Disciplinary judgment postponed on restoration application

Please note
This is an archived news story.

The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons last week [17 July 2009] postponed its decision on whether to restore a former RCVS member to the Register, having previously struck her off for being unfit to practise.

Miss Judith Kay was removed from the Register in January 2007 following her multiple convictions for drink-driving offences, driving disqualification and four-month imprisonment.

She had applied to be restored to the Register on a previous occasion [January 2008], but the Committee had felt that Miss Kay still did not appreciated the severity of her addiction, which itself was much in evidence, and turned her application down. She had also continued to practise whilst off the Register – a sufficiently serious matter on its own to warrant a refusal.

Last week, the Committee heard new testimony that Miss Kay now recognised the effect of alcohol on her judgement (although she maintained it did not affect her ability to handle animals) and that she had had much closer involvement with the Veterinary Surgeons Health Support Programme (VSHSP) since January 2008.

Whilst the Committee recognised and commended Miss Kay’s commitment to the VSHSP and the “considerable progress” she had made in addressing her addiction, it felt she still had “some way to go” in becoming a “fit and proper person” to resume veterinary practice. It wished to be satisfied with a range of third-party corroborated evidence in support of this, including the results of random blood tests, attendance at AA meetings, and a suitable CPD programme.

Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee, Mrs Alison Bruce, said: “In light of [these requirements], we have concluded that judgment should be postponed for a period of six months, during which time Miss Kay should comply with undertakings [see Notes] designed to ensure her progress towards rehabilitation.

“In particular, we feel that Miss Kay needs to be able to show that she has obtained advice from an experienced practising veterinary surgeon about the requirements of operating and managing a practice in the current market, the difficulties and problems she might face when she is ready to recommence practice, and the appropriate solutions.”

Mrs Bruce concluded: “It is because Miss Kay has agreed to comply with these undertaking that the Committee has been persuaded to follow this course of action.”

For more information please contact:

Ian Holloway, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, 020 7202 0727 / [email protected]  

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 Inquiry into Miss Kay, her first application for restoration and the undertakings she has now agreed to, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.