Tait v. Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, a veterinary surgeon registered under the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, was the subject of four disciplinary charges brought by the Disciplinary Committee of The Professional Body. Only Charges 1 and 2 are material to this appeal:

• Charge 1 alleged dishonesty, namely falsely claiming to have performed surgery and producing an unrelated radiograph.
• Charge 2 alleged inadequate post-operative care following an ovario-hysterectomy.

The inquiry was initially listed for 2 May 2002 but was adjourned because the Appellant did not attend. When the matter resumed on 27 June 2002 the Appellant again failed to appear and sought a further adjournment citing hypertension, but provided no medical evidence. Acting on advice from its Legal Assessor, the Committee refused the request and proceeded in the Appellant’s absence, finding all charges proved on 28 June 2002.

The issues of “disgraceful conduct” and sanction were adjourned to 31 July 2002, when the Appellant attended with counsel. An application to reopen the factual findings was refused; Charges 1 and 2 were held to amount to disgraceful conduct, and the Committee directed that the Appellant’s name be removed from the Register.

The Appellant appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council under section 17 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Committee erred in law and principle by refusing an adjournment and proceeding in the Appellant’s absence on 27–28 June 2002.
2. Whether, in any event, the Committee should have set aside its factual findings and reopened the case at the resumed hearing on 31 July 2002.
3. Whether the sanction of erasure from the Register was manifestly excessive.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant’s Arguments

• The Committee misdirected itself by treating the decision to proceed in absence as an “absolute discretion,” contrary to the strict approach mandated by R v Jones (Anthony) and R v Hayward.
• The Legal Assessor failed to draw attention to the seriousness of the charges, the possibility of misunderstanding the reason for non-attendance, and the risk of factual error if the Appellant’s evidence was not heard.
• The refusal on 31 July 2002 to reopen the findings compounded the injustice.
• Erasure was disproportionate in all the circumstances.

Respondent’s Arguments

• The Committee reviewed its earlier refusal on 31 July 2002 with the benefit of full argument and concluded it had exercised “the utmost care and caution.”
• The burden lay on the Appellant to establish inability to attend; the Committee identified inconsistencies in the Appellant’s medical evidence from Doctor A.
• Public interest, animal welfare and the seriousness of dishonesty justified proceeding and the ultimate sanction.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Judicial Committee considered that the Legal Assessor’s direction on 27 June 2002 mischaracterised the discretion as “absolute” and omitted essential safeguards identified in Jones and Hayward. Given the seriousness of an allegation of dishonesty and the acknowledged intention of the Appellant to contest the facts, the Committee should have been acutely cautious before proceeding in absence.

Although the Committee produced fuller reasons on 31 July 2002, those reasons did not expressly disengage from the flawed legal advice given earlier. In a finely balanced situation, the appellate court could not be confident that justice was seen to be done. Accordingly, the first ground succeeded and all subsequent findings, including sanction, had to be quashed.

Independently, the court held that, even if the June decision were unimpeachable, the Committee on 31 July 2002 ought to have reopened the factual case in light of the Appellant’s attendance and medical evidence. The second ground therefore also succeeded.

Because the appeal succeeded on procedural fairness, the court did not need to resolve the proportionality of erasure, but observed that, should dishonesty be established on rehearing, removal from the Register would likely be necessary in the public interest.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL ALLOWED; DECISIONS OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE QUASHED; MATTER REMITTED FOR REHEARING.

The immediate effect is that the Appellant’s removal from the Register is set aside pending a fresh hearing. The Respondent must pay the Appellant’s costs. While the judgment does not establish new substantive law, it underscores the stringent limits on disciplinary bodies proceeding in the absence of a practitioner and the necessity for precise, legally sound guidance from assessors.