-
-
-
-
-
- About extra-mural studies (EMS)
- EMS requirements
- Information for vet students
- Information for EMS providers
- Information for vet schools
- Temporary EMS requirements
- Practice by students - regulations
- Health and safety on EMS placements
- EMS contacts and further guidance
- Extra-mural studies fit for the future
-
-
- Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons
- Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses
- Contact the Advice Team
- XL Bully dog ban
- 'Under care' - new guidance
- Advice on Schedule 3
- Controlled Drugs Guidance – A to Z
- Dealing with Difficult Situations webinar recordings
- FAQs – Common medicines pitfalls
- FAQs – Routine veterinary practice and clinical veterinary research
- FAQs – Advertising of practice names
- GDPR – RCVS information and Q&As
Oxfordshire vet criticised for failing to observe regulations
9 September 2003
Please note: This is an archived news story. Mr Robert Elliott MRCVS remains on the RCVS Register of Members and is currently entitled to practise as a veterinary surgeon in the UK.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' Disciplinary Committee yesterday decided that an Oxfordshire veterinary surgeon who had been convicted of four instances of failing to comply with government regulations on cattle identification was not unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
Between 12 March and 10 November 2001, Mr Robert Elliott had once failed to apply ear tags to a bovine animal, and on three separate occasions, failed to forward to his local DEFRA office in the requisite time the cattle passport of a bovine animal in his keeping that had died.
Although greatly concerned that a veterinary surgeon should have flouted regulations that are in place to protect public health and monitor animal health and movements, the Committee felt that in all the circumstances the convictions were not sufficient to render Mr Elliott unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee, Mr Brian Jennings, said, "The College was right to bring this case to our attention and Mr Elliott should rightly be criticised for his lack of enforcement of these regulations. However, after careful consideration, the Committee felt that these convictions alone did not merit the removal of Mr Elliott's name from the Register."