Who is accountable for disciplinary errors?

THIS week's Vet Record carries a report of an RCVS disciplinary hearing that raises questions (pp 406–407). The vet in the case, David Chalkley, was found to have made errors. But errors were also made in how the case against him was handled. Put simply, Chalkley ended up facing allegations that, it eventually transpired, could not be supported by viable evidence. When problems with the supposed evidence emerged, these allegations were withdrawn – but by then the damage had arguably been done as Chalkley had experienced a period of undue stress. “It does appear that there was a degree of procedural sloppiness It all stemmed from an investigation by Gloucestershire County Council and the APHA into a farmer called Ian Slatter, who, it has emerged, has convictions for fraudulent behaviour relating to misidentification of cattle, false documentation and failure to report cattle deaths. The investigatory net widened, and Chalkley – who had carried out bovine TB (bTB) testing on Slatter's farm – ended up falling into it. There is no suggestion that Chalkley was complicit in, or even aware of, Slatter's breaches. Chalkley was originally charged by the RCVS with engaging in certification breaches over seven years, and with taking public money during that period for tests that he could not possibly have carried out. But these allegations were eventually dropped when it turned out that they were unsupportable because supposed evidence was based on Slatter's (potentially unreliable) records. However, a hearing went ahead, nonetheless. What was left on the charge sheet focused on a single set of tests Chalkley had carried out at Slatter's farm in March 2018. From the start, Chalkley admitted he had made an error in not abandoning bTB testing on Slatter's farm on day 1 of the two-day testing process, but he said he had felt under pressure to continue with it. The panel found Chalkley's conduct in relation to this testing in March 2018 had not been compliant with standard operating procedure and that he had acted dishonestly. He was given a three-month suspension. Not that it is any excuse, but Chalkley is far from the first vet to have diverged from standard operating procedure when faced with a difficult client. The college also found itself in a difficult position. It is entitled to rely on information it receives from governmental organisations such as the APHA and local authorities – but in this case this information was too limited. Once the college was made aware of the nature and extent of Slatter's convictions, it became obvious that certain allegations could no longer be made against Chalkley. However, a separate charge relating to the main charge could still be supported, so the RCVS had a duty to proceed with the case. While there is no suggestion of any intention to ‘frame’ Chalkley, it does appear that there was a degree of procedural sloppiness. To its credit, as soon as the RCVS became aware of the detail of Slatter's convictions it requested further disclosures, which resulted in a fuller picture emerging. During the hearing, Chalkley's lawyer, William Edis, said ‘the public has a right to know’ about how the case had been handled and that Chalkley had ‘a right to an explanation of how he's been treated’. At the start of the hearing, Chalkley suggested obviating the need for the proceedings by voluntarily removing himself from the RCVS register (since he was retired by then anyway and the maximum sanction is removal from the register). The RCVS did not oppose this, but the panel decided holding a hearing was in the public interest as the case concerned the integrity of veterinary certification. The case is indeed in the public interest, although not solely for the reasons the panel gave. BVA grants editorial freedom to the Editor of Vet Record. The views expressed in the journal are those of the authors and may not necessarily comply with BVA policy