The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council Decisions

Kirk v. Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) [2003] UKPC 3 (14 January 2003)

Privy Council Appeal No. 51 of 2002

Maurice John Kirk Appellant

v.

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons 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 BY THE APPELLANT,

Delivered the 14th January 2003

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

Present at the hearing:-

Lord Hutton

Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough

Lord Scott of Foscote

[Delivered by Lord Hutton]

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

1. Mr Kirk had been found guilty by the Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. That finding was largely based upon proof that Mr Kirk over a number of years had been convicted of a number of offences which involved driving offences and also offences of assault and using threatening behaviour and an offence under the Environmental Protection legislation. He has brought an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council against that decision but today there is before the Board a preliminary application by Mr Kirk for the disclosure of documents to him by the Royal College.
2. It is clear that Mr Kirk is entitled to disclosure of relevant documents. That is accepted by Miss Foster QC, counsel for the Royal College, who has also appeared before the Board today. Rule 6 of the Veterinary Surgeons and Veterinary Practitioners Disciplinary Committee Procedural Evidence Rules Order in Council 1967 provides:

"Upon application by any party to the inquiry and on payment of proper charges the solicitor shall send to that party a copy of any statutory declaration, complaint, answer, admission, explanation or other similar document sent to the College by any party to the inquiry."

3. In addition to that provision it is clear under general principles that Mr Kirk was entitled and is entitled to the disclosure of any document which is relevant. That is accepted by the College. The main thrust of Mr Kirk's submission to the Board today is that there are additional documents in the possession of the College which have not been disclosed to him but which should have been disclosed. It is clear that he is only entitled to disclosure of documents if they are relevant and the Board has questioned Mr Kirk and has heard him at some length as to what those documents are. But Mr Kirk has failed to satisfy the Board that there has been a failure to disclose relevant documents to him.
4. Moreover, Miss Foster has informed the Board that as far as she is aware, on her instructions, the College has made full disclosure of all relevant documents and she instances, for example, the letters of complaint which were sent by various persons to the College about Mr Kirk. But she has also said, and it does appear to the Board from what Mr Kirk has said, that he may well have been furnished with relevant documents which he has now lost. Miss Foster has informed the Board that the Royal College will revisit its records and check again that there are no relevant documents available to it which have not been sent to Mr Kirk, and she has also informed the Board that if relevant documents were sent which Mr Kirk has now lost, copies will be furnished to him. In those circumstances their Lordships consider that no order for disclosure or discovery should be made against the background of that undertaking by the College.
5. Now the Board wishes to make it clear that it appreciates that Mr Kirk has strong feelings about this matter and his emphasis on his entitlement to discovery. As the Board has made clear it recognises that right but it considers that Mr Kirk has not shown that there has been any breach of the right. On that basis their Lordships make no order and the Board in due course, no doubt, will hear Mr Kirk's full appeal. Their Lordships make no order as to costs on this application today but reserve the question of costs to the full hearing before the Board.