RCVS Disciplinary Committee restores former Lincs vet to Register

Please note
This is an archived news story. Mr Joseph Lennox Holmes MRCVS remains on the RCVS Register of Members and he is therefore currently entitled to practise as a veterinary surgeon in the UK.

The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) has this week [Wednesday 19 March 2014] restored Joseph Lennox Holmes to the Register of Veterinary Surgeons, two years after he was originally struck off.

Mr Holmes was removed from the Register in February 2012 after the then Disciplinary Committee found him guilty of multiple charges of serious professional conduct at a hearing in January 2011. Mr Holmes lodged an appeal against this decision, which was heard and dismissed by the Privy Council in December 2011. He was removed from the Register thereafter.

The original charges related to two separate complaints; the first involved numerous charges in respect of Mr Holmes’ treatment of a King Charles Spaniel between October 2007 and March 2008; the second, several charges in relation to his treatment of three cats in 2008.

The Committee found that the majority of the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct. In removing Mr Holmes from the Register, the Committee found that “aggravating factors in both... cases included actual injuries to the animals... and a serious breach of the trust which Mr Holmes’ clients had placed in him to make the welfare of the animals his primary consideration according to the standards to be expected of the profession”.

In addition, the Committee cited 10 further aggravating factors including lack of reference to continuing professional development (CPD) in clinical policies and practices; lack of reference to accepted practice; lack of appreciation of the importance of adequate pain relief when performing painful surgical procedures; reluctance to consider referral as an option; and lack of understanding about what information is required by a client to enable fully informed consent to be given.

The Committee has concluded that, in the course of genuine efforts to do what was necessary to address the deficiencies identified during the original Inquiry and at the last restoration hearing, the Applicant has at last understood the seriousness of his previous misconduct.

Following the dismissal of Mr Holmes’ appeal by the Privy Council, his first application for restoration was heard by the Disciplinary Committee in February 2013.

The Committee was not satisfied that he was fit to be restored to the Register, citing the fact that his application was “premature” and that he had failed to truly appreciate the seriousness of the findings against him.

The Committee was also unimpressed with the efforts he had made to keep up-to-date with skills and developments in practice and with his CPD, noting in particular that he had made very limited attempts to observe the function and experience the culture of a modern first opinion practice.

However, in this week’s two-day hearing, the Committee was satisfied that Mr Holmes was now fit to be restored to the Register. It heard that Mr Holmes had made a concerted effort to engage in CPD and bring his skills and knowledge up-to-date.

During a period of observation at a veterinary practice, he had gained insight into modern practice and the need for veterinary general practitioners to be aware of the advantages in referring patients to specialists. 

Professor Noreen Burrows, who chaired and spoke on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, said: “The Committee has concluded that, in the course of genuine efforts to do what was necessary to address the deficiencies identified during the original Inquiry and at the last restoration hearing, the Applicant has at last understood the seriousness of his previous misconduct and has learned new skills and, most importantly, to recognise his limitations from the extensive course of study, reflection, and other training that he has undertaken.”

Furthermore, the Committee was satisfied that Mr Holmes had gained a proper understanding of the importance of securing the informed consent of his clients and building a relationship of trust with them and, in addition, recognising the importance of maintaining close relations with fellow professionals and engaging with CPD opportunities.

Additional factors considered when making the decision included: that he had been off the Register for two years; that, through self-improvement, he had equipped himself to treat animals appropriately; the impact that being removed from the Register had in both personal and financial terms; his conduct since being removed from the Register; and, a number of positive testimonials from previous clients and professional colleagues.

View the Committee's full findings and decision.