The new Order will come into force on the 18th February 2020, from when students who graduate with the University of Surrey’s veterinary degree will automatically be able to join the Register of Veterinary Surgeons and to practise veterinary medicine in the UK.
The university’s Bachelor of Veterinary Medicine and Science (BVMSci Hons) degree will enter the College’s cyclical accreditation process and be subject to annual monitoring for quality assurance.
Accreditation of the degree was a five-year process during which the RCVS worked with the University of Surrey to ensure that its curriculum and programme met the College’s quality standards, including two interim accreditation visitations in 2017 and 2018 and a final accreditation visit in 2019.
Dr Niall Connell, RCVS President, said: “We are very glad that the University of Surrey’s veterinary degree has now cleared the last hurdle and that, as of next month, it will join the roster as the UK’s eighth recognised veterinary degree. I commend the hard work that the faculty, students and the university’s clinical partners have put in to develop the course over the past five years and we look forward to continue to work with them to ensure that the high standards are maintained."
Professor Chris Proudman, Head of the School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Surrey, said: "I am delighted that the University of Surrey’s School of Veterinary Medicine has become the UK’s eighth provider of veterinary education. The support and enthusiasm of our partner practice network has been essential in delivering our vision of competent, confident and compassionate veterinary graduates."
The full RCVS accreditation standards for veterinary degrees can be found here: www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/accrediting-primary-qualifications/accrediting-veterinary-degrees/accreditation-standards/
Photo: (from l-r) Susan Paterson, Chair of the RCVS Education Committee, Professor Chris Proudman, Head of the School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Surrey, and Niall Connell, RCVS President.
The Disciplinary Committee had found Dr Schulze Allen guilty of four charges, namely that he had been convicted of the criminal offence of petty theft in the US which rendered him unfit to practise, and that on three subsequent occasions, twice to the RCVS and once to a notary in California, dishonestly represented that he had no criminal convictions.
Following the DC hearing, Dr Schulze Allen submitted an appeal to the Privy Council. The basis of his appeal revolved around whether, under Californian law, his conviction for petty theft was a conviction for a criminal offence or an infraction, and whether an infraction under US law was a criminal offence.
The RCVS had argued that while the theft is not a criminal felony in California, it would be considered so under English law.
However, the Board of the Privy Council which heard the appeal – comprising Lords Wilson, Carnwath and Lloyd-Jones, found the College had not proven beyond all reasonable doubt that Dr Schulze Allen was convicted of a criminal offence under Californian law. It therefore upheld his appeal against the DC’s finding that he had committed a criminal offence.
The Privy Council then considered Dr Schulze Allen’s appeal against the third and fourth of the charges against him - that he was dishonest in his representations to the College that he did not have a ‘criminal’ conviction and did not have a ‘criminal record’. The Privy Council found that, since the conviction for petty theft was an infraction, and was not a criminal offence and did not leave Dr Schulze Allen with a criminal record, then, strictly speaking, his representations to the RCVS were not false and so upheld his appeal against these two charges.
The Privy Council then considered Dr Schulze Allen’s appeal against the College’s second charge against him. This charge was that he had, in a written application for restoration to the Register, represented that he did not have any cautions, criminal convictions or "adverse findings". The College argued that he still had a responsibility to make a full and frank disclosure about his infraction, even if it did not meet the threshold of ‘criminal’ under Californian law.
The Board of the Privy Council said it had, on Dr Schulze Allen’s behalf, done its best to identify some argument that his conviction for a petty theft infraction did not amount to an "adverse finding", but failed. Rather, it found that "the conviction obviously amounted to an adverse finding."
The Board added that "there is no material by reference to which the Board [of the Privy Council] can depart from the [Disciplinary] Committee’s conclusion that, in answering “no” to that question, he knew that his answer was untrue. In other words, his denial was dishonest."
The Board therefore allowed the appeal against the DC’s conclusion on the first, third and fourth charges. But it dismissed the appeal against its conclusion on the second charge, namely that in that regard Dr Schulze Allen had been guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
The Board then set aside the original sanction, that Dr Schulze Allen be removed from the Register, and tasked the Committee with identifying the appropriate sanction in relation to the second charge.
The Disciplinary Committee will now hold a further hearing to decide the sanction, at some time in the future. In the meantime Dr Schulze Allen remains on the Register of Veterinary Surgeons.
The Privy Council has overturned an RCVS Disciplinary Committee to strike Leeds-based Dr Gary Samuel MRCVS from the Register following his conviction for theft, common assault and a public order offence at Cardiff Magistrates' Court in November 2011.
The Disciplinary Committee had agreed the sanction following a hearing in February 2013, at which it decided that Dr Samuel's conviction made him unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
Dr Samuel appealed the decision and the Privy Council heard the case on 26th March.
Dr Samuel had been sentenced by Cardiff Magistrates' Court to concurrent terms of 28 days' imprisonment for theft and common assault and 12 weeks' imprisonment for the public order offence, all suspended for 12 months. He had also been ordered to carry out 140 hours' unpaid work and to pay compensation of £75 and costs of £625. The charges related to an incident involving Dr Samuel and his neighbour, described by the Privy Council as "a spontaneous outburst in the course of an angry quarrel between neighbours", for which it felt that the Disciplinary Committee's sanction of removal from the Register was "disproportionately severe."
The Privy Council felt that, in making its decision, the Disciplinary Committee followed too closely the verdict reached by the Magistrates' Court, and did not take mitigating circumstances sufficiently into account, including whether the attack by Dr Samuel on his neighbour had been provoked by racial abuse.
Delivering the Privy Council's judgment, Lord Toulson said: "It is apparent from the reasons given by the Committee, both on the question of fitness to practise and on the question of sanction, that it was considerably influenced by the fact that the magistrates imposed a suspended prison sentence.
"Although Dr Samuel pleaded guilty to the theft of the camera and he was not in entitled to go behind his plea, it is nevertheless difficult to understand on the evidence how the prosecution would have proved that there was an intent permanently to deprive [the victim] of it. In all the circumstances, it is hard to conceive that the court would have considered that the offences truly passed the custodial threshold for a person of good character, if it had not had the power to suspend the sentence... Dr Samuel's conduct was thoroughly reprehensible, but the Board [Privy Council] does not consider that its gravity was such that it would be in the interests of the public now to remit the case to the Committee".
Dr Gary Samuel will not now be removed from the Register
The Privy Council's judgment can be read in full at http://jcpc.uk/decided-cases/index.html
The Privy Council has dismissed the appeal of a Lincolnshire veterinary surgeon against the RCVS Disciplinary Committee's decision to strike him off the Register in January 2011 for serious professional misconduct.
At a two-week Disciplinary Committee hearing in January, Joseph Lennox Holmes of Waltham Veterinary Clinic, Grimsby, was found to have advised on and undertaken surgical procedures without sufficient clinical grounds or consideration of alternative treatment options; failed to obtain the informed consent of his clients; undertaken procedures outside his area of competence; failed to refer or discuss the option of referral to a specialist; and, failed to provide his patients with adequate pain relief. These findings related to two separate complaints and a total of 31 charges, of which 28 were found to amount to serious professional misconduct.
The Appeal was heard by Baroness Hale, Lord Wilson and Lord Kerr on 1 November 2011, and their judgment was delivered on Tuesday by Lord Wilson.
There were two principal parts to Mr Holmes's appeal: firstly, that RCVS procedures for investigating and determining complaints were biased against him and infringed his human right to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal; and, secondly, a number of complaints about the DC's findings and conclusions.
According to the RCVS, their Lordships recognised that the College's regulatory framework was constrained by the existing Veterinary Surgeons Act and "support[ed] statutory reform so as to enable members of the disciplinary committees to be chosen from outside the council"; but, they were satisfied that the College had made "strenuous attempts" to ensure its disciplinary procedures were fair and in accordance with human rights legislation.
They also remarked that the College had made "elaborate efforts" to separate the membership and work of the three RCVS Committees that produce guidance, investigate complaints and adjudicate on complaints, respectively. Their Lordships considered that "a fair-minded and informed observer [having considered all the facts] would not conclude there was a real possibility that the DC was biased against Mr Holmes".
Their Lordships also dismissed all of the 'deficiencies' that Mr Holmes had sought to identify in the DC's findings and conclusions. They generally preferred the College's evidence, witness accounts and expert witness testimony, and felt the DC had correctly considered the multiple charges before it.
They also found that the expertise of the DC in assessing the standards of the profession was "entitled to substantial respect" and agreed that the only sanction appropriate to Mr Holmes' "catalogue of egregious misconduct" was the removal of his name from the Register.
"[This sanction] was the only disposal which could properly reflect the primary need to serve both the interests of animal welfare and the reputation of the veterinary profession," they concluded.
Their Lordships' decision is now subject to approval by the Crown, following which, Mr Holmes would be removed from the Register and no longer entitled to practise as a veterinary surgeon.