Williams v The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Mance |
| Judgment Date | 28 July 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] UKPC 39 |
| Docket Number | Appeal No 92 of 2007 |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Date | 28 July 2008 |
[2008] UKPC 39
Privy Council
Present at the hearing:-
Lord Hoffmann
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
Lord Carswell
Lord Mance
[Delivered by Lord Mance]
This appeal is brought by the appellant, Mr John Williams, under section 17 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 against the decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons ("RCVS") given on 13 th November 2007 instructing the removal of his name from the register on the ground of disgraceful conduct. By his original petition of appeal, Mr Williams challenged the finding of disgraceful conduct, but this challenge was abandoned, so that the sole submission on which the Board heard submissions on his behalf has been that the penalty of removal from the register was disproportionate and excessive, and that the appropriate order would have been for suspension perhaps (it was suggested) for a year.
The facts can be shortly stated. Mr Williams is a vet of long experience, in respect of whose work and character very many warm testimonials were submitted to the Disciplinary Committee. On Sunday 8 October 2006 he received a telephone call asking him to arrange to certify for export purposes three horses, Russel, Centos and Namur 47, all stabled at a yard at Claverdon owned by Mr Nick Skelton (a client of Mr Williams for over 30 years) and all due to be transported to the United States by air via Holland on Tuesday 17 October 2006. This was a very short time scale. Certification involved taking Contagious Equine Metritis ("CEM") swabs from each horse, having them cultured for six days at a laboratory approved by the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ("DEFRA") located in this case in Bury St Edmonds, receiving back negative results, completing the certificates accordingly and having them countersigned by DEFRA in Leicester (a three-hour round trip from Mr Williams' surgery). DEFRA's countersignature was required to certify both that Mr Williams was an official veterinarian of DEFRA authorised to sign the certificates and that the CEM swabs to which the certificates referred had been sent to a DEFRA approved laboratory for the CEM tests.
Mr Williams attended at Mr Skelton's stables, which were near his home, at 9.00 a.m. on the next day, Monday 9 October, and took swabs to be sent off by courier to the laboratory. At some time during the same week Mr Williams was informed that certificates would be available only at lunchtime on 17 October 2007, the day of intended export. He had a busy diary on 17 October, with clients to visit some 40 or 50 miles away, and he was concerned about the limited time available for certificates to be taken to Leicester for counter-signature and returned. He accordingly determined to attend first thing at 9.00 a.m. at Mr Skelton's stable, where he signed clean certificates, stating inter alia that the CEM tests had been undertaken at a DEFRA approved laboratory "with a negative result" in each case. These were taken to Leicester, where the relevant DEFRA officer noticed that no DEFRA laboratory results accompanied the certificates, and rang Mr Williams' practice. By then the practice had received results for Centos and Namur 47, copies of which were faxed to DEFRA and enabled the DEFRA officer to countersign the certificates for those two horses. No results had however been received for Russel, due it appears to failure by Mr Williams or his practice ever to send the relevant swabs for culturing. DEFRA refused to countersign and returned the certificate for Russel. In the event Mr Skelton was able to arrange a waiver, so that the horse was exported as arranged. Mr Williams was invited to come to Leicester to explain the position regarding Russel. He came on 6 th November 2006, and disclosed the position recounted above in relation to all three horses.
DEFRA then took steps which led to Mr Williams's removal from its panel of Local Veterinary Inspectors ("LVIs"). His appeal against that decision failed in January 2007, when DEFRA also determined that the matter should be referred to the Preliminary Investigation Committee of the RCVS for consideration of any disciplinary action. The present proceedings ensued. The disciplinary charge was heard over two days, during the course of which the Disciplinary Committee heard evidence from three DEFRA officers as well as Mr Williams. In closing submissions before the Disciplinary Committee, Miss Curtis representing the RCVS emphasised that the College had always accepted that, although when signing Mr Williams "knew that what he was doing was wrong, there was no ultimate intention to deceive and his overall purpose was not one of dishonesty". But she also drew attention to a history of three previous occasions on which Mr Williams had been suspended by DEFRA or its predecessor ministry from LVI duties. By letter dated 26 May 1989, he had certified sheep for export to France, 28 of which were on examination at Dover found to be unfit to travel, mainly because of chronic lameness and in one case because the sheep was suffering from scab. Mr Williams had offered no explanation. (The letter also drew attention to "a warning letter …. concerning similar incidents in July of last year".) The suspension was temporary, pending retraining which was satisfactorily completed by 30 August 1989. Secondly, by letter dated 14 October 1997 he was again suspended pending retraining, on account of inability to explain the difference between the number of pigs certified for export for slaughter and the number of ear tags listed on the schedule and failure to return a true copy of the certificate issued to the ministry veterinary office. On 11 November 1997 the ministry wrote recording his satisfactory completion of retraining, but warning that for the time being his completed export certificates would be closely monitored and "Any shortfall will be viewed extremely seriously". Nevertheless, thirdly, on 18 February 2003 DEFRA had occasion to suspend Mr Williams on the grounds that "your actions in signing an export health certificate for Atlantic Lady at Warwick Racecourse on 21 December 2002 fell far short of the requirements laid down in LVI instructions 22(a) section D. These state clearly that use of correction fluids is unacceptable, incomplete certificates must not be signed and LVIs must retain a copy of each certificate issued for a minimum of one year." The letter said that further investigation was being recommended, and that the suspension was to continue pending this and formal retraining as well as a possible reference to the RCVS. The suspension was not lifted until 18 June 2004, when DEFRA wrote pointing out that this had been the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Antonia Martial Claimant v The Public Service Board of Appeal Defendant [ECSC]
...but be quashed. Reference was made to Dr. John Allan Walker v. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeon13 and John Brennand Williams v. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons14. 59 Ms. Martial 's contention was that she was not properly removed from office. The adoption of the PSC's decisi......
-
UC Rusal Alumina Jamaica Ltd v Norris Francis
...cases arising in this jurisdiction. Among such cases are Industrial Chemical Co. (Ja) Ltd v Ellis (1986) 23 JLR 35, and Green v Green [2008] UKPC 39 (Privy Council Appeal No. 4/2002 — delivered 20 May 2003). The principle being referred to is stated in the headnote of Watt v Thomas and read......