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 When problems with supposed evidence emerged, these withdrawn – but then damage had arguably been done as experienced period undue stress.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