The Court of Appeal has set aside the Veterinary Council of Ireland’s decision to suspend veterinary surgeon Lucian Podariu for six weeks, holding that the Council lacked power to increase the recommended sanction under the law applicable to his disciplinary proceedings.
In a judgment delivered on 24 October 2017, Mr Justice Gerard Hogan said the Council must reconsider the sanction under the Veterinary Practice Act 2005. Because the Fitness to Practise Committee had made no finding that Mr Podariu was unfit to practise, the Council was confined to the committee’s recommendation of censure. The court invited counsel to address it on the precise form of orders.
The proceedings began after Mr Podariu’s former employer, identified in the judgment as Mr Roarty, made 16 complaints to the Council in May 2012 about his treatment of small animals and other matters. The complaints concerned events between February 2010 and April 2012. The Fitness to Practise Committee found the original complaints did not amount to misconduct.
During the committee inquiry in 2013, Mr Podariu produced notebooks he said contained contemporaneous handwritten veterinary records. The Registrar proposed evidence that the notebooks could not have been bought in Ireland on the dates claimed. The inquiry was amended to add an allegation that he had acted dishonestly by presenting the records as contemporaneous. The committee found that allegation proven and recommended censure. The Council instead imposed a six-week suspension.
The High Court had ruled for Mr Podariu on fair-procedure grounds and also held that the Council could not apply the 2012 amendments to the disciplinary law. The Council appealed.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the new allegation should first have been considered by the Council’s Preliminary Investigation Committee. It said the statutory process gave practitioners safeguards, including an opportunity to respond before a full inquiry. However, it also held that Mr Podariu had acquiesced in adding the allegation during the inquiry and was therefore precluded from challenging the committee’s decision on that ground.
On the sanction, the court held that the original complaints had been made before the 2012 amendments took effect. Their commencement gave Mr Podariu a vested right to have the complaints dealt with under the 2005 regime. Under that regime, the Council could not impose suspension without a finding of unfitness to practise. The court therefore set aside the six-week suspension and said the Council’s fresh consideration would be confined to censure, as recommended by the committee.
The judgment did not determine the final form of the orders; it invited counsel to make submissions on that point.