Former veterinary surgeon’s thirteenth application for restoration to the Register refused

The Committee heard the thirteenth such application from Warwick Seymour-Hamilton on Tuesday 4 and Wednesday 5 August 2026.

From the outset the College had opposed the application for restoration on the basis that it felt Mr Seymour-Hamilton was not fit to be restored as a practising veterinary surgeon and would pose a risk to animal health and welfare. 

In making its decision the Committee considered the evidence submitted by Mr Seymour-Hamilton in his restoration application, as well as his oral evidence given directly at the hearing. 

In his evidence Mr Seymour-Hamilton denied any wrongdoing in regard to his original removal from the Register in 1994, which followed an inspection of his practice premises by the RCVS in 1993 which found unhygienic and unsterile conditions. 

In his evidence Mr Seymour-Hamilton said that the purpose of being restored to the Register was not to go back into clinical practice, but rather to ensure that his research into herbal antibiotics and herbal essential oils was recognised as a result of his professional status as a veterinary surgeon. 

In the College’s submissions to the Committee opposing his restoration it said that, while Mr Seymour-Hamilton said he had no intention of returning to clinical practice, if restored to the Register he would be free to do so, as it could place no restrictions on the type of veterinary work he engaged in once registered. 

In its opposition to the restoration application, the College also cited the fact that Mr Seymour-Hamilton had not accepted the original findings that led to his removal from the Register. Furthermore, over the course of the previous 12 hearings, it said he had demonstrated no insight into the original failings or to the serious concerns raised by the Committee at each of the previous hearings. 

These serious concerns include that he had not undertaken the training and development required to meet the day one competences after 32 years off the Register and previous admissions that he had, while off the Register, illegally performed two spays in France as well as trying out new, untested remedies on his own animals and on himself. 

The College submitted that readmitting Mr Seymour-Hamilton to the Register would also undermine public confidence in the profession. 

Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee noted that the focus of the applicant’s concerns was not on his personal responsibility for his failings or his professional obligations, but on his desire for credibility in promoting his herbal therapies. The applicant in his oral and written submissions stated that he does not want to return to the Register to practise veterinary surgery, but that in the absence of restoration, he would be denied the credibility for his research that he felt he deserved. The Committee cited the fact that the recognition of the validity of Mr Seymour-Hamilton’s research was not dependent on his professional status as a veterinary surgeon. 

“The Committee noted that the requirements for licencing of therapeutic agents was not dependent on professional registration. Removal from the Register did not remove the applicant’s academic qualifications. As such the Committee concluded this is an immaterial consideration in the determination of his suitability in being readmitted to the Register. His desire for validation and recognition for his research (which had not been the subject of meaningful peer or scientific review), did not in itself justify restoration to the Register.”

The Committee explained to Mr Seymour-Hamilton that a restoration application is not any form of appeal against the original hearing outcome in his 1994 case, and that the Committee has no legal power to recognise it as such - a fact which he accepted in cross examination by the Chair.

Accordingly, the Committee decided that it would not be in the public interest to restore Mr Seymour-Hamilton to the Register and refused his application. 

The full facts and findings of the Committee can be found on our Disciplinary Committee hearings webpage.