The High Court confirmed the Veterinary Council of Ireland’s decision to cancel veterinary practitioner Timothy Brennan’s registration for two months, despite finding that the Council had relied on two legally improper mitigating factors.
In a judgment delivered on 14 December 2020, President of the High Court Irvine considered an application under section 80(5) of the Veterinary Practice Act 2005. Brennan had not appealed the Council’s decision within the statutory 21-day period. The court’s task was to decide whether to confirm that decision or make another order; it was not hearing a de novo appeal.
The Council’s Fitness to Practice Committee had found four allegations proved beyond reasonable doubt. They concerned inadequate descriptions of animal remedies, possession of unauthorised remedies, labels without serial numbers and inadequate records. Brennan admitted allegations concerning unauthorised remedies, labelling and record-keeping. The Committee found those three allegations amounted to professional misconduct and said the conduct represented a serious falling short of expected standards.
The Committee considered that the misconduct warranted a six-month suspension, reduced to four months in light of mitigating factors. The Council later chose a two-month suspension. It cited six factors, including Brennan’s unblemished professional record, cooperation, admissions, references, personal and professional difficulties, and its view that he would not repeat the misconduct.
The court found the Council could not properly reduce the sanction on the basis that Brennan was unlikely to repeat the misconduct. It also found that his distressing personal circumstances were unconnected to the misconduct and had been relied on in error as mitigation. Brennan’s counsel accepted there was no direct causal connection between those circumstances and the misconduct.
The judge considered remitting the decision to the Council for reconsideration but concluded that was unlikely to produce a materially different result and would not serve the interests of the parties, profession or public. The court also noted that the two disputed factors likely carried less weight than other mitigating factors. Although the judge considered the proposed sanction somewhat less stringent than might have been appropriate, that alone did not justify refusing confirmation. The court ultimately confirmed the Council’s two-month registration cancellation under section 80(5).