The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has agreed to adjourn multiple charges against a Hampshire-based veterinary surgeon who first registered in 1950, following his undertakings firstly to request removal from the RCVS Register and secondly never apply to be restored to it.
At yesterday's hearing, William Bamber Cartmell of Wickham, near Fareham, was due to face seven heads of charge containing "serious allegations" relating to his provision of expert evidence in a case involving the RSPCA; his certification, following clinical examination, of the health of two horses for a prospective purchaser; and his clinical competence during treatment of a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel called Milly.
However, before the Committee considered any of the facts behind these charges - all of which Mr Cartmell denied - the College submitted an application suggesting that they should be adjourned, providing that Mr Cartmell agreed to the three undertakings (the third being not to act as an expert witness in litigation in future). The College also suggested that, should Mr Cartmell subsequently apply to be restored to the Register, the Committee should resume its consideration of the charges, along with his breach of the undertakings.
The Committee was advised that none of the complainants in the case - which could have exceeded four weeks and incurred considerable costs - dissented from the proposed course of action. It also heard that Mr Cartmell had recently retired from his practice, which was now closed and his clients dispersed to other practices. In over 60 years of practising, there had been no adverse disciplinary findings against him.
Speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, its Chairman, Professor Peter Lees, said: "Having carefully considered the matters put before us, we have concluded that it would not be in the public interest to refuse the College's application and proceed with this case.
"We are satisfied that the undertakings offered by the Respondent protect the welfare of animals and uphold the reputation of the profession. [These undertakings also] go beyond any sanction that this Committee could impose at the conclusion of a contested hearing where any of the heads of charge were found proven.
"We do not consider that it would be proportionate for either party to incur the substantial costs of a contested hearing. We have also paid particular regard to the age of the Respondent and to his length of service without any adverse findings having been made against him."
PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vets.
Sounds like he jumped before he could be pushed
Wynne
Or more likely the RCVS made a sensible suggestion to which he agreed; a rather nicer way of putting it. The name rings a vague bell in my deteriorating memory; I think that at one time he was a very respected member of the profession.
Tim.
I downloaded the charge sheet and it's horrendous, but I agree that Royal College were sensible in saving us the cost of a hearing estimated to last 4 weeks, and he's off the Register so the main objective was achieved
PS I didn't know you could get Immobilon now
William Cartmell is the vet the breeder of my Springer recommends on her website (he docks) :-(
Unless you work it, if it's docked then the breeder was breaking the law in selling it to you
Yep, I'm aware of that. She had actually left one of the litter undocked for me as she knew I didn't want it docked and would only be going so far as field trials.
In that case fine-though I think the risk of injury to working spaniels is exaggerated so would personally refuse to dock
So a man at the end of his career decides that he no longer has the will to fight charges which he denies, and instead leaves a profession which he has served - with an unblemished record - for sixty years.
Presuming his guilt is unwarranted. We should have more respect both for our colleagues and for the abiding principle of 'innocent till proven guilty'. Suggesting guilt without knowledge of the case is pretty much the textbook definition of a disparaging remark - which is surely unprofessional according to the GtoPC.
Would it be too much to ask for a rephrasing and associated apology, Wynne?
Have you read the charge sheet JHL?
awardingbody.rcvs.org.uk/.../cartmell-william-bamber-september-2012-charges
Once it gets to this stage it is unlikely that the charges are completely incorrect - they are very thoroughly investigated before this stage. It would be difficult to defend these actions really. He may feel he is not guilty of disgraceful conduct, but I think few would agree with him.
It makes for alarming reading, certainly. But I'd point out that the colleague in question denies the charges, and has not at this point had any proven. It's therefore not reasonable for the rest of us to decide on his guilt - we all pay our subs for the privilege of being put before the DC after all, and who buys a horse, only to pull the cart themself?
Were he to be found guilty of certain of the charges, I'd be the first to throw stones - or rather, second after Wynne - but until that point is reached, speculation and gossip are unprofessional. Hence the suggestion to rephrase: a discussion of the charge sheet is one thing; assumption of guilt quite another.