Today, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has quashed the decision of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons to remove Dr Gary Samuel from the register of veterinary surgeons.
Vet Juris has yet to critically analyse the Privy Council's judgment. But, in his conclusion Lord Toulson said that the Committee's (RCVS) finding that Dr Samuel was unfit to practise "cannot fairly stand".
It does confirm a feeling I have had for a while, and a thought I had when reading Samuel's case report, that striking off a vet for some convictions is disproportionate to the offence itself, given that (I would assume) it is very difficult for them to earn a living being a struck-off vet.
ReplyDeleteWill Easson
Will, thank you for your comment,
DeleteIt was the disproportionate nature of the sanction that was in the forefront of the Privy Council's reasoning that resulted in the quashing of the RCVS's decision, rather than sending it back to the College for reconsideration.
The College wanted to suggest that the public would view Dr Samuel's behaviour as inappropriate for a veterinary surgeon; a behavior that Lord Toulson suggested was no more than a quarrel between neighbour's. The Privy Council were also scathing of the College for not giving weight to the fact that what sparked (but did not justify) the incident was the neighbour calling Dr Samuel a "black bastard"; a point that the College's counsel tried to deny.
Thank you for posting. VJ