The RCVS disciplinary committee has refused an application for restoration to the RCVS register from a Kent-based former veterinary surgeon struck off in 1994 for disregarding basic hygiene and failing to properly maintain a controlled drugs register or patient records.
The RCVS disciplinary committee has refused an application for restoration to the RCVS register from a Kent-based former veterinary surgeon struck off in 1994 for disregarding basic hygiene at his professional premises and failing to properly maintain a controlled drugs register or patient records.
In June 1994, the disciplinary committee (DC) found that Warwick John Seymour-Hamilton (who was, at that time, the only veterinary surgeon practising at premises at 9 Orchard Grove, Orpington, Kent) was guilty of disgraceful professional conduct and should have his name removed from the register.
The state and condition of the premises were found to be such as to risk the health and welfare of animals taken to the premises, and bring the profession into disrepute.
A previous application made by Mr Seymour-Hamilton for restoration made in 1995 was refused.
At a restoration hearing on June 18 this year, Mr Seymour-Hamilton told the committee that he sought restoration to the register because he wished to further his research work into plants with potential medicinal properties. Restoration, he said, would improve his professional status by giving him more credibility, particularly in terms of recognition by the medical and veterinary professions.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton said that he had no intention of returning to clinical practice immediately, and neither the committee nor the college had heard of any adverse conduct by the applicant since his removal.
However, DC chairman Caroline Freedman noted that, if Mr Seymour-Hamilton were to be restored, the committee would have no power to prevent him from returning to general practice.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton’s response to questioning by the committee raised a number of concerns with respect to the future welfare of animals should restoration be granted. He told the committee that he had not undertaken any relevant CPD in the past 15 years, and said he lacked knowledge of current relevant legislation, for example, the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and basic “cascade” prescribing requirements. He also said that he had not read the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct in the past 15 years and that it would not be satisfactory for him immediately to return to general practice.
Ms Freedman said: “If the committee were to reinstate the applicant to the register, it would have to be satisfied that he is competent and safe to practise immediately. The committee has an obligation to protect the public and animal welfare and cannot simply accept his assurances that he would take steps to rectify his self-confessed shortcomings at some point in the future.”
Having taken all the evidence presented into account, the committee was not satisfied that Mr Seymour-Hamilton was fit to be restored to the register and dismissed his application.