Archbold v Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Sir Kenneth Keith |
| Judgment Date | 08 January 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] UKPC 1 |
| Date | 08 January 2004 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Docket Number | Appeal No. 26 of 2003 |
[2004] UKPC 1
Privy Council
Present at the hearing:-
Lord Steyn
Sir Philip Otton
Sir Kenneth Keith
At the end of the hearing of this appeal, their Lordships announced that they would humbly advise Her Majesty that the appeal brought by Mr Archbold should be dismissed and that they would give their reasons later. This they now do.
The appeal, brought under section 17 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, is against the decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons given on 12 March 2003 to instruct the Registrar to remove Mr Archbold's name from the register of veterinary surgeons. That decision was based on its finding, in the light of the evidence and of his admission to the two charges he faced, that Mr Archbold was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect: section 16(1)(b) of the Act.
Mr Archbold had been given notice of the date of hearing but for reasons of health he decided not to attend and he declined an offer of an adjournment. The Committee did have three references before it, emphasising the value of Mr Archbold's work as a veterinary surgeon over a lengthy period. Further references wereprovided to the Board at the hearing of the appeal. Miss Smith, for the College, rightly accepted that their Lordships could consider additional references, but submitted, again correctly, that they did little more than emphasise the original three.
The charges, included in a notice of 20 November 2002, were based on two certificates which Mr Archbold had completed and signed on 17 February 2000. He had certified that he had attended and verified the identity of two cows and had administered lethal injections to them. The certificates were part of the "over thirty months" scheme which, according to the Committee, was introduced to prevent bovine animals over thirty months of age from entering the food chain as part of a package of measures to control BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy). In the words of the Committee, the role that the veterinary surgeon plays in signing the certificate is crucial to the operation of the scheme which provides for consumer protection, allows proper monitoring of disease control and helps to ensure animal welfare. The public is entitled to trust the signature on such a certificate.
Mr Archbold had admitted the facts alleged in an interview on 2 August 2000 and the charges by letter of 19 February, 20 February and 1 March 2003. In the last letter, in addition to admitting to charges, he admitted in relation to the facts alleged that he was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Disciplinary Committee concluded that the truth was that Mr Archbold had not attended and verified the identity of the two animals on the farm and he had not administered the lethal injections. Further, he had passed barbiturates in hypodermic needles and syringes to the farmer and had never identified the animals. "He clearly failed in his fundamental responsibilities as a veterinary surgeon."
In its determination the Committee began by recognising the importance of the over thirty months slaughter scheme. Mr Archbold's laxity in relation to the certification could have led to undue animal suffering, put public health at risk and provided a vehicle for fraud. By his actions he had failed to uphold the honour and reputation of the profession. The Committee said that it had given him due credit for the affection and high esteem in which the testimonials showed he was held within his community, particularly in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Appellant) Hall (1) and Another Ferris (2) and Another A Walker (3) and Another P Walker (4) and Another Dan (5) and Another Stones (6) and Another Robertson (7) and Another P (8) (Respondents)
...can be summarised in a brief sentence taken from the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Flynn v HM Advocate [2004] UKPC 1 that "the object of the provision (that is Article 7) appears to have been to prevent a sentence being imposed which could not have been imposed ......
-
R Darren Williams v Police Appeals Tribunal Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis (Interested Party)
...or referred to in the skeleton arguments:AEI Cables Ltd v McLay [1980] IRLR 84, Ct of SessArchbold v Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons [2004] UKPC 1, PCBS v Dundee City Council [2013] CSIH 91; 2014 SC 254; [2014] IRLR 131, Ct of SessBeedell v West Ferry Printers Ltd [2000] ICR 1263, EATB......
-
Dr John Alan Walker v The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
...Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons [2003] UKPC 34) and in the College's favour in cases of unsuccessful appeals (cf Archbold v. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons [2004] UKPC 1 and Kirk v. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons [2004] UKPC 4). A similar position has applied wit......
-
Dr John Alan Walker v The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
...suffering, put public health at risk and provided a vehicle for fraud. The Board upheld the order for his removal from the register: [2004] UKPC 1. In Sanyal in 2005 the vet was found to have been guilty of failure to provide adequate professional care to three animals, in each case on mor......