RCVS to consult on controversial disciplinary changes

The RCVS has announced it will consult on controversial changes that could see a lesser standard of proof applied in its disciplinary process.

At its first meeting since the coronavirus lockdown began (4 June), RCVS council voted to consult with the profession on changes, it said, were developed with the aim of “making our system more compassionate and modern, while maintaining public protection at its heart”.

Reforms

Council members were asked to decide on how to proceed with three specific proposals on reforming the disciplinary system.

These had come out of the discussions held by the Legislation Working Party (LWP); but, unlike the majority of the recommendations made in the LWP report, which was also presented at the meeting, they do not require new primary legislation, so were discussed and decided on separately.

Proposals

The proposals were:

• A change to the standard of proof used in deciding whether the facts of a case are proven from the current criminal standard (“beyond all reasonable doubt”) to the civil standard (“on the balance of probabilities”).
• The introduction of a “charter case protocol” in which cases that meet the threshold for a full disciplinary committee hearing, but that might be likely to attract a low sanction, may be concluded without a public hearing.
• To end the current system of initial review of complaints via a case examiners group, with the more complex of these cases then reviewed subsequently by the preliminary investigation committee.
• A single stage review process – with complaints considered by a number of “mini-preliminary investigation committees” with three members – would be used.

Mental health

RCVS registrar Eleanor Ferguson said: “The RCVS is now one of just a few regulators that still uses the criminal standard of proof in determining the facts of a case.

“We have sought these changes as part of our ongoing aim to develop a compassionate and forward-looking disciplinary system with the protection of the public absolutely at its heart, while also acknowledging the huge toll the process takes on the mental health of veterinary professionals.”

Same process

Ms Ferguson continued: “Research that we carried out into the impact of changing the standard of proof indicated that it would not lead to a major increase in cases being referred from the preliminary investigation committee to the disciplinary committee.

“Importantly, the number is likely to be very low because the standard of proof only applies to proving the facts of a case; the judgement as to whether proven facts amount to serious professional misconduct will follow the same process as at present.”

Council papers

The consultation on whether to change the standard of proof, as well as to introduce the charter case protocol and “mini-preliminary investigation committees”, is planned for later this year.

Further information about the proposals, including some of the arguments for and against changing the standard of proof, can be found in the papers for RCVS council.