“When is Means When”: The High Court Limits the Summary Strike-Off Power under s.84 of the Veterinary Practice Act 2005 — Comment on
Veterinary Council of Ireland v Ciobanu [2025] IEHC 350

1. Introduction

In Veterinary Council of Ireland v Ciobanu the High Court (O’Higgins J.) addressed a deceptively narrow question of statutory interpretation: does the summary power in s.84(1) of the Veterinary Practice Act 2005 (as amended) to remove a practitioner from the Register apply to criminal convictions entered before that practitioner became registered in Ireland?

The Veterinary Council of Ireland (“VCI”) had summarily struck the Romanian-trained vet Dr Valentin Ciobanu off the Irish Register after discovering a 2013 Romanian conviction for trafficking ketamine — a conviction that pre-dated his Irish registration by five years. Instead of invoking the usual, multi-stage fitness-to-practise (“FTP”) inquiry under Part 7 of the Act, the Council chose the quicker s.84 route. When the respondent did not appeal within 21 days, the Council asked the High Court to “confirm” the strike-off pursuant to s.84(5). The Court refused.

O’Higgins J. held that the text, context and purpose of s.84 confine the summary power to convictions during the currency of registration. The decision clarifies an untested provision, draws a bright temporal line, and signals to all Irish regulators that summary disciplinary powers will be strictly construed.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Plain meaning prevails: The combination of the phrases “whose name is registered” and “is convicted” requires contemporaneity between registration and conviction. The omission of “has been convicted” was deliberate.
• No absurdity: Limiting s.84 to post-registration convictions is not “plainly absurd” because pre-registration convictions can be dealt with at (i) the gate-keeping stage of registration (s.42) or (ii) a full FTP inquiry (s.76).
• S.49(4)(b) can diverge: The use of past tense in s.49(4)(b) (“has been convicted”) shows the Oireachtas consciously employed different temporal triggers in different sections; it is not the Court’s role to homogenise them.
• Legislative lacuna vs judicial legislation: Any practical gap (e.g., lack of interim suspension powers) must be fixed by the Oireachtas, not by stretching statutory language.
• Outcome: The Court refused to confirm the strike-off; the VCI must proceed, if at all, under the ordinary FTP mechanisms.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents and Authorities Cited

O’Higgins J. placed heavy reliance on the Supreme Court’s modern trilogy on statutory interpretation:

• Heather Hill Management Co v An Bord Pleanála [2022] IESC 43 — primacy of “plain meaning” contextualised.
• People (DPP) v AC [2021] IESC 74 — “plain” vs “literal” meaning, the absurdity test, and the onus on the party seeking departure.
• Kadri v Governor of Wheatfield Prison [2012] IESC 27 — courts must not “legislate by interpretation” to cure policy gaps.

Secondary reliance was placed on UK regulatory cases (Lewis, Chiropodists Board, Watson, Antonelli) but the Judge distinguished them because none contained the same present-tense formulation and all arose in quite different statutory contexts.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

1. Textual Focus
   The Court stripped s.84(1) to its core: “Where a person whose name is registered… is convicted… the Council may decide…”. Present tense used twice, no past tense — an intentional choice, especially as past tense appears elsewhere in the Act.
2. Context within the Act
   • Part 4 (Registration) already screens out applicants with serious convictions (s.42(2)(c)).
   • Part 7 (FTP) includes s.76(1)(c) covering false/fraudulent applications, allowing the Council to pursue undisclosed convictions through ordinary inquiries.
   • s.84 is therefore an exceptional shortcut; it bypasses proof of misconduct, witness evidence, criminal-standard proof and graduated sanctions. Exceptional powers merit cautious confinement.
3. Purpose and Policy
   Protection of the public is critical, but cannot override clear statutory language. Allowing s.84 to reach back indefinitely would blur separation of summary and inquiry procedures and risk unfairness by offering only a binary outcome (strike-off or nothing).
4. Absurdity Rebuttal
   The VCI’s “absurdity” argument (e.g., animal cruelty conviction one week pre-registration) failed because (a) such an applicant should never be registered under s.42, and (b) if registration slipped through erroneously it can still be rectified under s.76.
5. Interaction with s.49(4)(b)
   Despite VCI’s assertion that s.84 and s.49(4)(b) are “intrinsically intertwined”, the Court highlighted differing:
   • part numbers (Part 4 vs Part 7),
   • thresholds (“has been convicted” vs “is convicted”), and
   • voluntary vs compulsory deregistration.
   Divergent wording is permissible; courts must not iron it out.

3.3 Likely Impact

• Procedural Shift for the VCI
  The Council must now channel pre-registration convictions through the regular FTP route, accepting its evidential burdens and range of sanctions.
• Signal to Other Regulators
  Regulators relying on equivalent “summary” or “automatic” powers (e.g., Medical, Nursing, Teaching Councils) should re-examine temporal wording in their statutes.
• Legislative Prompt
  The Oireachtas may consider amending the 2005 Act to (i) widen s.84, (ii) add interim suspension powers, or (iii) clarify disclosure obligations at registration.
• Interpretative Trend
  Confirms that the Irish courts, post-Heather Hill, will still anchor decisions in statutory text and resist policy-driven expansions unless the words permit.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Summary Strike-Off (s.84)

A fast-track removal based solely on the fact of a serious criminal conviction; no inquiry, no witnesses, no graduated sanctions.

Fitness-to-Practise Inquiry (s.76)

A full hearing with investigation, evidence, criminal standard of proof, and a spectrum of penalties (conditions, suspension, strike-off).

Plain Meaning Rule

If statutory words, read in context, have one clear meaning, courts must apply it unless it leads to a result “so absurd” that the legislature could not have intended it.

Absurdity Test

High threshold: result must be manifestly irrational, not merely inconvenient or burdensome.

Temporal Trigger

A drafting technique that links legal consequences to when an event happens (here: conviction while registered).

5. Conclusion

VCI v Ciobanu stands for a straightforward yet important proposition: where the Oireachtas uses the present tense to tie a disciplinary power to an event, courts will not retro-fit the past tense merely to enhance regulatory efficiency. By insisting that s.84 can only be used for convictions occurring during registration, the High Court:

• Affirmed textual fidelity as the cornerstone of Irish statutory interpretation;
• Drew a clear procedural demarcation between exceptional summary powers and ordinary FTP inquiries;
• Reminded regulators that perceived policy gaps are for the legislature, not judicial creativity, to fill.

For the Veterinary Council the immediate consequence is practical: if it wishes to pursue Dr Ciobanu, it must lodge a formal FTP complaint under s.76. For the wider regulatory community, the decision is a cautionary tale — powerful shortcuts will be read narrowly, and precision in legislative drafting matters.