Veterinary tribunal did not show bias

18 January 2012 by

Joseph Lennox Holmes (Appellant) v Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (Respondent) [2011] UKPC 48 – read judgment

The disciplinary procedures of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons did not give rise to any appearance of bias so as to breach a practitioner’s right to a fair trial under Article 6.

Despite the fact that the membership of the committee dealing with the prosecution of charges was drawn from the College’s governing body, in whose name any charges were brought, and that the body dealing with the determination of charges was also drawn from the College’s governing body, in practice their procedures were fair.

Mr Holmes, a single-handed practitioner at a clinic a Grimsby, had carried out four separate operations to shorten the soft palate of a cavalier King Charles spaniel in an attempt to stop it snoring. The committee had heard that the procedure was unnecessary to begin with and beyond his competence, and that the dog eventually had to be euthanased.

Mr Holmes was also found guilty of disgraceful conduct on charges relating to his handling of another client’s pedigree Persian cats in which he carried out dental extractions that were again considered unnecessary.

He had denied a total of nine charges relating to his treatment of the spaniel Jake and the three cats. The complaints against him were brought in the name of the College and all the members of the Disciplinary Council (DC) which heard the complaints were members of the Council of the College. 

The complaints

Mr Holmes contended that features of the general system operated by the College for the determination of disciplinary complaints and features of its operation specific to the instant proceedings were deficient in a number of respects, these deficiencies combining to give rise to an appearance of bias against him on the part of the DC. In the absence of his right of appeal to the Board of the Privy Council, it would (so Mr Holmes argues) have infringed the right “to a fair… hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal” conferred on him by  Article 6.

He did not suggest that, within a legitimate system of professional self-regulation such as this, the complaints should be brought otherwise than in the name of the College; and he accepted that the relevant legislation presently requires that all members of the DC should be members of its Council. But the Board agreed with Mr Holmes that the statute does not, of itself, preclude his seeking to complain about the connection between the prosecution and the committee which it mandates; and it also accepted that the complaint could be advanced in the absence of any application on his part for a declaration of the incompatibility of the statute with  Article 6.

His appeal was dismissed.

The Privy Council’s reasoning

The board observed that the current system allows members of the DC previously to have been members of the Preliminary Investigating Committee (PIC). The complaint is thus that those who fulfil the judicial role may previously have had a role in the sanctioning of prosecutions. Within this systemic complaint lies the major complaint of Mr Holmes specific to the instant proceedings.There are two aspects of his complaint about one of the members of the DC: first that she had been appointed to the DC only two years after the cessation of her membership of the PC in breach of the College’s convention that three such years should elapse; and second that she had served on the very PIC which in 2005 had referred to the DC the complaints against him which it determined in 2006.

The appellant relied on one of the earliest challenges to be taken under Article 6 in respect of internal disciplinary proceedings, Tehrani v UK Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting [2001] SC 581 (see our post on that case).  Another authority which supported Mr Holmes appeal was the decision of the Privy Council  in  Preiss v General Dental Council [2001] UKPC 36 (see our analysis). In the latter case, it will be remembered, it was held that the dual role of the president as preliminary screener and chairman of the professional conduct committee of the General Dental Council breached the requirement of independence under Article 6.

The common law, pre Human Rights approach to bias was formulated in the following question:

whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased (Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67)

However, this appeal fared no better under this common law principle than it did under Article 6. The Board considered that the fair-minded and informed observer would not conclude that there was a real possibility that the DC was biased against Mr Holmes. In particular, it perceived no real possibility of bias in previous membership of the DC on the part of a member of the PIC.  As for his complaints about the disproportionality of the sanction – removal of his name from the register – the Board was constrained to agree with the DC that, when considered in the light of the “disgraceful” conduct of Mr Holmes found proved against him in 2006, the only sanction appropriate to the catalogue of egregious misconduct reflected in the 28 charges which fell within the section was the erasure of his name from the register.

Such was the only disposal which could properly reflect the primary need to serve both the interests of animal welfare and the reputation of the veterinary profession.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts

1 comment;

  1. […] Full story […]

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: