CARLOS EGIDO CORTES MRCVS DECISION OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "CARLOS EGIDO CORTES MRCVS DECISION OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE"

Eunice Williams
5 years ago
Views:

1 ROYAL COLLEGE OF VETERINARY SURGEONS INQUIRY RE: CARLOS EGIDO CORTES MRCVS DECISION OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE 1. The Respondent did not appear before the Disciplinary Committee to answer the following charges: That, being registered in the register of veterinary surgeons: On 4 January 2017, at Cardiff Crown Court, you were convicted in the name of Carlos Egido (following a guilty plea) of: (i) Possession of indecent images of a child, contrary to section 160(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988; and (ii) Possession of an extreme pornographic image, contrary to section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008; in relation to which convictions, on 8 February 2017 you were sentenced on each offence concurrently to six months imprisonment, suspended for 24 months; a requirement to undertake 150 hours of unpaid work within 12 months; a Rehabilitation Activity requirement of 50 days and made subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for 7 years and a requirement to register as a sex offender for 7 years; and a victim surcharge of 115. AND THAT it is alleged that the above convictions render you unfit to practise veterinary surgery. 2. Accordingly the Committee considered whether it should proceed in the absence of the Respondent under Rule 10.4 of the Veterinary Surgeons and Veterinary Practitioners (Disciplinary Committee) (Procedure and Evidence) Rules Order of Council 2004 ( the 2004 Rules ). That rule obliges the Disciplinary Committee to consider whether it is satisfied that

2 the Notice of Inquiry was properly served on the Respondent and whether it is in the interests of justice to proceed in the Respondent s absence. Service of the Notice of Inquiry 3. Counsel for the College presented the Committee with a bundle of documents which established that the College served the Respondent with the Notice of Inquiry by recorded delivery to the Respondent s registered address on 28 th June 2017 and by to an address supplied by the Respondent recorded on the College s register. The Notice of Inquiry was also served by first class post on 28 th June The address had been used by the Respondent on 13 th April 2017 and 2 nd May 2017 in correspondence with the College indicating it was an active account. There was no reply from the Respondent following service of the Notice of Inquiry and three further attempts were made to serve him in person in mid-july 2017 by an enquiry agent. The Committee is satisfied that the Respondent was properly served with the Notice of Inquiry. Proceeding in the Absence of the Respondent 4. The Committee considered whether to proceed in the Respondent s absence. It recognised that there is no evidence that the Respondent actually received the Notice of Inquiry, but noted that service is effected by posting, not by establishing receipt. Moreover, a respondent has an obligation to maintain an accurate address on the register. The Committee noted that in his correspondence dated 2 nd May 2017, the Respondent observed that his health had suffered severely in the last few months because of this matter. He went on to say that he did not think anything he may say will have any influence on the RCVS decision. 5. The Committee therefore took this into account and considered whether to postpone or adjourn the hearing for a period. In so doing, it had regard to the interests of justice. It took into account that: The College enquired of the Respondent by an dated 1 st August 2017 whether there were any details or documentation he wished to submit in relation to his health; The Respondent has not applied for an adjournment himself; The Respondent has not submitted any medical reports relating to his health; There may be an advantage to the Respondent in not protracting this matter anymore than necessary. The Committee should be guided by the main statutory objective of the regulator, namely the protection and promotion of the health and welfare of animals. Fair, economical, expeditious and efficient disposal of allegations made against a registrant is of very real importance. Fairness includes fairness to the regulator as well as to the Respondent. There is a burden on respondents to engage with the regulator in relation to the investigation and resolution of allegations against them. 6. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee determined to proceed in the absence of the Respondent. Public Hearing

3 7. Prior to the charges being read, Counsel invited the Committee to consider whether any part of the hearing should be conducted in private under Rule 21.2 of the 2004 Rules. The Committee had regard to the from the Respondent dated 2 nd May Whilst it did not understand that to represent a specific request for the proceedings to be heard in private, it did note that the Respondent referred to his health. It determined to direct that any matters relating to the Respondent s health, if they were raised in the course of the hearing, should be held in private and that sensitivity should be applied to the language used in the determination insofar as it touched on health. The Charges 8. The charges as set out above were read. 9. Counsel for the College referred the Committee to the copy of the certificate of conviction from the Crown Court at Cardiff dated 21 st March 2017 and the Particulars of the Indictment thereto in support of the charges. The first offence related to four Category A indecent video/movie images of young girls aged between 12 and 15. The second offence related to one static image involving bestiality between a female and a large animal. Counsel for the College also relied upon the transcripts of the hearing relating to the guilty plea on 4 th January 2017 and sentencing on 8 th February All the images were found on the Respondent s computer when a search warrant was executed by the South Wales police. 10. Counsel for the College relied on the certificate of conviction as proof thereof pursuant to Rule 23.3(a) of the 2004 Rules which provides: The fact that a person has been convicted of a criminal offence may be proved by the production of a certified copy of the certificate of conviction or an extract conviction. 11. Counsel for the College also relied on the transcript of the proceedings as set out above and the Respondent s s, which she contended, contained implicit admission to the fact that he was convicted. 12. The Legal Assessor advised that the Committee was entitled to rely upon the certificate of conviction as proof of the conviction. 13. The Committee found the convictions proved based upon the above documentation, in particular the certificate of conviction. Decision of the Disciplinary Committee on Fitness to Practise 14. Counsel for the College submitted that the test for considering whether a conviction renders a respondent unfit to practise is, to all intents and purposes, the same as that for assessing whether the behaviour amounts to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, namely whether the conduct falls far short of that which is expected of a member of the veterinary profession. She explained that there was no burden or standard of proof involved in determining the issue of fitness to practise. It is a matter for the Committee s judgement. She referred to paragraph 15 of the RCVS Disciplinary Committee Procedure Guidance which provides:

4 A conviction may be related to professional or personal behaviour and whether it renders a respondent veterinary surgeon unfit to practise is a matter of judgment for the Disciplinary Committee. Behaviour unconnected with the practice of veterinary surgery can cause concerns about the protection of animals or the wider public interest. 15. The wider public interest includes upholding the reputation of the veterinary profession and maintaining public confidence in the profession. 16. Counsel for the College submitted that the behaviour of the Respondent as found proved in the convictions includes the following aggravating features: a. The behaviour was exploitative; b. The behaviour constituted sexual misconduct; c. The offences should be regarded as multiple offences. 17. Counsel for the College submitted that possession of indecent images of young children is inherently so deplorable and egregious that it must constitute conduct falling far short of that to be expected of a member of the profession and is certainly liable to bring the profession into disrepute. Further, she submitted that possession of an extreme pornographic image, defined as grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character, which depicts in an explicit and realistic way an act of bestiality must of its very nature fall far below the standard of conduct expected of a member of the veterinary profession. 18. The Legal Assessor confirmed that the test for determining whether a conviction renders a respondent unfit to practise is, to all intents and purposes, the same as that for assessing whether the behaviour amounts to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. He added that it was appropriate at this stage to consider any aggravating and mitigating circumstances relating to the conviction providing, in respect of the latter, that they did not amount to personal mitigation. He advised that the Committee should determine whether it accepted any aggravating or mitigating factors put forward. 19. The Committee accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor and the submissions of Counsel for the College. 20. The Committee considered whether there were any mitigating circumstances. It noted that the offences themselves related to possession of the material on 19 th August The Respondent had not ceased practising as a veterinary surgeon at that time. Moreover, the material in effect represented multiple images; four of them were videos and there were in all five types of file held on the Respondent s computer: four videos and one still image. Therefore the Committee did not, in the circumstances, consider that there were any mitigating factors. 21. The Committee has reached the conclusion that the Respondent s possession of this material which has led to his convictions was so reprehensible as to merit the description disgraceful.

5 It considers that by possessing this material, the Respondent has brought disgrace on the profession and will have undermined confidence in it. It therefore finds that the convictions have rendered the Respondent unfit to practise veterinary surgery. Decision of the Disciplinary Committee on Sanction 22. The Committee recognised that, notwithstanding its finding that the convictions renders the Respondent unfit to practise veterinary surgery, it retained discretion to take no further action, postpone judgement or impose any sanction including a reprimand or warning as to future conduct, a direction to suspend his registration or to remove him from the Register. 23. The Legal Assessor advised that when approaching the matter of sanction, the Committee should exercise the principle of proportionality and take into account any relevant aggravating or mitigating factors. 24. The Committee did not find that there were aggravating factors in the case other than as recited above. The only personal mitigating factors that it considered were the fact that the Respondent pleaded guilty to the charges, he has not been convicted of any offence before or since and he has not previously appeared before this Committee. It does not consider that the statement that he has determined not to renew his registration is a matter of any significance to the issue of sanction. 25. The Committee first considered taking no further action or postponement. It determined that neither was appropriate. To adopt either course would not uphold the reputation of the profession nor maintain public confidence in it. 26. The Committee next considered imposing a sanction short of directing the Respondent s removal from the register. It considered that the case was too serious to adopt any such course. It had regard to the public interest and the need to maintain standards of conduct and behaviour. It considered the Respondent s behaviour, which concerned the exploitation of children and an animal to be so repugnant and deplorable as to make any sanction other than a direction to the Registrar to remove the Respondent s name from the register wholly inappropriate. 27. The Committee has determined that the Respondent s behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with being a member of the veterinary profession. It therefore directs the Registrar to remove the Respondent s name, Carlos Egido Cortes, from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons. DISCIPLINARY COMMTTEE 8 AUGUST 2017

HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC

HEARING HEARD IN PUBLIC MAYCOCK, Andrew Edward Registration No: 170502 PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE MAY 2018 Outcome: Erased with Immediate order of Suspension Andrew Edward MAYCOCK, a dental nurse,