Retired vet’s request to be removed from Register granted after allegations of inappropriate care

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has approved an application from a retired Plymouth-based vet to be removed from the Register with immediate effect and to never apply to be restored to the Register. Mr Edmund Harold Shillabeer faced multiple charges alleging his failure to provide appropriate and/or adequate care for his patients in 2021.

The hearing took place on Monday 22 July 2024 at the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, London. Mr Shillabeer had a total of five charges against him. These were, in summary, that, whilst in practice at Harwell Veterinary Centre, Plymouth, he:

1)    between 26 July and 4 August 2021, failed to provide appropriate and/or adequate veterinary care to a cat named Ralph;

2)    on or around 18 August 2021, failed to provide appropriate and/or adequate veterinary care to a cat named Alfredo;

3)    on or around 23 November 2021, failed to provide appropriate and/or adequate veterinary care to a pregnant bulldog named Mabel;

4)    on or around 2 December 2021, failed to provide appropriate and/or adequate veterinary care to a cat named Ginge; and,

5)    on or around 20 and 22 December 2021, failed to provide appropriate and/or adequate veterinary care to a cat named Aurora.

Mr Shillabeer did not admit to any of the charges but was fully engaged with the College and responded to all requests for information, as well as being present in-person at the hearing.

Mr Shillabeer made an application to the Committee to dispose of the matter by way of adjournment, subject to the Committee accepting his written undertakings in which he pledged:

1)    To remove his name from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons (“the Register”) with immediate effect.

2)    Never to apply to be restored to the Register.

In support of his application, Mr Shillabeer’s legal counsel referred to his client’s witness statement, which set out that he had previously attempted to sell his practice but had been unsuccessful and that he had since closed it. He also asked the Committee to consider a number of factors including, the fact that Mr Shillabeer is almost 85 years old and has had a long unblemished career for 60 years; has had no previous disciplinary findings against him; had put his practice up for sale and made efforts to guide his previous clients to ensure continuity of care elsewhere; and that he deeply regrets anything he has done, or not done, which has failed to protect the welfare of animals, or has caused concern, or upset, to his clients and fellow members of the profession.

Regarding the undertakings offered by Mr Shillabeer, his counsel also asked the Committee to take into consideration that they would have the effect of protecting the welfare of animals and uphold the reputation of the profession as Mr Shillabeer is no longer in practice. He stated it would be not proportionate, or in the public interest, for there to be a lengthy contested hearing resulting in substantial costs for both the RCVS and/or Mr Shillabeer.

The College’s legal representative stated that the RCVS did not oppose the application, and that it took a neutral stance. She highlighted that Mr Shillabeer’s removal from the Register, together with his undertaking never to apply for restoration, would go far beyond anything the Committee could direct by way of sanction after a full enquiry; that Mr Shillabeer retired from practice on 23 July 2024 and does not intend to return; that a full enquiry would take a significant amount of time and expense; that the complainant supports the case being dealt with in the manner proposed by Mr Shillabeer; and that there are no previous findings against Mr Shillabeer.

Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Taking into account the undertaking never to practice again, in conjunction with all of the circumstances and context set out, the Committee considered that by allowing the application, such an outcome would be sufficient to uphold the public interest, confidence in the profession and the RCVS as regulator, and protect the welfare of animals.

“Taking into account the undertaking never to practice again, in conjunction with all of the circumstances and context set out, the Committee considered that by allowing the application, such an outcome would be sufficient to uphold the public interest, confidence in the profession and the RCVS as regulator, and protect the welfare of animals."

“As a result of all the factors set out, the Committee decided that this is not a case in which the public interest or the welfare of animals demands that there be a full hearing.

“Taking into account proportionality and weighing in the balance all the circumstances of the case, the interests of justice, the public interest, the need to uphold proper standards of conduct and performance, and the need to protect the welfare of animals, the Committee decided to grant the respondent’s application.”

Mr Shillabeer was removed from the Register with immediate effect.

Please note: This news story is a summary of the hearing to help understand the case and the Committee's decision. The full documentation for the hearing can be found on our Disciplinary hearing webpage.