The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) Disciplinary Committee has issued a reprimand and a warning to an Essex vet convicted of harassment and perverting the course of justice.
The Disciplinary Committee hearing for Donald Stuart Bremner took place on August 22 and 23, 2018, and concerned his conviction in October 2017 for the harassment of his ex-wife.
Bremner was also found to have perverted the course of justice by sending his daughter an e-mail, pressuring her to ask her mother to withdraw the charges against him.
The respondent pleaded guilty to both of the charges against him, and stated that he did not understand the conditions of his bail being that he could not contact his ex-wife.
In addition to this, he expressed shame and remorse at his actions and explained that his behaviour was triggered by extreme anger, grief and stress.
In relation to the charges, the respondent was committed to prison for 12 months, suspended for 12 months, ordered to comply with a Rehabilitation Activity Requirement within 12 months, and ordered to pay £85 in costs and £115 as a surcharge to pay for victim services.
The committee found the facts proved based on the certified copy of the certificate of conviction, as well as the respondent’s admissions to the facts of the charges.
It was satisfied that the respondent brought the profession into disrepute by the seriousness of his convictions. In addition, the committee regarded the respondent as having deficient insight and a need to fully accept personal responsibility for his actions and their consequences.
The committee was also satisfied that the nature of the communications sent by the respondent which led to the convictions and the breach of bail conditions, coupled with deficient insight amounted to serious professional misconduct and rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
Mitigating factors
The committee considered various mitigating factors – including the fact that no actual harm occurred to any animal, there were no concerns raised about the respondent’s practice, that he has a long and unblemished career, and that he showed some insight into his offences which continues to develop.
The committee also took into account that preventing the respondent from practising could mean the loss of jobs for 33 or so employees, which weighed heavily on their decision.
The committee also agreed with the RCVS submissions that there was a very low likelihood of repetition of the offending behaviour. Aggravating factors included the emotional harm caused to the respondent’s ex-wife, and that the harassment was a course of conduct sustained over a period of five months.
Ultimately, the committee decided to impose a reprimand and warning on the basis that it would be proportionate to maintain public confidence in the profession in light of the serious nature of these charges.
Chitra Karve, chairing the committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The committee was of the view that the conviction for intending to interfere with the course of justice was particularly serious, in light of the need to maintain public confidence in the profession, because it involved a disregard of the proper criminal process.”
Bremner has 28 days in which to make an appeal about the committee’s decision to the Privy Council.
