Drink-drive Cambridgeshire vet warned as to future conduct

Following a two-year postponed judgment, the Disciplinary Committee (DC) of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons last week [17 September 2009] warned a Cambridgeshire veterinary surgeon as to his future conduct, after he had been convicted in 2006 for causing death by careless driving whilst under the influence of alcohol.

In September 2007, the Committee heard that Peter Hanlon MRCVS, of Soham in Cambridgeshire, had been involved in a road traffic accident in February 2006.

Mr Hanlon’s car had drifted across the road and collided with an oncoming car driven by James Barber who was accompanied by his wife, Ivy. Mr Barber was pronounced dead at the scene and both Mrs Barber and Mr Hanlon sustained injuries.

At the initial hearing, Mr Hanlon admitted the conviction (for which he had been sentenced to 30 months in prison and received a four-year driving ban) and the charge that it rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery.

The Committee decided to postpone its judgment for two years on the agreement that Mr Hanlon would undertake to abstain from alcohol and to submit quarterly medical reports and six-monthly CPD (continuing professional development) reports to the Committee chairman.

At the resumed hearing last week, the Committee carefully considered Mr Hanlon’s written and oral submissions, and accepted that he had fully complied with these undertakings.

He had abstained from alcohol since the day after the accident, produced an “exemplary” CPD record and provided impressive reports from his employers concerning his professional competence.

In addition, Mr Hanlon, who spent around 14 months in prison and remained on licence until July 2009, also reiterated to the Committee his remorse for the death of Mr Barber and respect for his family.

The Committee was mindful of its duty to maintain confidence in the veterinary profession and uphold proper standards of conduct.

Whilst it did not consider it necessary to postpone judgment again, it felt that Mr Hanlon should be warned about his future conduct.

Caroline Freedman, chairing the Committee, concluded: “As this case has demonstrated, and as Mr Hanlon himself has fully recognised, abuse of alcohol can lead to far reaching consequences in personal and professional lives and the lives of others.”

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. It is a criminal offence contrary to section 19 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 to practise as a veterinary surgeon unless registered in the RCVS Register of Members. Only those veterinary surgeons properly registered may practise veterinary surgery and use the postnominals MRCVS or FRCVS.

7. Further information, including the original inquiry into Mr Hanlon, and the Committee’s findings and decision, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.