near Grimsby, was found guilty of serious professional misconduct for performing inappropriate and out-of-date veterinary treatment. Judgment was postponed for a period of two years subject to conditions that were put in writing and agreed by Mr Holmes.

The hearing resumed early, in February 2008, as Mr Holmes had deliberately ceased to comply with these conditions in the hope of forcing an appeal against the Committee’s original finding of serious professional misconduct.

At the resumed hearing, Mr Holmes was told there was no legal framework for such an appeal (only against a sanction of suspension or removal from the Register) and that he would be subject to an 18-month period of compliance with the conditions set out at the original hearing; he was also invited to propose a programme of continuing professional development (CPD) and other undertakings for that period.

As Mr Holmes then applied for a Judicial Review of the Committee’s decisions, this programme was never proposed. However, at the Royal Courts of Justice in October 2008, Mr Holmes’ application for Judicial Review was stayed, by mutual consent, allowing for the DC hearing to be resumed and for him to offer undertakings for the Committee’s consideration.

At last week’s hearing, the Committee reminded itself of the original four findings of serious professional misconduct against Mr Holmes, which, in each case, it had stated would “be viewed by reasonable and competent members of the veterinary profession to be deplorable…and far below the standards that members of the public were entitled to expect.”

In relation to these findings, the Committee was particularly concerned about his deficiencies in the fields of orthopaedics, oncology, radiology and therapeutics and considered that his future CPD should specifically address these areas.

Consequently, Mr Holmes agreed to an extensive range of undertakings over an 18-month period, including: participation in the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme (including two inspections); keeping abreast of changes to the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct; 105 hours of standard and additional CPD [see Note 7 below]; proofs of purchase of up-to-date text books and journal subscriptions; and six-monthly progress reports to the Chairman of the Committee.

Brian Jennings, Chairman of the Committee, said: “The Committee considers that the undertakings in the form that you have offered to it, if fulfilled by you, will serve to ensure that there will be no repetition of the conduct which resulted in our original findings and serve to ensure that animals and the public will not be put at risk.

“We trust that you will enter into these courses with the right mind-set and find that at their conclusion, these tasks have been of advantage to your practice.”

NOTES FOR EDITORS

1.The RCVS is the regulatory body for veterinary surgeons in the UK and deals with issues of professional misconduct, maintaining the register of veterinary surgeons eligible to practise in the UK and assuring standards of veterinary education.

2.RCVS disciplinary powers are exercised through the Preliminary Investigation and Disciplinary Committees, established in accordance with Schedule 2 to the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (the 1966 Act). The RCVS has authority to deal with three types of case:

a)Fraudulent registration b)Criminal convictions c)Allegations of disgraceful professional conduct

3.The Disciplinary Committee is a constituted judicial tribunal under the 1966 Act and follows rules of evidence similar to those used in a court of law.

4.The burden of proving an allegation falls upon the RCVS, and the RCVS must prove to the standard that the Committee is sure.

5.A respondent veterinary surgeon may appeal a Disciplinary Committee decision to the Privy Council within 28 days of the date of the decision. If no appeal is received, the Committee’s judgment takes effect after this period.

6.Further information, including the original charges against Mr Holmes, the Committee’s subsequent hearings, and Mr Holmes’ undertakings can be found via www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.

Source: Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons

For more information please contact: Ian Holloway, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons +44(0)20-7202-0727 / i.holloway at rcvs.org.uk