Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee -v- Howe [2002] NSWADT 191

Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee -v- Howe [2002] NSWADT 191

The Tribunal was comfortably satisfied that Particulars Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven and Nine were proved, that Dr Howe knowingly made false certifications and false or misleading statements about brucella ovis testing, created and transmitted a fraudulent interim laboratory report, and acted dishonestly in conduct directly connected with veterinary export certification. That conduct breached the Veterinary Surgeons' Code of Professional Conduct and, because if repeated or continued it was likely to damage Australia's international reputation in animal exports, amounted to serious misconduct in a professional respect. The dishonesty was not an error of judgment but demonstrated a...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Inquiry Into Complaints Against a Registered Veterinary Surgeon Under the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986 / Principal Matter; Decision on Complaints and Proposed Orders
Outcome
Complaints substantially proved; Tribunal found serious misconduct in a professional respect and that Dr Howe was not of good character. Particulars One, Eight and Ten were not proved. Proposed orders were made for removal from the register, costs, and revocation of confidentiality orders, subject to any party...
Legal Topics
['serious Misconduct in a Professional Respect' 'good Character' 'false Veterinary Certification' 'animal Export Certification' 'briginshaw Standard of Proof' 'removal From Register']
['administrative Law' 'professional Discipline' 'veterinary Practice Regulation'] ['serious Misconduct in a Professional Respect' 'good Character' 'false Veterinary Certification' 'animal Export Certification' 'briginshaw Standard of Proof' 'removal From Register']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Inquiry Into Complaints Against a Registered Veterinary Surgeon Under the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986 / Principal Matter; Decision on Complaints and Proposed Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Dr Peter Allan Howe was guilty of misconduct or serious misconduct in a professional respect under section 26(1)(c) of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986.' 'Whether Dr Peter Allan Howe was not of good character under section 26(1)(e) of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986.' 'Whether Dr Howe falsely certified that ram SM3 had met quarantine and brucella ovis testing requirements for export of semen to New Zealand.' 'Whether Dr Howe created or transmitted false laboratory reports and false or misleading statements to facilitate export approval.' 'What orders should be made under section 32 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1986 if the complaints were proved.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was comfortably satisfied that Particulars Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven and Nine were proved, that Dr Howe knowingly made false certifications and false or misleading statements about brucella ovis testing, created and transmitted a fraudulent interim laboratory report, and acted dishonestly in conduct directly connected with veterinary export certification. That conduct breached the Veterinary Surgeons' Code of Professional Conduct and, because if repeated or continued it was likely to damage Australia's international reputation in animal exports, amounted to serious misconduct in a professional respect. The dishonesty was not an error of judgment but demonstrated a...

Court Disposition

Complaints substantially proved; Tribunal found serious misconduct in a professional respect and that Dr Howe was not of good character. Particulars One, Eight and Ten were not proved. Proposed orders were made for removal from the register, costs, and revocation of confidentiality orders, subject to any party...

Orders

  • ['The name of Dr Peter Allan Howe be removed from the register of veterinary surgeons. Dr Howe may apply for restoration of his name to the register after two years from the date this decision comes into effect.' 'Dr Howe to pay the costs, as agreed or taxed, of the VSIC in relation to these proceedings.' 'The...