Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons v Samuel

A criminal conviction does not by itself make a veterinary surgeon unfit to practise. Under the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, the relevant question includes whether retaining registration would damage the profession’s reputation and public confidence. A disciplinary tribunal may examine the underlying facts, but cannot reopen the conviction. It must make fair findings on material contextual evidence, including provocation, rather than leave it unresolved and treat it as irrelevant because it does not excuse the conduct. A finding reached without that assessment may be quashed. When deciding whether to remit, an appellate court may assess the gravity of the case itself.

Dr Gary Samuel, a registered veterinary surgeon, pleaded guilty to theft, common assault and threatening or abusive behaviour arising from an altercation with neighbours. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons referred the convictions to its Disciplinary Committee under the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966.

The Committee found Dr Samuel unfit to practise and directed that his name be removed from the register. He appealed against both decisions, arguing that the Committee had failed properly to determine his evidence that racial abuse had provoked the incident and that the sanction was disproportionate. The central issues were the proper treatment of the convictions and underlying facts, and the effect of the unresolved contextual evidence on fitness to practise.

1. Appeal and order. The appeal was allowed and the Committee’s finding of unfitness to practise was quashed. The Board declined to remit the case because the conduct, although reprehensible, was not sufficiently grave for the public interest to require a further disciplinary determination.
2. Applicable principles. Under section 16(1)(a) of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, the conviction need not concern professional practice. Unfitness may be established where retaining the practitioner’s name would prejudice the profession’s reputation and harm public confidence. The Board endorsed the approach in Roylance v General Medical Council (No 2) [2000] 1 AC 311.
3. The disciplinary rules permitted both the College and the practitioner to adduce evidence about the underlying facts relevant to unfitness, provided that the evidence was not inconsistent with the conviction. The conviction could not be relitigated. The Board applied the principle stated in Kirk v Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons [2004] UKPC 4. It also noted that rule 23.6 was intended to require the criminal standard of proof, despite its confusing reference to the highest civil standard, consistent with In re B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) (CAFCASS intervening) [2008] UKHL 35.
4. Fairness. The Committee had left Dr Samuel’s evidence of racial provocation at the level of a possibility and had treated the absence of justification as sufficient to dispose of its relevance. That was wrong. Fairness required the evidence to be accepted in the absence of contrary evidence and considered in assessing fitness. The Committee was entitled to regard other disputed matters as immaterial, but its failure to resolve this material issue meant that the finding could not fairly stand.
5. Gravity and sanction. In deciding whether to quash or remit, the Board was entitled to form its own view of the gravity of the case. It was not greatly influenced by the suspended custodial sentence, having regard to the spontaneous neighbour dispute, the absence of financial motive and the surrounding circumstances. If the finding of unfitness had stood, removal from the register would have been disproportionately severe.

1. Privy Council — In [2014] UKPC 13, the Board allowed the appeal, quashed the finding of unfitness to practise and declined to remit the matter.
2. Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons — Found Dr Samuel unfit to practise and directed removal of his name from the register.