Register restoration refused for third time

A former veterinary surgeon from South Wales saw his third application for restoration to the Register refused last week [6 October 2006] by the Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

Mr Maurice Kirk of St Donat's, Llantwit Major, South Glamorgan,had been convicted of criminal offences relating to violence and antisocial behaviour for which the Committee found him unfit to practise veterinary surgery at a hearing in May 2002, and directed that his name be removed from the Register. He was struck off in January 2004 when his appeal against this decision was turned down by the Privy Council. Mr Kirk's first and second applications for restoration to the Register were refused in January and November 2005 respectively.

After Mr Kirk's last hearing in November 2005, the Committee set out a number of questions that they required him to answer if he was to achieve re-instatement to the Register in the future. However, as he produced no evidence or any submission addressing any of these questions, despite the hearing lasting four hours, the Committee found that Mr Kirk had not discharged the burden that fell upon him and so dismissed his application.

Once again, however, the Committee advised Mr Kirk that its powers were limited to the consideration of his application and it was unable to reopen or reconsider earlier matters, or conduct an appeal against any of the earlier decisions. At the College's request, the Committee also made a number of directions [attached to the judgment] to ensure that any future application was not frivolous or vexatious, had a reasonable chance of success and did not seek the determination of irrelevant issues.

Mr Brian Jennings, Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee, said: "It is for Mr Kirk to demonstrate to us that he is a fit and proper person to be restored to the Register of Veterinary Surgeons and practise as a veterinary surgeon.

"He must also demonstrate to our satisfaction that his restoration to the Register would not adversely affect the welfare of animals, would not put the public at risk and would not damage the good reputation of the veterinary surgeons' profession."

ENDS

For more information please contact:

Ian Holloway, Communications Department
020 7222 2001,  [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. Following the removal of a veterinary surgeon's name from the Register of Members, that individual may apply to have their name restored to the Register not less then ten months after the date of removal.

5. Further information, including details of the original Disciplinary Committee inquiry into Mr Kirk and his first two applications for restoration, and the Committee's advice and judgment on this application, can be found via www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.