[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Decisions >> Kirk v Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) [2004] UKPC 35 (13 July 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2004/35.html Cite as: [2004] UKPC 35

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

Kirk v Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) [2004] UKPC 35 (13 July 2004)

Privy Council Appeal No. 51 of 2002

Maurice John Kirk Appellant

v.

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Respondent

FROM

THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ROYAL

COLLEGE OF VETERINARY SURGEONS

---------------

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE LORDS OF THE

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL,

OF THE 8th June 2004, Delivered the 13th July 2004

------------------

Present at the hearing:-

Lord Bingham of Cornhill

Lord Hoffmann

Baroness Hale of Richmond

[Delivered by Lord Hoffmann]

------------------

1. At the end of the hearing of Mr Kirk's appeal against a taxation by the Registrar of the costs of the Royal College which Mr Kirk was ordered to pay on 19 January 2004, when his appeal against the directions of the Disciplinary Committee was dismissed, the Board announced that the appeal against taxation would be dismissed and that they would give their reasons later. This they now do.
2. The Disciplinary Committee had found that Mr Kirk had been convicted of 11 criminal offences which rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery. On appeal, the Board upheld this finding and dismissed the appeal with costs. The ground upon which Mr Kirk objected to the taxation was that the registrar should not have allowed the costs of the College in the proceedings before the Board relating to 5 motoring offences which the Disciplinary Committee had included in the 11 offences rendering Mr Kirk unfit to practise. Mr Kirk referred to an earlier disciplinary hearing in 1984 in which the Royal College had relied upon motoring offences and the Disciplinary Committee, on the advice of its legal assessor Mr Philip Cox QC, had struck them out as incapable of rendering him unfit to practise veterinary surgery. Mr Kirk said that a similar ruling should have been made in relation to the 5 motoring offences included in these proceedings.
3. Their Lordships do not think that Mr Cox QC can have been intending to rule that in no case could motoring offences ever play a part in rendering someone unfit to practise veterinary surgery. It all depends upon the nature of the offences and the surrounding circumstances. Rule 8 of the Veterinary Surgeons and Veterinary Practitioners (Disciplinary Committee) (Procedure and Evidence) Rules 1967 (SI 1967 No 659) allows the Royal College to adduce evidence "with regard to the nature and circumstances of the offence, to show that … the convictions … are such as to render the respondent unfit to practise veterinary surgery".
4. The Royal College led such evidence in relation to the motoring offences and the Disciplinary Committee said that although, taken by themselves, they would not have justified a disciplinary charge, they were relevant to the cumulative effect of the 11 convictions upon which the Royal College relied.
5. This finding was upheld by the Board on appeal. Their Lordships therefore consider that the Registrar would not have been justified in disallowing the costs in respect of those cases on the ground that they had been irrelevant. The Disciplinary Committee and the Board had found them proved and relevant. This is a finding which the Registrar was not entitled to go behind.
6. Their Lordships will therefore humbly advise Her Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed with costs, which their Lordships assess at £750.