Vet Juris notes with interest the case of veterinary surgeon Mr David Smith MRCVS that is reported in the Veterinary Record 2012, 170;586. Central to the case was Mr Smith’s “erroneous interpretation” of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Mr Smith had contacted, through a staff member, the RCVS and DEFRA to ascertain if the procedures he was proposing to carry out (the docking of 13 rottweiler puppies' tails) were permissible; Mr Smiths’ employee was told by the RCVS to direct Mr Smith to the above Act (a 74 page, 69 section document). Mr Smith is a veterinary surgeon not a lawyer, whereas, the RCVS employ lawyers for the very purpose of interpreting parliamentary legislation. Would it have been so very difficult for the RCVS to advise Mr Smith of his legal position?
Mr Smith read and misinterpreted the Act thereby, believing it was permissible to perform the procedures. So too did the RCVS misread the Act; section 4(1)(a) states “A person commits an offence if – an act of his, or his failure to act, causes an animal to suffer”. The RCVS knew what procedure Mr Smith was contemplating and did not act, in any positive way, to stop the commission of the offence. They are, in Vet Juris’ opinion as guilty as Mr Smith and were not, therefore, competent to pass judgment in the case.
Vet Juris finds it perplexing, why the RCVS should insist that the veterinary surgeon himself should contact the College and not a member of his administrative staff. To whom was he supposed to talk, the President of the College, a council member or a member of the College’s own administrative staff? The College should get off of its high horse; they are after all paid for by the Membership. Are the College suggesting that they give one answer to administrative staff and another to veterinary surgeons? And, additionally, why the necessity to get any phone advice confirmed in writing, are the RCVS suggesting that they are liable to change their story if confronted?
VJ (C) 2012
Is this the same vet that was previously banned for supplying false blood test results? Am i right in thinking he is once again involved in a case of supplying false health certificates for horse dealers?
ReplyDeleteI’m sorry; I’d overlooked your post.
ReplyDeleteThe short answer to your questions, regarding possible previous unprofessional behaviour, is, I don’t know. I will endeavour to look into any previous charges that have been levied and upheld against Mr Smith.
The issue that the blog is raising is the fact that the RCVS failed to assist a member of the College in any practical way; they were more concerned that Mr Smith had not called the College himself but condescended to delegate the task to a member of his staff.
The other, more important, issue is that the RCVS appear to be complicit in Mr Smith’s actions. The law imposes a duty to act to prevent an animal suffering; the College failed in this clear duty and animals suffered needlessly. Therefore, the College were not fit to hear the case.
If Mr Smith has a history of breaching the Code of Professional Conduct, it is to be condemned. But, that has no bearing on the rule of law or due process. Mr Smith should not be judge by the College if the College itself was guilty of the same offence.
VJ