Vet voluntarily removed from register as disciplinary hearing adjourned

A Devon-based vet has been removed from the RCVS register at his own request, following a 60-year practice career, after disciplinary proceedings were brought against him.

The case against Edmund Harold Shillabeer was halted after he committed to remove himself from the register and not to seek future restoration.

A college disciplinary panel granted his application for an indefinite adjournment, after it concluded that his undertakings went beyond any sanction it could have imposed.

Mr Shillabeer, who qualified in 1964 and had run his own practice since 1970, faced five charges of failing to provide appropriate or adequate veterinary care to patients between July and December 2021.

A hearing into the case, which began at the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators in London last Monday (22 July), had been expected to last for up to 10 days.

Although Mr Shillabeer made no admissions to the charges against him, he did submit a written application for the case to be adjourned without any further date being set prior to the hearing date.

In it, he said he would “request the registrar to remove my name from the register of veterinary surgeons with immediate effect” and undertook “Never to apply to be restored to the register” if his application was granted.

‘Significant impact’

Mr Shillabeer also stressed he understood the case would be re-opened if he breached those undertakings and a further witness statement said he had now closed his practice after efforts to sell it had proved unsuccessful.

Lawyers for the college said they took a “neutral” stance on the application, but argued there was a realistic prospect of proving the charges with eight witnesses supporting its case.

However, Mr Shillabeer’s legal representative said the original complainant supported the application and the case had had a “significant impact” on him.

He said: “Having devoted all his professional life to his clients, and their pets, the thought that he was not offering them the best possible service has deeply affected him.”

The panel also heard Mr Shillabeer “deeply regrets anything which he has done, or not done, which has failed to protect the welfare of animals, or has caused concern, or upset, to his clients and fellow members of the profession”.

Committee chairperson Paul Morris, speaking on its behalf, said: “As a result of all the factors set out, the committee decided that this is not a case in which the public interest or the welfare of animals demands that there be a full hearing.”