Report of The Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee

Roles of the VSIC and the ADT:
The principles of natural justice must be applied at all stages of disciplinary action. Professional disciplinary action has as its primary purpose the protection of the public interest by maintaining standards of professional practice.

The roles of the Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee and the Administrative Decisions Tribunal are
in the nature of enquiries into the conduct alleged against a Veterinary Surgeon, in contrast to the formal nature of
proceedings before a Court. The Veterinary Surgeon has the right to know the case alleged against him/her and to
have a fair opportunity to respond to it.

Proceedings-Dr R G Lloyd:
The Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee reports that proceedings which have been before the Administrative Decisions Tribunal since 1998 under the disciplinary provisions of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986 concerning Dr R G Lloyd are now the subject of reasons for decision published by an Appeal Panel of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal.

The full texts of the reasons are published in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal decisions section of the austlii Australian law database, which is accessible through the Board’s website: www.vsb.nsw.gov.au. Prior Tribunal decisions in the proceedings and decisions of the Supreme Court of NSW on interlocutary matters are also available on the austlii database.

In the course of the hearing of complaints by four complainants against Dr Lloyd before the Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee, the Administrative Decisions Tribunal and the Supreme Court, many complex issues of administrative law and procedure have been raised, argued and decided. Errors of law and procedure identified by the Appeal Panel have resulted in the dismissal of several charges.

The Appeal Panel:
The Appeal Panel has created precedent in several areas of the application of administrative law in the context of
veterinary disciplinary action. The relevance of some aspects may change when the Veterinary Practice Bill 2003 (currently before the NSW Parliament) becomes law. Although the Bill substantially re-writes the statutory scheme, including disciplinary action against veterinary practitioners, some decided substantive law will remain relevant.
The Appeal Panel has emphasised that the principles of natural justice that have characterised the development of
administrative law in Australia must be applied at all stages of disciplinary action. The current Veterinary Surgeons
Investigating Committee, when conducting its enquiries, adheres to the procedural requirements of the Act, and
affords all the elements of procedural fairness to a Veterinary Surgeon who is the subject of an investigation. The
Appeal Panel has confirmed that the Tribunal must satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction to hear and determine cases
referred to it by the Committee. The reasons in the Total Eclipse case demonstrate that the Committee in 1997 failed
to meet its obligations in the procedure it followed when it purported to find a prima facie case against Dr Lloyd for
referral to the Tribunal. The result was that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine the charges and the
charges were therefore dismissed. The reasons of the Appeal Panel in the Remus - Allegation 2 case emphasise
that the Tribunal must observe the requirements ofnatural justice.

The remaining findings on some of the charges, based on veterinary issues, will be the subject of a further hearing
before the Administrative Decisions Tribunal to determine what, if any, disciplinary orders should be made, based on
the remaining findings. Those findings and the terms of any orders will be reported in a future edition of Boardtalk.

Previous | Contents | Next