RVN found fit to practise following dangerous driving conviction

The RCVS Veterinary Nurse Disciplinary Committee has issued no sanction to a Somerset-based RVN convicted of three counts of causing serious injury by dangerous driving.

Mr William Kane RVN appeared before the Committee from Monday 19 to Wednesday 21 May at the International Dispute Resolution Centre in London.

The charge against Mr Kane was that, on 5 August 2024, at North Somerset Magistrates’ court, following a guilty plea, he was convicted of three counts of causing serious injury by dangerous driving. Following the conviction, on 3 September 2024 at Bristol Crown Court, Mr Kane was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, suspended for 18 months. He was also disqualified from driving for two years until he had passed an extended driving test, and was ordered to undertake 200 hours of unpaid work within 12 months, and to pay a victim surcharge of £187. It was alleged that the conviction rendered Mr Kane unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse.

From the outset, Mr Kane admitted the facts contained in the charge, but did not accept that this rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse.

Mr Kane reported the conviction to the College by letter on 29 October 2024.

After the criminal proceedings had finished and had been reported to the College, Mr Kane wrote a letter expressing his deepest regret for his actions and the pain and guilt they had caused, stating that there was not a single day that had passed that he had not thought about the family that was affected by his actions, and the lifelong consequences that they now face. He went on to express that he understood that as a member of a trusted profession, his conduct must reflect not only his clinical competence, but also his integrity and accountability. He also noted that he had sought to recognise and address the consequences of his actions and that he is determined to make a positive contribution to society and to the profession.

“Agreeing with the judge that this was indeed an exceptional case, the Committee did not consider that Mr Kane’s conduct was liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession and concluded that the public, in full knowledge of the circumstances of this particular case, would not expect a finding that the conviction renders him unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse."

The Committee found the charge proved on the basis of Mr Kane’s admission, as supported by the evidence relied on by the College, namely the Certificate of Conviction.

On deciding whether the proved charge amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee took aggravating and mitigating factors into account.

Taking into account the submissions of counsel for both the College and for Mr Kane, the Committee did not find any aggravating factors. In terms of factors that might mitigate Mr Kane’s conduct, as opposed to purely personal mitigation, the Committee found none. While there had clearly been a great deal of insight and remorse, these post-dated the conduct and therefore couldn’t be considered as mitigation at this stage of the hearing.

The Committee went onto examine the context of the case which included the following relevant factors:

• there was no explanation for the accident;
• Mr Kane was not intoxicated, nor was he distracted by using his mobile phone;
• he was not carrying out any type of manoeuvre, for example overtaking where he shouldn’t;
• his car was not in a dangerous condition;
• no concerns had been raised about the manner of his driving, other than the moment immediately before the collision;
• as the judge repeatedly said, this was a ‘momentary lapse of attention’, whereby Mr Kane’s car drifted into the opposing lane of traffic for a couple of seconds and there was then a catastrophic collision;
• whilst the consequences were severe, the culpability, said the judge, was low and just crossed the threshold between careless and dangerous driving;
• the judge found there to be no aggravating features; and,
• the judge, who had the benefit of watching dash-cam footage from another car that captured the collision, described it as a ‘mistake’.

The question for the Committee was whether Mr Kane’s conviction of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, when put into proper context, rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse. This was not a conviction in any way linked to his practise and there was no suggestion that he represented any sort of a risk to animals in his care. The Committee was not, therefore, concerned with any issues arising out of the need to protect animals, but rather with whether a finding of unfitness to practise was needed to uphold standards of conduct and behaviour in order to maintain public confidence in the profession.

Kathryn Peaty, Chair of the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee took into account the public interest which includes maintaining public confidence in the profession and the regulator and upholding proper standards in the profession. The public interest also includes allowing an otherwise competent veterinary nurse to continue in practice, where appropriate.

“Agreeing with the judge that this was indeed an exceptional case, the Committee did not consider that Mr Kane’s conduct was liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession and concluded that the public, in full knowledge of the circumstances of this particular case, would not expect a finding that the conviction renders him unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse. Rather, the public would recognise that whilst the consequences were appalling and tragic for the family involved, in terms of Mr Kane’s culpability this was a momentary piece of dangerous driving, categorised by the judge as a ‘mistake’ rather than anything more blameworthy.

“The Committee therefore concluded that Mr Kane’s conviction does not render him unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse. This is not to in any way detract from the catastrophic consequences for the family, but rather is to reflect the context, exceptional circumstances and level of culpability in this case.”

Please note: this news story is intended to be a summary of the hearing to aid in understanding the case and the Committee's decision. The Committee's full decision can be found on our Disciplinary Committee hearings webpage.