IN THE PRIVY COUNCIL NO. 88 OF 2005 ON APPEAL FROM THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF VETERINARY SURGEONS SUSIE MACLEOD Appellant And ROYAL COLLEGE OF VETERINARY SURGEONS Respondent FROM THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ROYAL COLLEGE OF VETERINARY SURGEONS APPELLANTS CASE IN THE APPEAL The Appellant avers as follows:- 1 That the case brought against the Appellant by the Respondent was brought wilfully and needlessly and that the proceedings were unjustified and unnecessary. That the Respondent’s findings of fact were largely agreed by the Appellant who so actually informed the Respondent. That the Respondent failed to take into account the months of research carried ut by the Appellant prior to the opening by the Appellant of the vaccination clinic in issue and failed to take into account the fact that, as a result of that research and advice received the Appellant believed, and had grounds for the belief that she was doing nothing wrong, and that her interpretation of the rules then in force was correct. That the Respondent has failed to take into account that the rules in question were, by the Respondent’s own admission, ambiguous. That the Respondent failed to take into account that the Appellant had based her actions partly on an “advice sheet” produced by the Respondent to amplify the rules in question concerning nurses vaccinating and that the Respondent produced a second and different advice sheet during the course of the Respondent's investigation without informing the Appellant.10. rT 123 That the second advice sheet and the change in the rules were never sent to the Appellant, nor was the Appellant informed, despite the fact that she was subject to investigation, nor even as yet have ever been notified to the profession. ‘That the Respondent failed to follow its own written procedural rules as to investigation and complaints procedure and in particular that:- a) The advice sheet referred to was changed by the Respondent without informing the Appellant. b) The Appellant was never called in to discuss the issues with the Respondent as is usual procedure. c) That the Appellant was not invited before the Respondent’s Professional Investigation Committee or invited to comment, as again is the usual procedure. 4) That the Appellant was not formally or informally wamed as to her conduct as is usual procedure, but the Respondent proceeded unnecessarily to a Full Disciplinary Hearing, That the Respondent failed to take into account that had the Respondent complied with any of seven a) to d) above, the Appellant would have ceased her actions immediately, as indeed the Appellant did when it became apparent that the Respondent was to proceed to a Full Disciplinary Hearing. ‘That the Respondent failed to take into account the fact that the rules at issue were changed by the Respondent without the Respondent informing the ‘Appellant or the profession as a whole. ‘That the Respondent failed to take into account the fact that Veterinary Nurses up and down the country administer vaccinations and sign vaccination record cards without a veterinary surgeon being present and without either being or signed “under veterinary direction” and that at the time in question the Respondent's rules then stated that the profession should accept a Veterinary ‘Nurses signature, and are still so doing as the Respondent is aware. That the Respondent failed to take into account that unqualified farmers may vaccinate their animals outwith the presence of a veterinary surgeon or a qualified Veterinary Nurse and further that it is now accepted by the Respondent that lay vaccinators, with minimal training may vaccinate herds, without supervision, in both cases these being animals within the food chain unlike the dogs, cats and rabbits of the Appellants practice. That although the Respondent averred that the Appellant's actions were “capable of jeopardising animal welfare” the Respondent failed sufficiently to take into account that there was no evidence that such had happened nor did the Respondent take into account that the operation of a nurses vaccinationclinic ensures that more animals are seen, vaccinated, treated and if necessary referred than would otherwise be the case. 13. That the Respondent failed to take into account that the principal motivation of the complainants, and the raison d’etra of the rules themselves are not primarily to promote animal welfare but economic to preserve a veterinary monopoly, 14, That the Respondent failed to take into account the fact that human medical nurses administer vaccinations to human beings of all ages on a daily basis without the presence of a qualified doctor whereas now, under the new rules, highly qualified Veterinary Nurses may not administer even a simple booster vaccination without a veterinary surgeon being present, to their detriment as professionals and to the detriment of their professional status and training. 15. That the Respondent failed to adequately take into account it’s own advice sheet dated April 1999 with reference to the dispensing of prescription only flea and worm products and that such products are freely and legally available via the internet. 16. That with reference to the charge relating to the emergency service provision at the vaccination clinic the Respondent misled the Appellant both in telephone conversations and in correspondence, and in particular led the ‘Appellant to believe that the Appellant need only be concerned with the first five charges and that with reference to the emergency provision the concern was the distance of the clinic from the Appellants emergency service when in fact the issue was communication for which the Appellant was wholly unprepared and effectively ambushed. 17. That the Respondent failed to take into account the deliberate attempt at entrapment by witness Maralyn Imbrugino and her Principals nor the fact that in her deliberate absence from the proceedings her evidence should not have been tendered nor could it be tested by the Appellant, to the Appellant's detriment and prejudice. 18. That the Respondent failed to take into account public policy considerations nor its position with regard to the Respondent maintaining and supporting a clear restrictive trade practice nor the Respondent's prima facie breach of European Competition Law and policy. 19. That the Respondent, by its own admission, failed to take into account that “the previous advice, (on which the Appellant relied) did not set out the position for second vaccinations or that a booster vaccination should be preceded by a full health check of the animal by a veterinary surgeon.” 20. That the Respondent wes in error in treating the charges against the Appellant as “individually or together” when each charge should have been treated individually.21. That the Judgement of the 8" of November 2005 is fatally flawed in as much as it states that the Appellant “failed to heed the advice given by the Professional Conduct Department of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons” when no such advice was ever given at any time to the Appellant, by the Respondent. 22. The Appellant further avers that the sentence passed on the Appellant is wholly disproportionate and inter alia fails to take into account: a) b) 9 d) e) The previous exemplary conduct and professional reputation of the Appellant, of some 29 years standing as a Member. The professional and personal references and evidence tendered on behalf of the Appellant as to her character, integrity and professionalism, by both the public and highly esteemed colleagues. That an eight month suspension from practice is grossly disproportionate to the alleged offences and that particularly for a sole practitioner is tantamount to the loss both of the Appellant's practice and livelihood. ‘That the cost of a locum replacement for eight months even if such cost could be borne would amount to a sum, and therefore in effect be “a fine” of £40,000. ‘That the sentence is far in excess of that which would be merited, or would be upheld in comparable criminal proceedings or other comparable professional proceedings. That any sanction, if sanction be required would have been adequately met by advice or reprimand. That the Appellant had closed down the clinic in question as soon as it became apparent that proceedings were to be brought. advice at the outset, as is the usual practice was all that was required to remedy whatever problem there might have been. ‘The Appellant humbly and respectfully prays that this Appeal be allowed. Dated this 14th day of March 2006. on MRS SUSIE MACLEOD. B.VET.MED.M.R.C.V.S. APPELLANT