Legal questions over protocol after vet withdraws register axe appeal

A vet who challenged his removal from the RCVS register has withdrawn his appeal on the eve of a hearing before some of the UK’s top judges.

A prominent legal expert has questioned the protocol that allowed Siew Loong Ng to continue practising for several months after his disciplinary hearing.

But the college said it was seeking the powers to impose interim restrictions during an appeal process.

A disciplinary committee ruled Mr Ng should be struck off in June last year because of what it regarded as his “inadequate and out of date” approach to practice.

Privy Council

He lodged an appeal with the Privy Council, as he is permitted to do under the current Veterinary Surgeons Act, the following month.

That allowed him to remain on the register pending the outcome of his appeal, which had been scheduled for a hearing on 23 February.

Those proceedings were due to be before members of the Privy Council’s judicial committee, which is comprised of senior judges.

A case listing on the committee’s website said Mr Ng had sought to “admit new evidence and commentary”, arguing that admissions made to the disciplinary panel should be ignored.

But officials said Mr Ng had applied to withdraw the appeal in a move that was formally confirmed following agreement by all parties the day before the scheduled proceedings.

New legislation

The issue has now been highlighted by the legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg in his blog, A Lawyer Writes, where he said Mr Ng had remained on the register for eight months through the “simple expedient of lodging an appeal” and argued the college should seek new legislation if current laws were outdated.

He added: “It cannot be in the public interest for a struck-off vet to remain free to practise in these circumstances.”

The college said it could not comment on Mr Ng’s case specifically, but pointed out that the issues it highlighted were addressed in the current consultation on legislative reform.

Appeal outcome

A spokesperson added: “We have asked Defra, and will continue to ask, for the power to restrict the practice of individuals in appropriate cases during the period between a committee directing that a sanction is imposed and the outcome of an appeal.”

The consultation, which remains open for submissions until 25 March, proposes the use of interim orders to suspend clinicians or impose limits on their practice while they are the subject of a fitness to practise process and where there is a “real risk of harm” to either animals, consumers, the wider public or confidence in the professions.

It also suggested such orders should be limited to a maximum of 18 months, with High Court approval required for an extension beyond that limit and regular reviews during the order period to determine if it was still required.

Two other cases of vets seeking to reverse their removal from the college register are listed as awaiting judgement on the committee’s website.