So good morning, good afternoon, good evening, whatever time it is, wherever you are in the world, in the country, er and certainly whatever temperature it is, or, or how light it is outside. Good greetings as is appropriate to your situation. So, my name's Phillip Cowburn.
I'm an academic lawyer and barrister specialising in criminal and professional disciplinary law. And it was quite exciting actually, when I saw, the RCBS's announcement and, and the build up to the announcement in terms of their new private prosecution's protocol. It allows the RCBS to do some things, and we're going to talk about that today, that actually go beyond that of a regulator and crosses between my two boundaries, of criminal law and professional disciplinary law.
So we'll do the introductions first. Like I say, my name's Phillip Cowburn. I am a barrister, that teaches.
So I'm a senior lecturer in law, responsible for all of the law programmes in London, for Arden University, which, if you've not heard of us, are fantastic, fantastically flexible, offering lots of different, degree programmes that you can do from the comfort of your own living room. I'm also a member of the Criminal Bar Association. I've been involved with some research with them.
The Association of Regulatory and Disciplinary Lawyers, and also, I'm grateful to the BBA and the BBNA for making me associate members of both of their, associations. They are of much benefit to me, and they help with my research and I'm grateful to be able to give back a little bit to their members by way of, the provision of, of CPD more generally in the veterinary industry. So, that's a little bit about my background.
If you're looking at this in a group, I'd suggest. That you have a bit of a chat, do a bit of an icebreaker between yourselves, if you don't already know each other, can often be quite valuable to know what people's backgrounds are and to understand the nature of, of what they do. And their views on things like this, you'll have all come across clients that you think are behaving criminally, and.
Chances are they won't have been prosecuted or, or they'll have received a slap on the wrist, for the way that they're treating their animals or, or for what they're doing. You'll also have probably met, vets and and vet nurses or people that purport to be vets or vet nurses and and are practising, perhaps not in the way that you'd think, best, and that of course angered you, I suspect. We're going to talk about all of that today.
But ultimately, have a bit of an introduction, and there's a bit of an introduction to me. So what are we going to do today? Well, we're gonna look at what private prosecutions are.
We're gonna consider the context of the newer protocol that the RCBS of of are trialling as of the first of April this year, so, so not that long ago about. About 20 days or so ago. I I'm going to refer to that as, as the PPP or the private prosecution's protocol throughout today.
It's full title is actually the RCBS protocol for the investigation and private prosecution of a legal practise, but that's a bit of a mouthful, so we'll call it the PPP for today. We're gonna look at the merits of the pitfalls. Of that protocol of PPP and and consider is it a good thing, is it a bad thing, and query whether or not the RCVS best placed to act, because they have restrictions just like any regulator does and and they don't particularly have very many powers either.
So it's whether or not this. Is an appropriate protocol to follow and, and that's something that you can of course consider, as registrants, your CPD allows you to, to count things that take you towards, general knowledge in the area, and, and, and contextual knowledge, and, and this is one of those things. So, it's a little bit different to your usual clinical CPD's or your lunch and learns, but it's something that might be quite interesting for you to, for you to think about.
In terms of the method I'm going to adopt for today's CPD, there'll be lots of thought provocation, there'll be lots of questions. We are 20 days into the scheme. So there aren't very many answers generally yet.
This is a very much an early, evaluation. Is the scheme a good thing generally? Do we think it's something to support?
Obviously the RCBS do, they're trialling it, but do you? And do, do we? Certainly even, even the academic lawyers that research these things aren't sure yet because we've no evidence to base it on.
So this is going to be quite speculative in its nature. And with any luck at the end of this trial, there'll be some data, and it may be that you log back onto the webinar vet and see another, one from me, considering how this has gone and how the trial has developed over its, over its course. Which I suspect will be quite short, given the budget that the RCVS have, have given to it probably only plays for about 2.5 prosecutions.
But also. I'm gonna use what I call a technique of springboard empowerment, and what that's gonna do is allow you, whether you're watching this on your own or in your groups, to pause the recording at certain points and consider for yourselves what the benefits or, or the pitfalls or the points of evaluation might be for this topic area, . And what that will then let you do is go on and, and do some further reading and, and further develop that CPD that you gained today through this recording.
Into a much more. Rounded experience through your own specialist research in the bits of today that particularly interested or or provoked a response in you as a professional, as a person, and as somebody that's generally interested in the way these things run. On that point, there is going to be some stop and think, some stop and talk, sections.
So all I'll ask you to do at that stage, you'll see the recording's probably a little under 1 hour. The, all I'll ask you to do at that stage is stop the recording, press pause, and have a think on your own or a chat with the people that you're watching this with, to enable you. To, really engage actively in the CPD, engage in active reflection, engaging in active, evaluation in terms of, in, in terms of this requirement, which is of course a CPD requirement that, that you engage in that reflection and, and that, that, evaluation.
So, a little under hour but you'll still get your full, full CPD allowance on the basis that you've thought the recorded and, and done some work as well, so don't worry too much about that. So we'll start by considering what an ordinary prosecution is. So this is the things that you see on the news, it's the things that the police deal with that going to court.
So, let's take a pub brawl, for example. So the police rock up at the pub on Blues and twos, and they, Break a fight up outside this pub. They do an investigation.
It turns out that the two defendants were drunk, and they were just going at each other because one of them looked at the other funny. So they both get charged with, let's say, an assault, an ABH or an affra, public order offence, something of that nature. It doesn't really matter for our purposes today, what, what they'd be charged with, but they get charged with something.
And the prosecuting authority within the process of that, that charging period, and I'm not going into too much detail on this, so don't worry too much, but the prosecuting authority will consider something called the full code test. Now, that's something that the RCVS have adopted and we'll talk about in just a moment. But what that is, is they consider two questions.
Firstly, is it in the public interest to prosecute? So, does the public require that we prosecute this particular case, or is it something that's technically a crime, but that isn't in the public interest to prosecute for, for various reasons? If it's in the public interest to prosecute.
And there's no particular order that you consider these. Most people do the evidential first and then public interest, but it doesn't matter. If it's in the public interest to prosecute, it must also be evidenttially sound, so it must pass the evidential test, which is the question of whether or not there is sufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution.
Is there a reasonable prospect of conviction? At court. So is there enough evidence, admissible evidence that can go before the court to think, yeah, on the balance, we'd probably get a conviction there.
It's important to note that the full code test isn't to the criminal standard, it's not. So far as the tribunal can be sure or in old money, beyond all reasonable doubt, the law has changed, but it means the same thing. It's to the civil standard at that stage, it's on the balance, do we have enough evidence?
At that point, the prosecuting authority will lay information at the magistrate's court, and that's the point at which it becomes a formal criminal proceeding. And the judge or a magistrate or a legal adviser will review the file and make sure it's all in order, and if it is, we continue to a prosecution and the Crown Prosecution Service at this point, the general prosecution authority, or indeed anybody else with statutory powers to prosecute. The RSPCA for example, the Serious Fraud Office.
Attorney General's office, the list goes on. . Will prosecute at court, they'll come to court, they'll send a barrister or a solicitor, and, and they'll come to court, and they'll prosecute the defendant.
The defendant will be represented and the court will make a decision, be that a judge or jury in the Crown Court, or a panel of lay magistrates or a district judge in the magistrate's court. And then there's a verdict. That's the ordinary process.
Publicly funded, so you'll see the police generally investigate, and the Crown Prosecution Service generally are the prosecuting authority that deals with, with the legal side of it. So what's the difference between that and a private prosecution? Well, that's what we're going to consider today and we're going to look at it in the context of the new prosecution's protocol from the RCBS that the PPP I referred to earlier.
So What I want you to do before we consider section 6. I stop the recording, in fact, I'm going to go back a slide, is stop the recording for just a moment. And consider whether or not you think the police and the CPS should be the only people that charge and the only people that prosecute a court.
Should it be these criminal justice agencies that always prosecute criminal matters, or should there be the need for a private prosecution, so something other than the state. Prosecuting. So pause the recording.
Should the state have all the power, or should people have a little bit of power to, to hold people to criminal accounts? So pause and have a think about that. So now you've Thought about that question.
It may be that you've come to the conclusion, most vets and vet nurses do, from experience, that the the little guy should have some power. Right. Well, you may not.
You may say, no, the state know what they're doing, the state should deal with it all. Well, the fact is that the state gives the people a little bit of power, but it's restricted. Section 61 of the Prosecution offences Act 1985 preserved the former historical right for a private entity, so a person or an organisation to prosecute.
To institute criminal proceedings, . In court, so the act foresaw that there was a need, so Parliament, when they passed it in 1985, foresaw that there was a need to ensure that the private citizen, the ordinary person on the street, could still hold people to criminal account. They recognised that in all cases, the police and the CPS may not be equipped or willing to pursue a prosecution that should happen in any event.
But they restricted that right as the government do. They like to be able to retain power, so they give you a little bit and then they take it away. Because in section 62 of the same act, so in 61, they gave you the power, in 62, they gave the Director of Public Prosecution, so the head of the Crown Prosecution Service, the ability to take over a private prosecution.
They can do that with any outcome, so they can take over a prosecution and carry it on themselves, or they can take over a prosecution and discontinue that prosecution against the defendant, so they can stop a prosecution effectively. They have no power to stop a private prosecution, but they do have the power to take it over and then stop their own prosecution. So a little bit of a loophole there that lets the state retain power.
So this is the context in which the RCVS protocol operates. They've used the power in Section 61, but they've also. Put themselves at risk of being subject to the power under 62.
And the CPS taking over the case. Now the CPS do that for a variety of reasons. And they'll do that because it turns out actually that we should probably be prosecuting this, or they'll do that because it would be inappropriate for a private person to carry on prosecuting it, or they'll do that because they want to stop it, and they'll take over and cease the prosecution.
Ultimately, the reason doesn't, doesn't matter, for our purposes today, what you need to be aware of is that the RCBS could institute proceedings. Against a defendant, and then the Crown Prosecution Service could adopt those proceedings. So that's a risk there that they've already potentially spent thousands and thousands of pounds of your fees conducting the proceeding and instituting it, but then the government come over and take it.
So is, is it, is there a risk there of your fees being being wasted, should that occur? Well, that's a question for you to consider. But ultimately, 61 gives the RCBS the enshrined power to confirms the enshrined power to prosecute.
Section 62 allows the government to take over. So, private prosecutions work in a very similar way to ordinary prosecutions. So there's a private investigation, of course, to, to prosecute somebody criminally, you must have the relevant evidence to prosecute them.
So there'd have to be a private investigation, and that in itself could cost several 100 if not a couple of 1000 depending on the type of investigation it was. And then the private entity should generally as best practise, apply the full code test. The RCVS have adopted this.
It's some private prosecutors try not to, especially private individuals that try, don't quite understand the full code test. And the RCVS though clearly have taken advice and do adopt it. And so they pass the evidential stage, it passes the public interest stage, it moves on, and the private entity then lays information at the mags.
So the magistrate's court, the judge, Justice, or justice's advisor will consider the file, make sure all's in order. And then at that point, the private entity then prosecutes the court, and generally, that will mean instructing, counsel, or indeed a solicitor, to go and prosecute the matter at court. And ultimately, then it, it, it runs exactly the same as a, as a public prosecution.
It it runs according to the same rules of evidence, the same procedural rules, and the same delays, as everything else. So it's worth noting that there's no special treatment for private prosecutors. It's, it's run effectively the same as any other public prosecution.
And the burdens are the same. So even though the CPS has a multi-million pound budget, and the RCBS have given themselves 50,000 pounds, the burdens on them, albeit the RCBS has less of a burden because it's smaller, . It's the same, the evidential burden, the public interest burden, and the procedural burden are all the same in all of the cases.
So the procedural burdens that apply to the CPS prosecuting a case apply equally to the RCBS prosecuting a case. In terms of the court procedures, the costs of instructing counsel, arguably higher for the RCBS on the basis that it's done privately, whereas CPS and, and even defence cases are set fees, and are set by the government, ultimately. And so higher costs likely to instruct counsel, or solicitors in a private prosecution than it would be in a public one.
It's worth noting that the RCBS have estimated that a prosecution in the magistrate's court could cost up to £20,000 and their entire budget is 50,000 pounds. So if you do the math roughly, not counting investigations, that's. 2.5 prosecutions a year, well, for the for the for the period of the trial and any of that.
That's not a lot. That's, that's 2 defendants, 2.5, but you can't half prosecute somebody.
So, so 2 defendants, that could be held to criminal account in theory by the RCBS on their budget. So it's something to bear in mind that actually this is a very costly endeavour, that the RCBS has gone down and ultimately, Should they be doing it, and, and I don't think they know. Having read the minutes of the council, it's something that seems to be very much a working trial.
It's not a trial that is a trial for a trial's sake, it's a trial to see if this actually works, . Their budget's small. It's been overseen by their head of legal.
It's not operating under a delegated function. The head of legals taking the decisions personally, it seems. Of course, I'm not involved in the process, but that seems to be what the press releases and the minutes of the council meetings are suggesting.
And now, ultimately, it's. It's a really interesting concept because this is a relatively small regulator. It's not something like the NMC for example, who, who, who are arguably the largest re regulator in the country by number.
And of registrants. It's A very, very small budget in context, and they're only focusing on two very specific offences, which I'll come on to. In just a moment, but essentially the effect of Section 6 is that the RCBS has no statutory powers as a prosecuting authority, but they can institute criminal proceedings as a private prosecution.
Where the CPS don't have to in law take over the prosecution, and they don't choose to take over the prosecution. So that's the relevant. Sort of provision there that all should be an act, CPS don't have to take over something necessarily, but they can choose to, or there are certain circumstances where they are compelled to take over prosecution.
So, the trial protocol was active from the first of April this year, and so we are a matter of days into the protocol. A couple of weeks. And it focuses on two very, very, very specific criminal offences.
Under the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, and it's section 19, which is, the prohibition, the restriction, the criminal restriction of practise of surgery by unqualified persons. Excuse me. And section 2, and the pro the prohibition of, of the use of the title, say, veterinary surgeon when you're not one.
So two very specific offences, one was that report, the RC we get reports on every year. It's important to note that they are, they have limited the trial to these two offences. So if, for example, a, a vet damaged an animal, and as much as I object to this, they're considered property in law, so it would be the offence of criminal damage, and the RCVF wouldn't under their current protocol, prosecute that as criminal damage.
Because it doesn't fall within the trial period, they'd make a referral to the police or the RSPCA in terms of looking at criminal damage or animal cruelty offences, in respect to, depending on the facts. Now Section 19 and Section 20 are are almost procedural offences. They, they're, they're quite easy to evidence, either someone's done it or they've not.
They'll generally be documentary evidence or quite clear witness evidence over a period of time, that gives rise to the fact that that there's been a breach of the relevant sections in Section 19 or section 20 of the 1966 Act. Now, that's a positive for the RCBS because it, it, it limits their costs and it limits the liability because it'll be a much more, it'll be a much more straightforward case. For the RCBS to, to, to investigate and to lay the information, more chance of the information being approved and more chance of getting a conviction at court if the evidence is stronger.
And certainly, both of those offences in my submission, would generally always, unless there's a very specific circumstance that arises, be in the public interest to prosecute. So generally that foul code test on, on these two offences is is going to be quite easy to pass. Evidentially, there'll generally be be strong evidence there, sustained evidence, documentary evidence, or sustained incorporated witness evidence, .
And it, it will be in the public interest to prosecute because ultimately veterinary practise is something that the public at large holds dear. And certainly is something that that the public should be protected from, in terms of those practising illegally, . So I qualify.
So, before we move on to the merits, I want you to pause again. And consider what sort of View really holistically you have on. The fact that they've restricted themselves to two offences for this trial period.
Does it make sense? Does it make sense with 50,000 pounds to focus on the two offences and two offences only, they don't have enough money to prosecute all of them that come in. And they get in excess of, certainly in excess of 3 at the very least, reports of this sort of thing a year.
So that there will be a decision to make. Can't prosecute all of them, so which ones do you, do you prosecute? And also, do you think it's a good use of, of the fees that, that you pay to the RCBS?
Because ultimately that's where the money's coming from, 50,000 pounds worth of your fees for this trial, . Is it worth it? And that's the question really, isn't it?
It it it is something. Is something this costly with such a relatively low impact, because people will know that, that, that it's low impact, because they've published exactly how much they're going to spend. Worth the time, the effort, and, and the money, or could the 50,000 pounds be put to best use elsewhere?
So have a pause, have a thing, have a chat in your groups if you're doing this together. What do you think? Is this worth it?
Is it a good idea? Reflect on that for for just a moment. So pause the recording and reflect.
So now you've spent 1015 minutes or so having a, having a heated debate about that. We can move on to consider some of the merits, of, of, of these issues really. So It's worth, I think, saying and making really, really clear that there are merits to this protocol, in my view, but there are also significant pitfalls.
And we'll talk about those. But first, What's the biggest factor here? Well, the biggest factor is that ultimately.
We're dealing with the criminal courts. This isn't a civil lawsuit. This isn't something that that can be batted down the line.
It's not something that results in just money. These are things that result in criminal convictions that will live with a person for the rest of their lives, won't always be disclosable necessarily. They will live with a person for the rest of their lives, they will have a criminal record.
It takes somebody from good character to bad character. And that impacts On the real world. So the RCBS here by by implementing this protocol have Clearly placed themselves in a position where they feel that it's incumbent upon them to have that effect on people.
When they breach these two specific sections, but The question is, surely. The R CBS here are only using. This private prosecution's protocol and have chosen these two offences specifically to protect their own commercial interests.
It's a question, and you can consider it properly. Not saying it's true, I'm not saying it's false, but it's certainly a question, because ultimately, The practise of veterinary surgery requires registration with the RCBS as does the use of the title of veterinary surgeon. Those registrations bring fees, and those fees provide the RCBS's operating budget.
So actually, are they here using the criminal law to protect their commercial income? It's a question. And it's a question that can properly be considered.
Now That's something to think about. Do you think, as the RCBS report, they're here, they're exercising this protocol to protect the public and to protect the reputation of the profession? Or are they using it to protect their own commercial income streams?
I sus suspect different people will have different views on it. But it's worth noting that, that not a lot of regulators engage in private prosecutions. There are a few that do, and the RCBS have taken evidence from them in developing this protocol.
But there are, the, the major ones don't make a habit of it. So have a think about that. What do you think the RCBS's true purpose is here?
Do you think it is to protect their own commercial income, or do you think it's to protect the profession and to protect the titles? So pause the recording and have a think about that. So, now you've paused the recording and considered whether or not you think that the RCBS are acting publicly spiritedly or commercially.
We can move on to think about some of the more specific merits. So, what are the merits? Of The protocol, so what does it allow the RCVS to do under this new protocol, the new PPP, that they weren't able to do previously?
What does it allow them to protect the title, does it allow them to protect the profession or not? Does it allow them to protect their commercial interest or not? Does it allow them to do all of these things?
So pause, think. And consider whether or not the RCBS. Are overwhelmed with merits.
Or there are just a couple that are present. So, now you've had time to think about the merits. What do you think?
There's no slide with these because you'll see the next slide is the pitfalls, because everybody will think merits are a different thing. This is why it's really important in, in these sessions to, to engage with other people and to, and to have a think for yourself because. Ultimately, you may think that protecting commercial income is a merit.
Or you might not, you might think that actually that just undermines the entire regulator, because they shouldn't be worried about their commercial income, they should be worried about the profession. So it depends what you think. And, and any thought's valid.
There's no right or wrong answer here in law. It's a case of really reflecting on what you think as a registrant, or, or even not, you may be a VCA or, or a practise manager or a receptionist, but it's, it's about you engaging with your professional development and thinking, what does this mean? What does it mean and consider whether or not.
A merit in your view, could be a pitfall. So, so one of the merits I think this has is that it does allow the RCBS to control the process much more where an individual misuses the title. The Crown Prosecution Service and certainly the police probably aren't that bothered about an offence under Section 20 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act.
They've frankly got murders and assaults and rapes to be dealing with. Are they going to give so much resource attention to an offence contrary to the 1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act? Well, probably not.
Certainly not as much as they're going to give to a murder or to a rape. They're not going to give it that attention and arguably rightly so. But it does allow the veterinary regulator, the RCBS, to retain control in most circumstances of those prosecutions, and ultimately it's probably not something that that the Crown Prosecution Service will take over.
The director probably won't exercise his power under Section 62 in cases such as that, because, And I say this with the greatest respect to the title, the offence is relatively, as far as criminal offences go, inconsequential, insignificant. So it does allow the RCBS to retain those controls. And I think that's a merit.
But some people might not, because the, the flip side to that is the fact that it allows an interested party, i.e. Someone that's got commercial, you know, the opportunity to commercially gain from a prosecution, to institute those prosecutions to protect their own commercial interests.
And that's not what the criminal law's for. The criminal law is there to protect society. It's not there to protect business interests.
So my side I'm, I'm quite a, quite a humanist criminal lawyer. I'm, I'm not one that subscribes to the fact that the criminal law just protects big business. I don't think it does.
I think it protects everybody. Slightly romantic view, I accept, but that, that being the point, what it doesn't, isn't there to do is is support commercial ventures. That's what the civil law does.
Contract law, tort law. That's what that does, and there would be causes of action in civil law for things like this. But it is nonetheless a criminal offence and, and it can be prosecuted.
And therefore the RCBS are entitled to do so. And it does retain the control, like I said. So there's a merit there, but also is that a pitfall?
Another merit is the fact that ultimately. This will protect the public. If a somebody is prosecuted and stopped from using the title of veterinary surgeon when they're not able to do so, it will protect the public.
But on the other hand, Could the 50,000 pounds be better spent educating the public? There's a question there. And it's a question that you should consider.
But there are merits to the protocol, and it, it is an admiral thing that the RCPS have done to try this. There are, there are other less significant regulators that that do it. I think the Farriers Association are one of them.
May be wrong, so check that, but off the top of my head I think they are. But the big regulators aren't there, the RCBS is probably the largest regulator to, to, in modern times, consider a policy on this and and advertise it so widely. So it's admirable that they're trying it.
It's just whether or not it's an appropriate thing. I guess the trial will only tell. But there are merits.
So another pause and things slide, Spring more empowerment. Pitfalls. What are the problems?
With this. There are a lot. I've already mentioned a couple of them.
The RCVS have instituted a protocol that allows them to privately prosecute some very specific offences, and they've given themselves a budget of 8000 pounds to do so. I'll start your discussion off with telling you that the RCBS have calculated that the average prosecution will cost them about 20,000 pounds. So, with that in mind, please consider, what you think some of the pitfalls are.
The obvious one is, is your starting point that I've just given you, but there are many others. So, have a pause, have a chat, have a think. And consider what you think the pitfalls of.
This new protocol on. Mhm. So, now you've paused and, and thought about some of the pitfalls.
Again, There's no slide because everybody will have a different view. The biggest pitfall I can see is that the trial is only limited in its resource. And there's two reasons I think that's a pitfall, principally, the fact that it's been advertised that they're only going to spend 50,000 on this, and most people will know once they've done two, which I'm sure they'll issue press releases about if they get convictions, .
They'll know their budget's been spent. So there's no incentive for anybody to stop doing what they're doing, because the police probably aren't going to investigate it. They are CBS have spent all of their money, so it's probably worth the risk of the reward.
Is what they'll consider So that's the big one. The other side of, of, of the financial issues is that ultimately, the RCBS are curtailing themselves for the period of this trial to prosecute 2.5 people.
So they're gonna have to pick. And at that stage, are you prosecuting one but not prosecuting another, and where do you draw the line? Do you prosecute no one, in which case the trial's pointless.
Do you prosecute first come, first serve, in which case you might prosecute someone who's objectively less guilty in terms of. The culpability Of course guilty is a a question of law, but culpability is a question of fact and degree, but someone who's less culpable, They've run out of money and somebody more culpable comes along and you can't afford to prosecute them. And that more, that, that person who is more culpable, but you can't afford to prosecute gets off because again, the police won't investigate it.
It's unlikely that the Crown Prosecution Service will take it all the way because they're under strain too. The RCVS have run out of money and, and the trial has ultimately created an injustice. Because one person's been prosecuted.
And the other hasn't. And it's an arbitrary financial decision that's resulted in that. So there's another big pitfall.
You'll have come up with others too. This will encourage people to report these matters to the RCBS, which is a good thing. Objectively, our CVS should be aware of who's practising whilst not being entitled to do so.
But that will create a heavier burden on their case load team, and again, 2.5 prosecutions worth of cash. Or are they setting themselves up to fail?
Is the question. And I think it's a valid one. I think it's a valid question.
The issue of resource here, CPS has got a multi-million pound budget. The police have got a multi-million pound budget for investigation. National Crime Agency, again, multi-million pound budget.
The backing of the police intelligence and the intelligence services, MI5, MI6 GTHQ. Public prosecutions have an enormous amount of money behind them as a system, as an institution. The RCBS has got 500.
2.5 prosecutions. There's a this, there's a, you know, there's a difference there, and it's a big one, and it's one that's worth thinking about.
So yeah, are the CVS best place to ask? We know about the merits, we know about the pitfalls. You'll have come up with some that I've not mentioned and they're perfectly valid, but are they are CVS best placed to prosecute these offences?
So, have a pause, have a chat, have a think with the people that are around you, even on your own if you're watching this independently. Have a pause, have a chat, have a think and consider R. The RCBS best placed to prosecute offences under section 19 and Section 20 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act.
So practising legally, performing surgery illegally, not entitled to do so, not qualified to do so, and using the title of veterinary surgeon whilst not qualified to do so. Just one of my vet nurse colleagues out there, I am all in favour of the veterinary nurse becoming a, protected title. In fact, I have offered the BBNA my support in doing so.
And they are doing admirable work, and I think certainly the fact that that the RBN isn't technically a legally protected title in the same way that veterinary surgeons are, the doctors are, the barristers are, is certainly a disservice considering all you do, so. Hopefully, the law will change and RVN will become a protected title, but currently it does say, in terms of section 20, we're concerned with that using the title of veter surgeon when not qualified to do so. So have a pause, have a think, have a chat.
Are the RCVS based best placed to act when they see identify a breach of those sections. The commission of those offences, or should they just refer it on? Should they prepare the case file and send it to the police for prosecution, or send it to another statutory prosecuting authority.
In terms of offences under Section 19 and Section 20, and both have a think, have a chat. What do you think? Are the RCBS best placed to act?
Pause the recording and consider that. So you've had a pause, you've had a think, you've had a chat, are the are CVS best placed right? Well, I'm gonna start this with with an argument as to why they're not.
So the RCVS have no powers of seizure. They cannot compel a witness to cooperate. If that witness is a registrant to their register, then they can compel them to operate under professional regulation grounds and, and challenge, you know, challenge their professional standing, and discipline them if they don't cooperate.
But if they're not, if it's an ordinary person, they have absolutely no jurisdiction to challenge them. They could apply once he gets to court for a witness summons, but they have no power to know what that witness knows. They can't go into somebody's house and search it.
They can't seize property. They can't make an arrest. Other than under section 24A, but that won't help them investigatively.
So they don't have the, the requisite powers to investigate unless someone cooperates. And who's going to cooperate in their own prosecution if they don't have to. The police have got teeth.
They are CBS The whole nature of the offences under section 19 and Section 20, is that someone who is not qualified to practise, therefore not on the register, is committing the offence. The RCBS can't compel them to cooperate. So how are they going to adequately investigate this?
They'll rely on third-party evidence. They'll rely on begrudged clients, which ultimately makes the witness bias. And slightly more unreliable.
Because they don't like the defendant. They'll rely on documentary evidence that they can't get from the defendant, arguably unless they cooperate, which they're unlikely to. So it would be documentary evidence secondhand.
An invoice, for example. The continuity of that evidence could be questioned. Often people breaching these acts will do so impliedly, they won't write something down.
It'll be oral, so you're then relying on witness testimony. It could be months old before it gets written down in the form of a witness statement. Again, there's a challenge there.
So because the RCVF don't have the legal teeth to investigate, really. They're going to face difficulty in securing evidence that passes the evidential stage of the full code test. And in those circumstances they will struggle to institute prosecution.
Certainly, if I was asked to evaluate the evidence in a typical case I suspect the RCBS will get, my advice might be. That Ultimately, There is a prima facie case, but the likelihood of a prosecution is slim. The likelihood of a conviction, sorry, is slim.
Because although The full code test is done on the balance. The trial is done on the criminal standards so far as the tribunal of facts or the magistrates or the district judge or a jury can be sure of guilt. And actually, Can they be sure based off a couple of conversations.
What's the difference between a dog groomer and a vet? There's an evidential question there. Did they hold themselves out as a veterinary surgeon?
Did they practise veterinary surgery? And unless you've got strong evidence of one of those things, you're not going to pass the full code test and you're certainly not going to get a conviction. So the lack of teeth really is a big problem.
And the RCBS have identified this. They, they recognise that they have very limited investigative abilities in terms of Investigating these things without the cooperation of the, the alleged offender. So there's a question there as to whether or not they're the best people to act.
It may be more appropriate, some might argue for the RCBS to prepare the file, so do all of the legwork. And then pass it to the police for an easy win. Certainly that's something that, that could be drawn up.
An agreement between local police forces, the National Police Chiefs Council, and the RCBS to support prosecutions. The RCBS in their in their new protocol have recognised the fact that they are willing to work with statutory prosecuting authorities, so the police, CPS, the RSPCA, so on and so forth. Some may say that's the better option.
Others may say no, we should retain control certainly in respect of practise of veterinary surgery and the use of the title. It's a question. And it's a question that requires a lot of reflection.
Both I think from our CBS registrants whose fees are paying for this trial. And from the RCBS itself, and I, I have every confidence actually that the RCBS will, and I, I don't just say that to appease them. I, I have no reason to appease them, but I, I, I do think actually.
I have every confidence that they are going to actively reflect on this trial. The papers in the pro that that are in the protocol, the minutes of the meetings I've considered do suggest, That this is a well-informed trial, and it is just that a trial, and I'll be very, very interested to see. Where it goes.
Because I think if this goes well, there is scope then for that to be extended. To other regulators and for the RCBS to have started a trend. But I suspect it might be viewed that the trial was maybe slightly too ambitious, with slightly too little resource.
But that only time will tell. So I'll be watching this trial with a close eye and I sus I suspect some of you will too. I'd certainly encourage you to.
Cos it's an interesting development in the world of professional regulation and in the world of criminal law, private prosecutions have been around since time immemorial. But this new protocol is an interesting development and I think has. Some teeth, some legs to to run.
So I'll be interested to see what happens as I'm sure you'll be. And, and ultimately, you've thought about the berets, the pitfalls and. Who's best placed to act.
And you'll have formed your own view. And it's that view that forms your CPD. Today, you've reflected on that and you've achieved those learning outcomes.
So as always, my contact details are on the screen. A little bit of a plug. It's not on there because frankly, I forgot to plug it when I wrote the Power fight.
But, my new guide, my new book is out, a straightforward guide to criminal law, and one of those chapters, was guest written by the wonderful Carly Lightfoot, Bachelor of Laws, Master of Laws. She is a specialist in animal law, and she has kindly written the animal crime chapter of my new book. It's 1299 from all good booksellers, a straightforward guide to criminal law, by Philip Cowburn, Philip G.
Cowburn, cause there's a consultant named Philip Cowburn, he got there first. Philip G. Coward, straightforward publishing, nice, cheap and cheerful book on criminal law.
The animal chapter is definitely worth a read. If anybody's impecunious and would like, to, perhaps have a, a copy at a reduced rate, do feel free to contact me. Otherwise, it's 1299 for good booksellers, and we all know that so far too much money anyway.
So, Thank you very much. You've been a pleasure, even though I've not seen any of you, because this is pre-recorded, but Rebecca, who is behind that little webinar vet logo, she's been a pleasure. And I, I, I am grateful for you taking the time to watch this webinar.
Of course, if you do have any questions, or would like me to come and do some CPD at your practise in person or, or via via video link, then feel free. To drop me an email, mention the webinar there and I'll, I'll make sure that you get a good deal because they are a fantastic organisation and they make CPD access, available and access to accessible to all, who subscribe to them. And so do get in touch if you need anything or you want anything or you've got any questions, keep reflecting on this protocol because it's an interesting development.
And make sure, I think that, that you keep your eye on it, because your fees are being spent on this at the end of the day. Final word from me, thank you for all that you do. You, you're all working extremely hard, the vets, the nurses, the VCAs, the receptionists, the practise managers, keep going.
And to the RCBS if any anybody from you are watching. Good work on the protocol. It's considered, it's well thought out, and there are pitfalls, but you've recognised them.
There are merits, and we thank you for, for, for trying. So thank you to everybody for listening. Thank you for the webinar for having me, and that does conclude the session for today.
I'm grateful to you.