Oxon vet struck off for false export certification

Please note
This is an archived news story.

The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has this week decided that an Oxfordshire-based veterinary surgeon should be removed from the RCVS Register, having found him guilty of disgraceful professional conduct.

At the hearing, which concluded on Tuesday [13 November 2007], John Williams 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.

In claiming that his actions did not amount to disgraceful professional conduct, Mr Williams explained that he had signed the certificates because he had knowledge of the horses' breeding history; because his client (the horse owner) was under a tight timescale; and, because he knew anyway that the certificates would have to be countersigned by a DEFRA Veterinary Officer [so if the results were still unavailable, the certificate would not be countersigned and the horses would not be permitted to travel]. He stated that no animal had suffered as a result of his actions.

The Committee, however, took a different view. It said that the validity of any certificate was essential to transactions which may relate not only to animal health, but also to the proper conduct of commerce. It reminded him that although in many cases a veterinary surgeon may be advising and helping a client, his duty in carrying out the investigation for, and the signing of, a certificate was to DEFRA and to anyone whom he knew might or would rely upon the validity of that certificate.

The importance of these duties is also emphasised in the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct and DEFRA's own guidelines.

Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee, Mrs Alison Bruce, said: "The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has always given a high priority to the maintenance of accuracy and truthfulness of veterinary certificates. Mr Williams gambled on the likelihood that the results would be negative. This can never be the basis for proper certification."

Prior to passing judgment, the Committee was then shown evidence about previous irregularities in Mr Williams' export certification between 1989 and 2004, for which DEFRA had suspended him from his official duties on three separate occasions. The Committee noted DEFRA's written advice to Mr Williams in 2004, which stated: "…the trading credibility of this country is largely founded on a trust in the certification provided and that deficiencies put our national reputation at risk. Deficiencies also put at risk the reputation of the veterinary profession at large."

Taking into account this and previous warnings to Mr Williams to take the utmost care when issuing such certificates, Mrs Bruce concluded: "We have been invited to assess Mr Williams' character and, sadly, we assessed his attitude to certification as being either irresponsible, or cavalier, or both. In order to maintain public confidence in veterinary certification and to reinforce to the profession the importance of accurate certification … we have no alternative but to instruct the Registrar to remove Mr Williams' name from the Register."

For more information please contact:

Ian Holloway, Senior Communications Officer, 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 UKand 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 charge against Mr Williams, and the Committee's findings and judgment, can be found via www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.