Surrey veterinary surgeon Kumaran Kanesh has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after being convicted in the Crown Court for wounding with intent and false imprisonment.
At the one-day hearing, the Committee heard how Kumaran Kanesh, who completed his veterinary studies in Sri Lanka before moving to the UK in 2003 to undertake further studies, had been sentenced to four restriction orders under the Mental Health Act at the Kingston Crown Court on 25 March 2013, following his attack on a woman and child in August 2012.
During the summer of 2012, following a period of worsening mental illness and increasing paranoia about people, Mr Kanesh had launched a pre-planned assault against Mrs A and Child B. In what the Crown Court Judge described as an extremely violent, deeply distressing and seemingly frenzied attack, Mr Kanesh bound and gagged Child B and Mrs A, before proceeding to cut Child B's eyelids with a knife. When Mrs A managed to free herself and tried to protect the child, Mr Kanesh then attacked her, stabbing her 17 times in the subsequent struggle. Both Child B and Mrs A ultimately managed to escape, where they were assisted by members of the public, before the police arrived to arrest Mr Kanesh. The Committee noted that both Mrs A and Child B had since made a good physical recovery from their injuries, although their psychological well being was still in question.
Following the attack, Mr Kanesh was remanded in custody before being transferred to Broadmoor Hospital, where he was retained under the Mental Health Act until sentencing. Consultant psychiatrist Dr Samrat Sengupta told the sentencing hearing that Mr Kanesh suffered from paranoid schizophrenia with symptoms characterised by "persecutory and self-reverential delusional ideations" about members of his family and the wider public. He added that the degree of Mr Kanesh's illness warranted his ongoing hospitalisation and treatment, and that the possibility of relapse from failing to take his medication was a real concern. Passing sentence, his Honour Judge Price QC told Mr Kanesh: "Because of your untreated illness, your mental illness overwhelmed you and you behaved in an extremely violent and deeply distressing way ... I am quite satisfied that you committed those acts while suffering from mental illness. The tragedy is that if you had taken the medication then perhaps none of this would have occurred."
At the outset of the Disciplinary Committee hearing, which Mr Kanesh attended escorted by a mental health nurse, he admitted the convictions and that they rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery. Mrs A had written to the College stating she was supportive of Mr Kanesh and that she understood his behaviour had resulted from his ill-health. Dr Sengupta also wrote to the College stating that Mr Kanesh had since responded well to medication with complete resolution of his symptoms and had been moved to a lesser secure environment for further rehabilitation.
In its submissions to the Committee, the College stated that Mr Kanesh's convictions represented some of the most serious offences that it could consider, which, had he been of sound mind, would have led to a significant period of imprisonment. His conduct was of such an exceptionally serious nature as to significantly damage the reputation of the veterinary profession and undermine the public's confidence in it, regardless of the underlying reasons. The Committee accepted the College's submissions and found Mr Kanesh unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
In determining an appropriate sanction, the Committee acknowledged that Mr Kanesh was suffering from a severe, acute psychiatric disorder and was unknown to the UK mental health services at the time of the incident, but noted that he had caused serious physical and mental harm to two individuals, and that his actions had involved a breach of trust, a vulnerable victim, premeditation and a high level of violence.
Speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, its Chairman, Professor Peter Lees, said: "The seriousness of these offences is self-evidently damaging to the reputation of the veterinary profession and the confidence of the public in the profession. [We] accept that if [Mr Kanesh] fails to maintain his regimen of medication, there is a real risk of a possible relapse ... The only possible sanction in this case is to direct the Registrar to remove [Mr Kanesh's] name from the Register."
The full detail of the Committee's decision is available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vets.
The seriousness of these offences is self-evidently damaging to the reputation of the veterinary profession and the confidence of the public in the profession.
Sorry do not agree with that statement at all . They were right to remove him from the register because of the likelihood of further problems ,but there was no need to lay it on with a trowel ,just stick to the facts ,which were that his mental illness was too big a problem .
THere was no need to re=try and rubber stamp decisions made in courts elsewhere .
You sometimes just want to scream "christ you people need to get over yourselves sometimes "
Once again the RCVS has interfered where they have little or no jurisdiction. Mr Kanesh's actions were not relevant to his veterinary work and do no make him unfit to practice as a veterinary surgeon. I cannot see how a crime unrelated to a profession makes an individual unfit to practice that profession. He has been punished as seen fit by the justice system and is receiving treatment for his mental illness. Indeed one thing that may have facilitated his long term recovery, the knowledge that he a worthwhile career to return to, has now been denied to him.
Its a stressful job , his problems were not going to go away even with treatment , the stress of the job may have facilitated a relapse. So you reluctantly have to agree with their decision .But there was no need to re-try his case and rub his face in the dirt like that.
I agree with g.o.m.
Martin,
Just as a point of information the VSA 1966 gives the RCVS direct and unambiguous jurisdiction over members with criminal convictions - see Section 16 (1) (a).
Relevant recent case law on the ability of professionals to practice includes Adesenowo V SRA (13 June 2013).
The DC is obliged by law to give a reasoned explanation of the decisions it makes. They must accept the FACT of a conviction and do not seek to reconsider the findings of a criminal court.
It seems to me to be an unfair criticism to suggest that the DC shouldn't be detailing their reasoning - in different circumstances they have been criticised for inadequate explanation.
Richard S
That is ok but there was no need to suggest that this case reflected badly on the rest of us in any way what-so-ever . It was appropriate to refer to the conviction ,it was not appropriate to rubber stamp it.
I don`t see how his actions would undermine anyone's confidence with veterinarians. this is just a mentally unstable guy doing crimes in his spare time. There are hundred thousands of vets, of course there will be some crazy people in that demographic.
When a pilot choose to crash his passenger jet because he is suicidal, it does`nt mean that I`ll stop taking flights.
I don't see what people are getting so worked up about.He committed terrible violent premeditated crimes, he's been found guilty. The RCVS have of course removed him from the register. He is unfit to practise, probably unfit to walk the streets and we have enough criminals and violent mental health patients in this country. He should be deported back to Sri Lanka.
Has there been any comment from the DC to the effect that, if and when he has been shown to have recovered from his mental illness, he will be welcome to apply to the RCVS to have his licence restored? I hope so.
"Robin Grimmer says
Tue, Mar 4 2014 4:36 PM"
Where is Robin Grimmer's compassion for or understanding of the mentally ill, in a country where more than 1 in 10, we are told, may have mental health problems at some point in their lives and where it is a particular and growing problem for the veterinary profession?
I agree that the RCVS has absolutly nothing to say about this matter. I do not see like something not related to veterinary can affect the veterinary reputation. Of course the man is not fit to practice, but he is imprisoned, really anyone felt the need to put an stamp on it? when the RCVS is going to start to stand up for the vets instead of putting our heads under the water every single time? is quite saddening that instead of procuring help for a mentally ill individual they just decided to remove him from the register. Are they going to struck off all the vets diagnosed with schizophrenia because our job is stressful and they may have a psychotic episode? what about trying to make our job and working hours less stressful? what about prosecuting practices that push their employees to work from 15-36 hours shifts, do not respect the breaks, or bully their staff in to working 70 hours shifts????? Does someone here forget that the suicide rate in our profession is 8 times higher than the normal population?