Oxon Vet Restored to RCVS Register After “Salutary” Experience

LONDON - The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons this week [26 October 2009] approved an application for restoration to the Register from an Oxfordshire veterinary surgeon who had been struck off for false certification.

In November 2007, the Committee decided that Mr John Williams, of the Avonvale Veterinary Practice in Ratley, near Banbury, should have his name removed from the RCVS Register, having found him guilty of disgraceful professional conduct. Mr Williams had admitted signing export health certificates for three horses in October 2006 to state that they had received negative test results for the contagious equine metritis organism, before these results were actually available.

At the time, Mr Williams was working in his capacity as an Official Veterinarian (OV) for DEFRA and he had previously been suspended from his official duties on three separate occasions, on the basis of export certification irregularities. It was accepted that Mr Williams had not been dishonest, but his approach to certification was described by the Disciplinary Committee as “either irresponsible or cavalier or both”.

In December 2007, Mr Williams appealed against this decision to the Privy Council but this was dismissed at a Hearing the following June. He was then removed from the Register in July 2008.

When the Committee met on Monday to consider Mr Williams’ application, they heard oral and written supporting evidence from veterinary surgeons and equine clients, and oral evidence from Mr Williams himself. The Committee was satisfied that Mr Williams accepted its previous findings and fully understood their seriousness. He described his removal from the Register as a “salutary experience” which had been highly significant for him and his family, both financially and emotionally.

The Committee stated: “Although the decision of the Committee to remove [Mr Williams] from the Register sent a clear message to the profession of the importance of certification, it should be emphasised that his removal was the consequence of his actions in signing certificates which he could not verify. This followed three previous occasions on which he had similarly signed certificates when he should not have done so.”

However, the Committee was satisfied that Mr Williams would not in future sign certificates when he should not do so, even under severe client pressure. It was impressed with the continuing professional development he had undertaken whilst off the Register and noted that no questions had been raised over his conduct during this time.

It concluded that Mr Williams fully understood the importance of accurate certification and that restoring his name to the Register therefore posed no risk to animal welfare. Neither the public nor the profession would benefit from Mr Williams staying off the Register for a further period.

Alison Bruce, Disciplinary Committee Chairman, said: “We would like to make it clear that we always find it distressing to remove clinically competent veterinary surgeons from the Register because of an irresponsible and cavalier attitude towards certification. This would not be necessary if veterinary surgeons were to follow the Twelve Principles of Certification annexed to the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct.”

The Committee then approved Mr Williams’ application and directed that his name should be restored to the Register.

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 initial Inquiry into Mr Williams, his appeal to the Privy Council and the DC’s latest findings, can be viewed via www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.

Contact details: Ian Holloway Senior Communications Officer Belgravia House 62-64 Horseferry Road London SW1P 2AF Tel: +44(0)20-7202-0727 Fax: +44(0)20-7202-0740 i.holloway@rcvs.org.uk

Source: Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons

Contact details: Ian Holloway, Senior Communications Officer, Belgravia House, 62-64 Horseferry Road, London, SW1P 2AF, Tel: +44(0)20-7202-0727, Fax: +44(0)20-7202-0740, i.holloway at rcvs.org.uk