Transparency call as RCVS DC process comes under fire

The RCVS has come under fire following accusations that its disciplinary processes lack transparency.

A number of recent cases have raised questions about the procedures through which some professionals were granted anonymity in both their hearings and the documents published from them.

The college said there are “specific circumstances” in which hearing respondents would be granted anonymity, though it remains unclear exactly what they are.

Rethink

Now, the BVNA has called for a rethink, highlighting concerns over cases where respondents have been named even though they did not face a substantive sanction.

In a statement, the BVNA added: “While we understand that the RCVS will be following protocols, we would urge them to review when individuals are named in the cases where allegations are not upheld.”

The RCVS disciplinary committee and VN disciplinary committee hear cases throughout the year pertaining to vets and RVNs who are alleged to have committed serious professional misconduct, or be otherwise unfit to practise.

At present, the question of whether anonymity should be granted is determined by the panel sitting in an individual hearing, with respondents required to submit applications in advance so they can be considered at the outset of the case.

‘Specific circumstances’

A college spokesperson said an individual committee “must be satisfied that there are specific circumstances that justify departure from the principle of open justice” in order to grant an application for anonymity.

Although no further detail of those circumstances was disclosed, he added that such applications do not “ordinarily delay hearings by more than a few hours”.

Since the start of 2022, 4 out of 35 disciplinary hearings published on the college’s website have had their respondents anonymised. Of those, three were struck off and one was reprimanded.

In the most recent case of that kind, an RVN identified only as Mrs D, who was struck off after falsely implying she was a vet and using offensive and discriminatory language on social media, sought anonymity on “grounds which included matters relating to her health and family circumstances”.

Other reasons cited for anonymity applications have included fears for the safety of both the respondent and family members as a result of either public or professional reactions to their conduct.

But critics argue such considerations could potentially be applied to the support networks of all professionals who are subjected to a disciplinary process.

Appropriate action

The BVNA has stressed it believes appropriate action was taken in the most recently anonymised case but argued that it raised wider questions of how those accused of professional misconduct should be dealt with.

It said: “Whilst BVNA agrees that those who have the allegations upheld should be named, consideration should also be given to those who do not.

“We are aware of several cases where RVNs have been named despite no further disciplinary action being taken by the RCVS, and we are concerned for the potential unnecessary consequences to these individuals.”

The BVA declined to comment on the issue when approached by Vet Times.

Public concern

The issue has also been highlighted at a time of emerging public concern about the current nature of RCVS disciplinary procedures.

Last month, a protest was held outside the college’s central London offices by a pet owners’ group which is calling for an independent ombudsman to oversee the college’s work and claims the body is not currently doing enough to protect the public.

However, senior college leaders said the campaigners wanted the disciplinary process to consider claims of negligence which it cannot do.