Vexatious RCVS Disciplinary

RE: Vexatious RCVS Disciplinary

Bob Russell — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 11:24:32 GMT

But there is a penalty for non-attendance! It has to be applied for by the RCVS and should be in this case. There were plenty of warnings, even a visit.

Better to spend money now to enforce the warnings already given to reduce the likelihood of repetition. A vet would be pursued to the limits possible why not a complainant?

RE: Vexatious RCVS Disciplinary

Anthony Todd — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 09:13:48 GMT

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]Witnesses are interviewed by independent solicitors who obtain statements on instruction of the PIC and confirm willingness to attend at that point.[/quote]

Sorry to press the point but "confirming willingness" is easy when there is no accepted penalty for non-attendance.

A written, legal, warning of penalty for non-attendance may better prevent expensive abortive hearings.

As I said, it may already be in preliminary documents, but an oral warning, possibly mumbled at the end of a long interview won't be as effective as a clear written statement of definite penalty.

RE: Vexatious RCVS Disciplinary

J G Wray — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 09:08:25 GMT

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]The 'concern form' (the RCVS does not deal with 'complaints')[/quote]

A propos nothing in particular we call a client complaint a complaint. "A rose by any other name...." or, "You can stick lipstick on a pig and it's still...." as you wish, the second being more veterinary.

Since the regulator is so keen on the finer points of language, the nuances, what's the definition of a "college"?

Is the RCVS behaving like a "college" or is it behaving like VERA, the Veterinary Education, Regulatory, and Registration Authority?

Perhaps it's time for a change here as well, for the sake of accuracy and to be more clear to the public and profession.

RE: Vexatious RCVS Disciplinary

Richard Stephenson — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 08:54:46 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]Yes but is this pointed out to witnesses when they submit a complaint?[/quote]

The 'concern form' (the RCVS does not deal with 'complaints') has a statement of truth which the concerned person signs. Witnesses are interviewed by independent solicitors who obtain statements on instruction of the PIC and confirm willingness to attend at that point.

RE: Vexatious RCVS Disciplinary

Richard Stephenson — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 08:28:48 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]Exactly![/quote]

All witnesses sign a statement which includes the words 'I am willing to attend". Unfortunately if a key witness refuses their summons just before or during a hearing their is nothing anyone can do. The respondent is unlikely to agree a postponement in the circumstances and will want a 'no case to answer' decision as happened here (fair enough to my mind). I think that on occasion the idea of having to stand up in front of a team of barristers and be cross examined focuses the mind about a week before a hearing!!

RE: Vexatious RCVS Disciplinary

Anthony Todd — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 08:27:35 GMT

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]Failure to attend is contempt of the High Court and (in theory at least) could result in being sent to prison.[/quote]

Yes but is this pointed out to witnesses when they submit a complaint?

RE: Vexatious RCVS Disciplinary

Richard Stephenson — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 08:21:16 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]Are there any penalties that can be applied if a witness does not attend without due cause?[/quote]

Failure to attend is contempt of the High Court and (in theory at least) could result in being sent to prison.

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]Does this not apply to these hearings?[/quote]

Yes! I've quoted the VSA 1966 Schedule 2 earlier in this chain suggest you read back through it

RE: Vexatious RCVS Disciplinary

Anthony Todd — Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:01:35 GMT

[quote user="vetbl.locum"]Why given LA's reluctance to attend , this proceeded to DC ?[/quote]

Exactly!

RE: Vexatious RCVS Disciplinary

Anthony Todd — Mon, 16 Jan 2017 23:57:15 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]I assume the complainant was made aware of the seriousness of the complaint, the possible consequences to the vet complained of, together with the consequences to the complainant of not attending and/or complying with the legal requirements by making such a serious complaint???[/quote]

Read the report.

[/quote]

So I did, and here is the relevant paragraph, I think.

The only evidence called by the College in support of that allegation of fact was from TC, who was the owner of Arnie. TC was not the complainant. Lisa Atwill (“LA”) was the complainant but did not attend to give evidence before the Committee despite strenuous efforts by the College including a personal visit supported a Witness Summons.

I was just asking if it was emphasis-ed [spellchecker?] to Lisa Atwill that she would be required to attend and that her confirmation was required before the complaint could be heard ie immediately after she submitted her written evidence.

Did Lisa Atwill give any reasons for her non-attendance?

Are there any penalties that can be applied if a witness does not attend without due cause?

At least she should, legally, be responsible for the costs of the abandoned hearing caused principally, or actually solely, by her non-attendance?

As a last resort you may be issued with a witness summons, which means you are legally required to attend court.

This from:

https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/going-court-victim-or-witness

Does this not apply to these hearings?

RE: Vexatious RCVS Disciplinary

vetbl.locum — Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:58:46 GMT

Why can we not learn the nature of the relationship of TC & LA?

Why given LA's reluctance to attend , this proceeded to DC ?

Since TC gave up as well, why was this vet reputation allowed to be trashed for so long?

Why following this case and similar ones . do the great & good of the profession ( ie RCVS ) counter criticism by saying ' yes but if you knew all the facts etc etc'

Publish and be damned???

RE: Vexatious RCVS Disciplinary

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:32:11 GMT

Read the report.

RE: Vexatious RCVS Disciplinary

grumpyoldman — Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:40:46 GMT

[quote user="Neil Wheadon"]When it comes to the crunch it looks like the complainant had no case, so why should they not be pursued? [/quote]

Good idea ,but its all about the costs really. You need an "Oyik" to do this to a really well off Veterinarian to whom 50-80K is a drop in the ocean. Then you need a counter claim and a private prosecution. Or an organised whip around for the costs. Its always been the only way we were ever going to address vexatious complaining. The RCVS will not deal with it because its outside their remit ,the VDS is not an attack dog.

RE: Vexatious RCVS Disciplinary

Neil Wheadon — Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:02:12 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]Given this is a civil court case the RCVS would have to waste yet more money enacting this, no? [/quote]

One of the main reasons for many prosecutions is to send a message.

Trying to cut to the chase here, an allegation was made that was sufficiently severe to get as far as the DC, presumably on a witness statement, in effect the RCVS had no choice under due process.

When it comes to the crunch it looks like the complainant had no case, so why should they not be pursued?

Neil

RE: Vexatious RCVS Disciplinary

grumpyoldman — Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:42:52 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]You'd be amazed how many witnesses don't turn up to court[/quote]

Not surprised at all.

[quote user="David Mills"]Given this is a civil court case the RCVS would have to waste yet more money enacting this, no? [/quote]

yes.

As previously mentioned ,there is no point trying to take a stocking from a bare leg, the legal people know that too. So it all adds uo to the Sharon and Tracy mob having lots of rights without responsibilities, and the chance to give professionals a needless and unfortunate nightmare with no comeback.

RE: Vexatious RCVS Disciplinary

David Mills — Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:07:57 GMT

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]

[quote user="Bob Russell"]If the PIC decided the physical event might have been severe enough to get to DC level then the failure of a witness to turn up is completely unacceptable [/quote]

Bob,

I would entirely agree with you. The failure of a witness (I understand the complainant in this case) to answer a witness summons from the High Court (as here) must be a very serious matter and my personal view is that the RCVS would be failing in its public duty to ensure proper and fair process if it did not make a complaint to the High Court. The College will have been put to enormous cost (which we the fee payers will have to pay) and the respondent vet may have been put through many months of stress and worry. Surely the point needs to be made that lodging a complaint against an MRCVS is an extremely serious matter and can have devastating consequences for the respondent. If the complainant then causes the DC hearing to result in 'no case to answer' by not turning up despite a High Court Order it is in the vital public interest for action to be taken, both to protect the good standing of the College's processes and defend confidence in the RCVS as regulator.

[/quote]

You'd be amazed how many witnesses don't turn up to court. It's rarely, very rarely, followed up.

Given this is a civil court case the RCVS would have to waste yet more money enacting this, no?

Sometimes the no blame culture doesn't work and an individual or group bollocking is richly deserved.

RE: Vexatious RCVS Disciplinary

Anthony Todd — Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:44:24 GMT

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]I would entirely agree with you. The failure of a witness (I understand the complainant in this case) to answer a witness summons from the High Court (as here) must be a very serious matter [/quote]

I assume the complainant was made aware of the seriousness of the complaint, the possible consequences to the vet complained of, together with the consequences to the complainant of not attending and/or complying with the legal requirements by making such a serious complaint???

It might reassure members if the correspondence, suitably redacted, or even a template, could be published here.

RE: Vexatious RCVS Disciplinary

Anthony Todd — Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:37:31 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]I have previously mentioned a case going back a number of years where an Aussie locum slapped a boxer on the head when it growled.[/quote]

I mentioned the incident not to receive absolution but to warn, brief and/or advise the vets coming through, and newbies, of the situations they will face and what not to do!

Colonials have a rather more robust attitude towards other creatures than the Brits hence some of the admonishing and condescending replies.

As long as he message gets through hopefully others can avoid losing a client [but not getting bitten] or a visit to the DC...

This is a good example of why think N0BLE is a great development, and more essential day by day, in this age of "blame someone else at all costs so it's not my fault"

RE: Vexatious RCVS Disciplinary

Richard Stephenson — Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:09:52 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]If the PIC decided the physical event might have been severe enough to get to DC level then the failure of a witness to turn up is completely unacceptable [/quote]

Bob,

RE: Vexatious RCVS Disciplinary

Bob Russell — Mon, 16 Jan 2017 12:24:29 GMT

Been away checking the frog farm and banana plantation in Thailand so have not felt the need for a Vetsurgeon fix!

I have previously mentioned a case going back a number of years where an Aussie locum slapped a boxer on the head when it growled. Owner got on her high horse and reported him to the RCVS.

He argued that the 'shock' factor (more discipline) made the dog behave and ensured vet, nurse and owner remained safe.

I happily replied that he had shown himself to be a very competent veterinary surgeon and although not something I would particularly recommend especially in front of an owner, stated I would happily employ him again! The RCVS response was no case to answer.

There is a very big difference between a disciplinary tap (inadvisable though it probably is IMO!) and physical abuse.

If the PIC decided the physical event might have been severe enough to get to DC level then the failure of a witness to turn up is completely unacceptable and action should be taken to ensure proper investigation of the vet concerned and at the same time discourage others from failing to attend in the future.

Clearly if the case was vexatious yet the complainant felt it was not worth turning up then perhaps the PIC should review the case to see if they could/should have thrown it out earlier.

Just as with a child, a smack is not always abuse! Rarely useful but that is another discussion completely!

I side with the vet unless there is good evidence to the contrary!

RE: Vexatious RCVS Disciplinary

grumpyoldman — Sun, 15 Jan 2017 14:22:43 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Seems to be an awful lot of guessing going on here[/quote]

With so much behind the scenes under the carpet skulking about what else are we left with? ,and, no ones denying it.

RE: Vexatious RCVS Disciplinary

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 14 Jan 2017 22:29:10 GMT

[quote user="grumpyoldman"]my guess is [/quote]

Seems to be an awful lot of guessing going on here.

RE: Vexatious RCVS Disciplinary

grumpyoldman — Sat, 14 Jan 2017 20:32:01 GMT

[quote user="Richard Stephenson"]subject to passing the additional tests of reasonable prospect of success and public interest.[/quote]

And there we have it , my guess is no additional tests , e.g. checking the reliability of the witnesses were made until the date of the hearing , and ,they should have been.

RE: Vexatious RCVS Disciplinary

Richard Stephenson — Sat, 14 Jan 2017 17:41:47 GMT

[quote user="grumpyoldman"]The point is that the DC look at statements collected by the RCVS solicitors, they do not look at the witnesses themselves until the date of the hearings ? [/quote]

I think you are confusing two stages of the process. The DC has no role in gathering statements, they see neither the statements nor the witnesses until the hearing date (although there is usually a bundle of 'agreed evidence' given to them about a week before the hearing.

The PIC does not interview witnesses, members of the committee have no contact at all with respondents, complaints or witnesses - they make decisions based solely on the statements provided as they (the PIC) have no role in determining conflicts of evidence. They do receive opinions as to how witnesses might be expected to perform when examined by barristers at a DC hearing (but in all honesty that is something that no one can easily predict). The Courts have very recently ruled in the matter of THE QUEEN on the application of JOHN DAVIES v RCVS (paragraph 57 [2015] EWHC 3282 (Admin)) on what the duty of the PIC is in determining if a case is 'arguable'

"A complaint discloses an arguable case if a) it involves allegations which, if proved, might be found to amount to serious professional misconduct and

b) there is an arguable case that the factual allegations are true. "

Thus if it is arguable that two witnesses are producing statements saying a VS struck an animal (which we all agree is unprofessional) and IF striking an animal could amount to SPMC the matter MUST be dealt with by the DC to determine the validity of the evidence, subject to passing the additional tests of reasonable prospect of success and public interest.

Conversely the DC have no involvement in the formation of a case or the collection of evidence. It is their role to test the evidence and determine the reliability or otherwise of evidence submitted.

The separation of investigation functions and making a determination of the case is an essential protection for members of the profession. In other words the prosecutor must be separate entirely from the jury!

RE: Vexatious RCVS Disciplinary

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sat, 14 Jan 2017 15:17:51 GMT

Grumpyoldman. When the guilty get off, that's every bit as serious a miscarriage of justice as for the innocent to be convicted....................and when they get off due to a solicitor who's paid by the poor taxpayers, then it's an additional injustice.

Wynne

RE: Vexatious RCVS Disciplinary

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 14 Jan 2017 15:02:04 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]OK , so what's the RCVS mediation offering for then?[/quote]

As I understand it, arguments over price-gouging, deliberate over-treating, negligence (which is supposed to be a matter for civil courts but which RCVS seems to be taking on more and more), rudeness, that sort of stuff. Not that I think it's a particularly good idea.