Lincs Vet's RCVS Register Restoration Application Refused

LONDON, January 11 - The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
last week decided that a Lincolnshire-based veterinary surgeon should
not be restored to the RCVS Register, having previously struck him off
for disgraceful professional conduct, as it was not convinced that he
accepted the seriousness of its finding.

In October 2007, Robert Morris, of Brant Broughton, near Lincoln, was
removed from the Register having been found guilty of falsely certifying
a horse to be fit for sale, despite knowing that it had a respiratory
problem that could prejudice its use in the future by its new owners.

At the hearing, which concluded on 7 January, the Disciplinary Committee
focused on several areas. On the day following the Committee's decision
in October 2007, Mr Morris had falsely certified that two horses had
been fully vaccinated every six months by his practice, when he did not
know that this was the case. On two occasions during September and
October of 2009, he had held himself out to be a veterinary surgeon,
including examining, diagnosing and treating animals (horses and dogs).
These issues, together with the fact that Mr Morris told the Committee
that he was not fully familiar with the Twelve Principles of
Certification, as set out in the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct, led
the Committee to believe that Mr Morris did not understand the
seriousness of his conviction for disgraceful professional conduct.

The Committee also felt that there was a risk to future welfare of
animals and protection of the public arising from Mr Morris' failure to
understand the importance of certification. That he remained unfamiliar
with the veterinary medicines regulations (and had been convicted at
Grantham Magistrates Court on 1 November 2007 for possession of
unauthorised veterinary medicinal products on 7 March 2006), was also
taken as relevant in this regard.

The Committee also took into account the fact that Mr Morris had
undertaken only limited continuing professional development since his
removal, and it was concerned that it had not been presented with
sufficient evidence to confirm Mr Morris' assertion that he no longer
suffers from an alcohol problem.

Chairing the Disciplinary Committee, Mrs Alison Bruce, said: "In the
light of its finding that Mr Morris does not fully understand the
importance of accurate certification, nor of practising as a veterinary
surgeon when he was not entitled to do so, the Committee considers that
there is a risk to the future welfare of animals in the event of his
name being restored to the Register."

She went on to add that in the case of veterinary surgeons continuing
to work in a practice when struck off: "It is fully appreciated that
veterinary practices may be owned and managed by lay people, however
there must be a clear distinction between managing or working within a
veterinary practice and practising veterinary medicine. It is of
particular importance that any member who has been removed should
recognise the difference between these activities. A member who has been
removed must refrain from examining animals, making diagnoses or
performing treatments, even under the direction of another veterinary
surgeon, this includes giving veterinary advice."

    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
       Morris and the Committee's findings at that time, plus the decision
       made this week, can be found via www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.

    For more information please contact:

    Lizzie Lockett, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
    +44(0)20-7202-0725 / l.lockett@rcvs.org.uk

For more information please contact: Lizzie Lockett, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, +44(0)20-7202-0725 / l.lockett at rcvs.org.uk