The RCVS Veterinary Nurse Disciplinary Committee has ruled that Somerset-based William Kane is fit to practice after he was convicted of three counts of causing serious injury by dangerous driving.

Mr Kane was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, suspended for 18 months in September 2024.

He was also disqualified from driving for two years until he had passed an extended driving test, and was ordered to undertake 200 hours of unpaid work within 12 months, and to pay a victim surcharge of £187.

It was alleged that the conviction rendered Mr Kane unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse.

From the outset, Mr Kane admitted the facts contained in the charge, but did not accept that this rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse.

After the criminal proceedings, Mr Kane wrote to express his deepest regret for his actions and the pain and guilt they had caused, stating that there was not a single day that had passed that he had not thought about the family that was affected by his actions, and the lifelong consequences that they now face.

He went on to express that he understood that as a member of a trusted profession, his conduct must reflect not only his clinical competence, but also his integrity and accountability.

He also noted that he had sought to recognise and address the consequences of his actions and that he is determined to make a positive contribution to society and to the profession.

The Committee found the charge proved on the basis of Mr Kane’s admission and the Certificate of Conviction.

The Committee found a number of factors relevant to the case:

• there was no explanation for the accident
• Mr Kane was not intoxicated, nor was he distracted by using his mobile phone
• he was not carrying out any type of manoeuvre, for example overtaking where he shouldn’t
• his car was not in a dangerous condition
• no concerns had been raised about the manner of his driving, other than the moment immediately before the collision
• the judge repeatedly described the accident as a ‘momentary lapse of attention’, whereby Mr Kane’s car drifted into the opposing lane of traffic for a couple of seconds and there was then a catastrophic collision
• whilst the consequences were severe, the culpability, said the judge, was low and just crossed the threshold between careless and dangerous driving;
• the judge found there to be no aggravating features
• the judge, who had the benefit of watching dash-cam footage from another car that captured the collision, described it as a ‘mistake’.

The question for the Committee was whether Mr Kane’s conviction of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, when put into proper context, rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse.

This was not a conviction in any way linked to his practise and there was no suggestion that he represented any sort of a risk to animals in his care.

The Committee was not, therefore, concerned with any issues arising out of the need to protect animals, but rather with whether a finding of unfitness to practise was needed to uphold standards of conduct and behaviour in order to maintain public confidence in the profession.

Kathryn Peaty, Chair of the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee took into account the public interest which includes maintaining public confidence in the profession and the regulator and upholding proper standards in the profession.

"The public interest also includes allowing an otherwise competent veterinary nurse to continue in practice, where appropriate.

“Agreeing with the judge that this was indeed an exceptional case, the Committee did not consider that Mr Kane’s conduct was liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession and concluded that the public, in full knowledge of the circumstances of this particular case, would not expect a finding that the conviction renders him unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse.

"Rather, the public would recognise that whilst the consequences were appalling and tragic for the family involved, in terms of Mr Kane’s culpability this was a momentary piece of dangerous driving, categorised by the judge as a ‘mistake’ rather than anything more blameworthy.

“The Committee therefore concluded that Mr Kane’s conviction does not render him unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse.

"This is not to in any way detract from the catastrophic consequences for the family, but rather is to reflect the context, exceptional circumstances and level of culpability in this case.”

https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/ 

PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vets.