The High Court reduced a veterinarian’s suspension from two months to one month after allowing his appeal in part against the sanction imposed over surgery on a dog without the owner’s informed consent.
Mr Justice Mícheál P. O’Higgins’s judgment concerned a sanction-only appeal by William McCartney, who did not challenge the finding of professional misconduct. The court upheld the decision to suspend his registration, but found the two-month period unduly severe in the circumstances. It said the parties would be heard separately on the terms of the final order and costs.
The disciplinary case arose after McCartney operated on Alfie’s left hind leg on 5 August 2020, although the dog had been referred for surgery on his right hind leg. The court recorded that both legs had cruciate disease and that the surgery performed was clinically appropriate. McCartney had decided before the operation to treat the left leg first, but did not consult the owner or obtain informed consent for the change in plan.
The Fitness to Practise Committee found three allegations proved beyond reasonable doubt: McCartney had failed to arrange a consultation to take the owner’s account of Alfie’s history and condition; failed to tell her in advance that he intended to operate on the left leg; and failed to obtain informed consent. It found professional misconduct on those counts. The committee did not find proved allegations that he had inadequately examined Alfie or had operated on the wrong leg in error and failed to admit it.
The committee recommended a three-month suspension. The Veterinary Council reduced that to two months, citing the seriousness of the consent and communication failures while recognising mitigating factors, including that the misconduct occurred on one day, McCartney’s apology and offer of a refund and further surgery without charge, testimonials, and changes to practice protocols.
The High Court found the misconduct was serious and undermined the owner’s confidence, so a suspension was justified. It placed the offending no higher than the mid-range of potential misconduct. The court said the Council had not given sufficient weight to the mitigating circumstances and had not taken account of the complete absence of aggravating factors. It also considered the COVID-related family emergency that meant McCartney was away from the practice when Alfie was collected, while stressing that this did not excuse the prior failure to consult or obtain consent.
The court concluded that a one-month suspension was appropriate. Its judgment allowed the appeal only to that limited extent; the suspension itself remained in place.