Two-year postponement for judgment on drink-driving vet

The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons yesterday [13 September 2007] postponed its judgment for two years in the case of a Cambridgeshire veterinary surgeon who had been convicted of death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs.

At yesterday’s hearing, Peter Hanlon MRCVS, who previously practised in Soham and Letchworth, admitted the conviction and the charge that it rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery.

The Committee heard that Mr Hanlon had been involved in a road traffic accident in February 2006. Driving to Ely railway station to pick up his son, his car had drifted across the road and collided with an oncoming car driven by James Barber and accompanied by his wife, Ivy. Mr Barber was pronounced dead at the scene and both Mrs Barber and Mr Hanlon sustained injuries.

Following the accident, Mr Hanlon was found to have had over twice the legal limit of alcohol in his blood. He later admitted to having drunk two bottles of wine the previous day and three quarters of a bottle of wine on the day of the accident.

At the Cambridge Crown Court hearing last December, Mr Hanlon was sentenced to 30 months in prison and disqualified from driving for four years. From a transcript of the hearing, the Committee learned that Mrs Barber was understandably finding it difficult to cope with the loss of her husband and had also lost the confidence to drive.

Earlier this year, Mr Hanlon had written to the College expressing his remorse over causing Mr Barber’s death. He told the Committee yesterday of his longstanding problems with alcohol and his subsequent attempts to deal with them, including seeking assistance from his GP, Drinksense and The Cogwheel Trust. He had also attended AA meetings since being in custody and confirmed he had not drunk alcohol since the accident.

The Committee heard and accepted the evidence of a number of veterinary and lay witnesses as to Mr Hanlon’s personal and professional qualities. These witnesses were supported in their views by written testimonials, a letter from Mr Hanlon’s partner and the pre-sentence report from the Crown Court Judge.

Reflecting its duty to maintain public confidence in the profession, as well as protect the welfare of animals and uphold proper standards of conduct, the Committee stated it would only be prepared to impose a lower sanction [like a postponement] if it determined that animal welfare and the public interest would be sufficiently protected.

Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee, Mr Brian Jennings, said: “In reaching our decision, we have weighed the circumstances of the accident [in particular, the amount of alcohol Mr Hanlon consumed and the effects of his actions on the Barber family] against Mr Hanlon’s significant subsequent attempts to address his alcohol problem and his commitment to continue to practise as a veterinary surgeon.

“We have concluded that by postponing judgment for two years, subject to undertakings from Mr Hanlon [see note 5, below], we can properly maintain public confidence in the profession by taking measures to monitor Mr Hanlon’s abstinence from alcohol and continued practice as a veterinary surgeon.”

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 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. The burden of proving an allegation falls upon the RCVS, and the RCVS must prove to the standard that the Committee is sure.

5. The undertakings that the Committee requires of Mr Hanlon are that:

a) he abstains from the use of alcohol;

b) he submits a full medical report from his general practitioner to Mr Jennings, chairman of this Committee at quarterly intervals, the first report to be submitted on or before 1 July 2008; and

c) he submits a copy of his CPD record card to Mr Jennings at six-monthly intervals, the first card to be submitted on or before 1 October 2008.

Mr Hanlon was required to give these undertakings to the Committee in writing within 21 days of yesterday’s hearing.

6. Further information, including the charge against Mr Hanlon and the Disciplinary Committee’s decision, can be found via www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.