This case highlights that tribunals considering convictions of a registrant will need to carefully consider the wider circumstances surrounding the conviction.S, a vet, had pleaded guilty to the theft
This case highlights that tribunals considering convictions of a registrant will need to carefully consider the wider circumstances surrounding the conviction.
S, a vet, had pleaded guilty to the theft of his neighbour's camera and memory card in an altercation over building work, as well as to charges of common assault and an offence under the Public Order Act. S's neighbour had taken photos of S and his property and S snatched the camera from her while she did so. The camera was returned to the neighbour that evening and the memory card was later found in S's possession. S also alleged that his neighbour had racially abused him. He received a suspended sentence and was required to undertake community service.
The Disciplinary Committee held that S's conviction meant that he was unfit to practise since the offences were serious and would damage the reputation of the profession and undermine public confidence in it. It noted that S may have been racially provoked, but considered that this did not justify the offences and found that the conduct was serious enough to justify S being struck off.
On appeal, the Privy Council made clear that under the applicable veterinary disciplinary rules, the standard to be applied in relation to any charge that may result in a registrant being removed from the register is the criminal standard. The Privy Council found that the Committee's approach to the evidence that S was provoked was incorrect and that fairness required that S's evidence on provocation should be accepted in the absence of any contrary evidence. It also considered that the Committee should not have been as guided as it was by the fact that the Magistrates' Court had imposed a suspended sentence.
The finding of unfitness to practise was quashed. The Privy Council considered the wider circumstances of the case and S's evidence and concluded that:
'In this case if members of the public were told that the offences occurred in the context of an angry flare-up between neighbours, in which Dr Samuel lost his self-control after Ms Jackson had refused to delete photographs which she had been taking of him and had insulted him with a racial epithet, they might well think that this had little bearing on his fitness to practise as a veterinary surgeon.'
The Privy Council also noted that if it had upheld the decision of the Committee in relation unfitness to practise, it would have held that the sanction was disproportionately severe.
While in this case the offence was not considered sufficiently serious to warrant a finding of unfitness to practise, it is interesting to compare this to the recent case of D v NMC [2014] EWHC 1298, where a nurse had caned her two year old children and assaulted her husband where the High Court upheld the decision to strike her off, as well as to RCVS v Kirk [2002] UKPC 51where a vet was struck off in relation to convictions which resulted in a term of imprisonment, with the Privy Council making clear that while a registrant may be able to adduce evidence in respect of facts surrounding a conviction, he will not be able to dispute any facts necessarily implied. While in this case the Privy Council did not consider that a striking off order was warranted, Samuel is unlikely to set down a precedent in conviction cases and each case will fall to be decided on its own facts.
S, a vet, had pleaded guilty to the theft of his neighbour's camera and memory card in an altercation over building work, as well as to charges of common assault and an offence under the Public Order Act. S's neighbour had taken photos of S and his property and S snatched the camera from her while she did so. The camera was returned to the neighbour that evening and the memory card was later found in S's possession. S also alleged that his neighbour had racially abused him. He received a suspended sentence and was required to undertake community service.
The Disciplinary Committee held that S's conviction meant that he was unfit to practise since the offences were serious and would damage the reputation of the profession and undermine public confidence in it. It noted that S may have been racially provoked, but considered that this did not justify the offences and found that the conduct was serious enough to justify S being struck off.
On appeal, the Privy Council made clear that under the applicable veterinary disciplinary rules, the standard to be applied in relation to any charge that may result in a registrant being removed from the register is the criminal standard. The Privy Council found that the Committee's approach to the evidence that S was provoked was incorrect and that fairness required that S's evidence on provocation should be accepted in the absence of any contrary evidence. It also considered that the Committee should not have been as guided as it was by the fact that the Magistrates' Court had imposed a suspended sentence.
The finding of unfitness to practise was quashed. The Privy Council considered the wider circumstances of the case and S's evidence and concluded that:
'In this case if members of the public were told that the offences occurred in the context of an angry flare-up between neighbours, in which Dr Samuel lost his self-control after Ms Jackson had refused to delete photographs which she had been taking of him and had insulted him with a racial epithet, they might well think that this had little bearing on his fitness to practise as a veterinary surgeon.'
The Privy Council also noted that if it had upheld the decision of the Committee in relation unfitness to practise, it would have held that the sanction was disproportionately severe.
While in this case the offence was not considered sufficiently serious to warrant a finding of unfitness to practise, it is interesting to compare this to the recent case of D v NMC [2014] EWHC 1298, where a nurse had caned her two year old children and assaulted her husband where the High Court upheld the decision to strike her off, as well as to RCVS v Kirk [2002] UKPC 51where a vet was struck off in relation to convictions which resulted in a term of imprisonment, with the Privy Council making clear that while a registrant may be able to adduce evidence in respect of facts surrounding a conviction, he will not be able to dispute any facts necessarily implied. While in this case the Privy Council did not consider that a striking off order was warranted, Samuel is unlikely to set down a precedent in conviction cases and each case will fall to be decided on its own facts.