Former vet has twelfth attempt at restoration refused

A former veterinary surgeon who was removed from the Register in 1994, after his Kent practice was found to be unhygienic and unsterile with poor record keeping, has had his twelfth application to be restored to the Register of Veterinary Surgeons refused.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee considered the application from Warwick Seymour-Hamilton, which was opposed by the RCVS from the outset, at a hearing on Monday 7 July held at the RCVS offices at 1 Hardwick Street, London.

Mr Seymour-Hamilton made an application for the same reasons as before - to assist him in achieving recognition for his alleged herbal and natural remedy discoveries. As in the past, he indicated that he had no intention of going back into general practice. Mr Seymour-Hamilton once again also did not accept the original findings against him in 1994, stating that his practice premises were closed at the time. As with previous applications, he continued to raise matters in relation to the original hearing but was once again told this was inadmissible.

In considering his application, the Committee noted that the significant number of documents produced by Mr Seymour-Hamilton in support of his restoration application were not applicable to the factors the Committee was obliged to consider. It also took into account the oral submissions he provided as well as the evidence of his two character witnesses.

As with previous applications, the Committee noted that Mr Seymour-Hamilton has shown no real insight into the conduct underlying the original findings, nor has he shown insight into the matters identified by previous restoration hearings as raising serious concerns.

It considered that Mr Seymour-Hamilton has been off the Register for some 31 years and the College submitted he would need to undertake prolonged, intensive, formal retraining to ensure that he was now fit to practise. The Committee noted that he had not done so, and that restoration in such circumstances would pose significant risk to animal welfare.

The Committee also took into account that Mr Seymour-Hamilton had indicated that he had practised veterinary surgery while off the Register – including conducting two spay procedures in Calais, France, and treating two of his own dogs for cancer. It was also concerned by his reference to having cultured faecal bacteria in a witness’ kitchen, posing potential health and hygiene risks. The fact Mr Seymour-Hamilton thought such actions were compatible with him being on the Register and therefore upholding the professional standards expected of a veterinary surgeon, was felt, by the Committee, to be concerning in and of itself.

Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "Mr Seymour-Hamilton still lacks an understanding as to why he has not been restored in the past. Apart from additional CPD, he has not set about effectively addressing any of his shortcomings. He relies passionately on his research, yet he does not support that research with any peer-reviewed publications, indeed all his attempts to gain recognition have been rebuffed."

He added: "The Committee is firmly of the view that after such a prolonged period of failing to be reinstated as a veterinary surgeon, Mr Seymour-Hamilton has to face the reality that his continued applications, taking up time, resources and expense (which is ultimately borne by all those veterinary surgeons who are on the Register), are vexatious and ultimately unlikely to succeed.

"Whilst the College cannot prevent him from continuing to apply to be restored to the Register, Mr Seymour-Hamilton should by now realise that this is not a good use of the College’s finite resources. He is now 86 years old and has not practised for over thirty years and in fact has now been off the Register for longer than he was on it. This is now the twelfth time he has been found to be not fit to be restored to the Register. The Committee hopes Mr Seymour-Hamilton will now take time seriously to reflect and take into account the impact to all concerned of his continued applications, before deciding to submit any more."

Please note, this is a summary of the hearing to assist in understanding the case and the Committee's decision. The full documentation is available to download via our dedicated Disciplinary Hearings page.