[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) [2003] UKPC 47 (17 June 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2003/47.html Cite as: [2003] UKPC 47

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

Kirk v Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) [2003] UKPC 47 (17 June 2003)

Maurice John Petitioner

v.

The Respondent

FROM

THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ROYAL

COLLEGE OF VETERINARY SURGEONS

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

ORAL JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL

COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL UPON AN

INTERLOCUTORY PETITION,

Delivered the 17th June 2003

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

Present at the hearing:-

Lord Hoffmann

Lord Slynn of Hadley

Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe

[Oral Judgment delivered by Lord Hoffmann]

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

1. This is an application for disclosure of documents by Mr Kirk, a veterinary surgeon, who has before the Board a pending appeal against a finding by the Disciplinary Committee of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. That finding is based in part upon a number of convictions which have been recorded against Mr Kirk in the past and mainly concern motoring offences, and also upon a specific incident which occurred on the beach near Cardiff.
2. Mr Kirk made an earlier application by petition to the Board for disclosure which was heard on 14th January 2003 and on that occasion counsel on behalf of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons informed the Board that searches had been made in the College's records and that so far as they were aware all relevant documents had been disclosed, but that they would make a further check and if anything which had been omitted was discovered it would be given to Mr Kirk. Since then certain additional documents have been sent to Mr Kirk and partly as a result of that and partly as a result of what he says was not disclosed in that second round this further application is made today.
3. Now there are two bases upon which Mr Kirk is entitled to documents from the College. One is his entitlement simply as a litigant in relation to the charges on which he was convicted. He was entitled in the ordinary way to any documents which might support his case or tend to undermine the case of the College. Under that heading there have been disclosed to him certain unused materials from witnesses who were not called at the disciplinary hearing. In addition to that and quite apart from this litigation he is entitled under the Data Protection Act to electronic records kept by the College which refer to him and a number of documents have been disclosed to him under that head although the College say that to the best of their belief there were others which have been lost and which they are unable to disclose. Mr Kirk says now that what he wishes to see particularly are complaints which were made about him by two local veterinary surgeons who are in competition with him. One of them did show up under the Data Protection Act disclosure and he says that there are others. The one which showed up under the Data Protection Act was not regarded as being relevant under the first heading to the particular charges because it was simply a response by the veterinary surgeon concerned to a complaint which had been made by the owner of an animal which he had seen after it had been treated by Mr Kirk. It is the case, however that the writer of the letter took the opportunity not only to respond to that particular enquiry but to make a very large number of other allegations against Mr Kirk. Those however do not appear to have been pursued and the letter was not treated within the College as a separate complaint requiring formal investigation. The same may be true of other letters in which these two veterinary surgeons expressed adverse views about Mr Kirk's conduct.
4. The position now is that the College say that they have now been through their records several times and to the best of their knowledge and belief they have produced all the records to which Mr Kirk is entitled either as a litigant or under the Data Protection Act. Mr Kirk says that that is not so and obviously has little trust in the efficiency or indeed the honesty of the officials of the College who are engaged in the exercise.
5. It appears to their Lordships that so far as interlocutory proceedings of this kind are concerned the procedures open to Mr Kirk have reached the end of the road and really did so after the last hearing before the Board. It is obviously impossible for their Lordships to form a view as to whether there are relevant documents in the possession of the College or not. If the College says that there are not the Board is unable to go and investigate the matter and establish the contrary. In addition it will only be upon the hearing of the appeal that it will be practically possible to form a view on the degree of relevance of these documents. It therefore seems to their Lordships that the best and indeed only course is now to proceed with the hearing of the appeal without any further interlocutory applications. Upon that hearing if it appears to the Board that there are relevant documents which must be in the possession of the College and which have not been disclosed then no doubt that factor will play an important part in their Lordships' judgment. It is however impossible to anticipate what the situation may be and therefore all that their Lordships can do today is to dismiss this application. Their Lordships will reserve the costs of today's hearing to the hearing of the appeal.