VIKTOR MOLNAR MRCVS DECISION OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE

Transcription

1 ROYAL COLLEGE OF VETERINARY SURGEONS INQUIRY RE: VIKTOR MOLNAR MRCVS DECISION OF THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE The Respondent, Viktor Molnar MRCVS, was served with a Notice of Inquiry, which contained the following charges: That, being registered in the register of veterinary surgeons: 1. On 7 March 2018, at Manchester and Salford Magistrates Court you, Viktor MOLNAR, entered a guilty plea and were convicted of: I. That on or about 24 th February 2016, in the Metropolitan Borough of Bury did cause to land an animal, namely a miniature dachshund puppy Ricky in Great Britain, the landing of which was prohibited under Article 4(1) of the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and other Mammals) Order 1974 having effect under the Animal Health Act 1981 contrary to Articles 4(1) and 16(1) of the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and other Mammals) Order 1974 and sections 10, 73 and 75 of the Animal Health Act 1981; II. that on or about 24 th February 2016, in the Metropolitan Borough of Bury did cause to land an animal, namely a miniature dachshund puppy Alex in Great Britain, the landing of which was prohibited under Article 4(1) of the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and other Mammals) Order 1974 having effect under the Animal Health Act 1981 contrary to Articles 4(1) and 16(1) of the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and other Mammals) Order 1974 and sections 10, 73 and 75 of the Animal Health Act 1981; III. that on or about 24 th February 2016, in the Metropolitan Borough of Bury did cause to land an animal, namely a miniature dachshund puppy Peggy in Great Britain, the landing of which was prohibited under Article 4(1) of the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and other Mammals) Order 1974 having effect under the Animal Health Act 1981 contrary to Articles 4(1) and 16(1) of the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats 1

2 and other Mammals) Order 1974 and sections 10; 73 and 75 of the Animal Health Act 1981; IV. that on or about 24 th February 2016, in the Metropolitan Borough of Bury did cause to land an animal, namely a miniature dachshund puppy Rita in Great Britain, the landing of which was prohibited under Article 4(1) of the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and other Mammals) Order 1974 having effect under the Animal Health Act 1981 contrary to Articles 4(1) and 16(1) of the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and other Mammals) Order 1974 and sections 10; 73 and 75 of the Animal Health Act 1981; V. that on or about 24 th February 2016, in the Metropolitan Borough of Bury did cause to land an animal, namely a miniature dachshund puppy Tracey in Great Britain, the landing of which was prohibited under Article 4(1) of the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and other Mammals) Order 1974 having effect under the Animal Health Act 1981 contrary to Articles 4(1) and 16(1) of the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and other Mammals) Order 1974 and sections 10; 73 and 75 of the Animal Health Act 1981; and VI. that between 1 February 2016 and 25 February 2016, you, Viktor MOLNAR, kept the premises at Flat 4 Belroy Court, St Ann s Road Prestwich in the Metropolitan Borough of Bury as a pet shop without the authority of a licence granted by the Bury Metropolitan Borough Council: contrary to sections 1(1) and (7) and 5(1) of the Pet Animals Act 1951; in relation to which conviction on 7 March 2018 you were sentenced to a Community Service Order to comply with the following requirements by 6 March 2019: Unpaid work requirement carry out unpaid supervised work for 270 hours within the next twelve months; pay compensation of and costs of AND THAT it is alleged that the above convictions render you unfit to practise veterinary surgery. Application to proceed in the absence of the Respondent 1. The Respondent did not attend the hearing. The College applied for permission to proceed in the absence of the Respondent. The College produced written submissions, together with a bundle of relevant documents in support of this application. The Committee s powers to proceed in the Respondent s absence are derived from Rule10.4 of the 2004 Rules, which state: - If the Respondent does not appear, the Committee may decide to proceed in the Respondent s absence, if it is satisfied that the notice of Inquiry was properly served and that it is in the interests of justice to do so. 2

3 2. The Committee is satisfied on the evidence that the Notice of Inquiry was properly served on the Respondent, as required by Rule 5.1 of the 2004 Rules. 3. The approach to be taken by a professional regulatory tribunal when considering whether to proceed in the absence of a Registrant was dealt with by the Court of Appeal in the case of Adeogba v GMC [2016]. The Committee followed the guidance set out in that case. 4. The College submitted that it is the interests of justice to proceed in this case for the following reasons. 5. The Respondent s absence is genuinely voluntary. He is aware of the hearing, has been visited personally by the College and has indicated that he does not wish to apply for a postponement and does not intend to appear. Although the Respondent raised matters regarding his health in correspondence, the Respondent has not indicated that he would like the matter postponed until such time as his health has improved. No medical evidence has been provided in support of any application to postpone the hearing. The Respondent s response has consistently been that he does not propose to attend and would like the matter dealt with in his absence. 6. It is in the public interest for serious allegations such as these to be heard as soon as possible, in line with the College s objectives to promote and protect animal welfare and uphold the reputation of the veterinary profession. Nothing would be achieved by adjourning the case, as there is no suggestion that the Respondent has any intention of attending in the future. 7. The Legal Assessor advised the Committee that the College s submissions as to the law as to whether or not it is in the interests of justice to proceed were correct and forceful. 8. The Committee has decided that this case should proceed in the absence of the Respondent and that it is appropriate, in the interests of justice, that the case should be heard today. The facts 9. On 7 March 2018, at the Manchester and Salford Magistrates' Court, the Respondent was convicted, following a guilty plea, of six offences. Five offences related to the unlawful importation of puppies. The sixth offence was keeping a pet shop without a licence. The Respondent was sentenced to a Community Service Order, including a requirement to carry out unpaid supervised work for 270 hours within the next 12 months (namely by 6 March 2019) and to pay compensation of 2, and costs of The College obtained copies of certain of the prosecution statements, which were placed before the Committee in the Inquiry Bundle. Additionally, the Committee was provided with a copy of the prosecuting opening note from the Magistrates' Court 3

4 hearing. This note sets out the relevant legislation and the facts underlying the convictions. 11. In summary, the Respondent was responsible for the importation into Great Britain, in February 2016, of five miniature dachshund puppies, without lawful authority. He was also responsible for selling puppies from his home address - an address also registered as veterinary practice premises without a pet shop licence. He was charged in the criminal proceedings along with his girlfriend. Relevant legislation Puppy importation offences 12. Section 73 of the Animal Health Act 1981 makes it a criminal offence to contravene, without lawful authority, a ministerial order. The maximum penalty for this offence is six months imprisonment and/or a level 5 fine. The burden of proving lawful authority is on the accused (s73(1)) 13. The Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) Order 1974 is a ministerial order subject to the 1981 Act above. This Order prohibits the landing in Great Britain of an animal brought from outside the country (4(1)). There are a number of ways in which a person could have lawful authority for such a landing, namely if the animal is brought to Great Britain from another European Union member state, is subject to a specific Council Directive (92/65/EEC) and complies with the relevant trade requirements (4(2)). Those trade requirements are in effect set out in the Council Directive (not copied) and the Trade in Animals and Related Products Regulations They include requirements that the animals have arrived from a premises registered within the EU member state of origin, were identified by microchip prior to vaccination and have been vaccinated against rabies after 12 weeks of age and have then waited a minimum of 21 days after vaccination before travelling. They must also have been treated against Echinococcus multilocularis (tapeworm) between 24 and 120 hours prior to arrival in the UK. Additionally, they must be accompanied by a passport and a health certificate. Member states are also required to notify the UK authorities of the consignment, through a trade control computerised system which maintains records of health certification for the transport of animals. The importer of a consignment must also notify the APHA at least 24 hours in advance of the arrival of the consignment into the United Kingdom. 14. It transpired that the puppies in this case had been microchipped and had been certified as having been vaccinated in accordance with the requirements. Passports in the required form were recovered. There was, however, no health certificate accompanying the puppies, nor notification to the UK authorities of the consignment through the trade control system, nor a notification to the Animal and Plant Health Agency ( APHA ) in advance. It was for the Respondent to prove compliance with these requirements and it is understood that there was no such evidence provided in the criminal proceedings. Additionally, although the puppies all had passports and were certified as vaccinated, tests showed that they were not immune to rabies. 4

5 15. The prosecution opening note also makes clear that a European Union Pet Travel Scheme ( PETS ) was introduced in 2011, allowing pets to travel to Great Britain from the EU with their owners, but that this had no application to the puppies subject to the prosecution. It was explained that PETS is open to abuse by those seeking to smuggle puppies into the United Kingdom, and the scheme was therefore briefly set out for the information of the Magistrates Court. PETS allows the landing of no more than five dogs, if accompanied by their owner or owner's representative within five days of movement, as long as the animals are not intended to be sold or transferred to another owner. There are similar requirements as above in relation to microchipping, vaccination and passports. It is understood that in this case the prosecution alleged that PETS could not apply as the evidence was that the Respondent was planning to sell the puppies. 16. The prosecution opening note also explains that puppies are the most smuggled commodity within the EU except for drugs and firearms. It refers to a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ( Defra ) Committee Report in November 2016 into the welfare of domestic pets in England. At paragraph 64, the report noted that PETS was being abused, as puppies were being brought into the UK in groups of five, as though they were pets accompanying their owner, when in fact they were intended for sale. The report noted that since the introduction of the scheme, imports from Eastern Europe had increased significantly, with the number of dogs brought into the UK from Hungary between 2011 and 2015 having increased by 761%. At paragraph 67 the report identified concerns as to the smuggling of puppies under age and the falsification of passport data, stating: "Under PETS the minimum age of entry to the UK is 15 weeks: vaccination at 12 weeks, followed by a 3 week incubation period. However Dogs Trust told us that data on passports was being falsified to evade contravening PETS; dogs were more profitable when they were younger and in the "cute and cuddly" stage". Ageing a puppy accurately was extremely difficult and therefore puppies younger than 15 weeks old were being allowed into the country." Unlicensed Pet Shop offence 17. The prosecution opening note also set out the law in relation to unlicensed pet shops. The Pet Animals Act 1951 prohibits the keeping of a pet shop except under the authority of a licence issued by the local authority. Section 1(7) makes contravention of this prohibition an offence punishable (by virtue of section 5(1)) by a fine. Background facts, and facts relating to conviction The background facts set out in the prosecution opening note, whilst not relating directly to the five puppies, the subject of the charges leading to the convictions, are nonetheless relevant to (i) the fact that the Respondent intended to sell those five puppies; and (ii) the operation of a pet shop without a licence. 19. At the material time, the Respondent lived in St Anne s Road in Manchester. He advertised his practice online under the name Viktor Vet Mobile Veterinary Services, giving his 5

6 home address along with a telephone number and address corresponding to the contact details registered with the College. 20. On 26 June 2015, an advertisement was placed on offering miniature Dachshund puppies for sale, namely two bitches and four dogs, at 600 each. The advertisement bore the Respondent s telephone number and the address supplied by the website company was vetpractice2000@yahoo.co.uk. 21. An internet search for the Respondent s telephone number also showed three advertisements placed on the "Dogs and Puppies for sale" page of the sales website Gumtree. These three advertisements offered respectively (i) a Bichon Havanese, (ii) a Shih Tzu and (iii) Shih Tzu puppies for sale. The one for the Shih Tzu puppies was dated 16 September All three gave the name Viktor as the contact, showed the Respondent s mobile telephone number, and stated that he had advertised on the website for over two years. 22. In February 2016, a retired teacher from Renfrewshire, Mrs M, and her (now late) husband saw an advertisement on the website Preloved Pets for a miniature Dachshund. The advertisement contained the Respondent s telephone number, which Mrs M contacted. She spoke to a man identifying himself as Viktor, who told her that he had two male puppies and one female puppy for sale. Mrs M agreed to buy the female (then named Janet but later changed to Lili) and was given the Defendant's home address as the collection point. She duly travelled to Manchester and met the Respondent, purchasing Janet for She asked to view the puppy s mother, but the Respondent simply shook his head. Mrs M was supplied with a Hungarian vaccination card for Janet, which contained the Respondent s name as the owner, with his address and telephone number also recorded on it. 23. The puppy was sick on the journey home, so Mrs M contacted the Respondent and asked for a copy of the pet passport. Mrs M took the puppy to the Abbey Veterinary Group in Paisley where she was seen by a locum veterinary surgeon. The locum examined the puppy and was concerned, as she appeared much younger than the age suggested on the vaccination card. She estimated her to be 8 to 12 weeks old and therefore too young to have been brought into the United Kingdom. The vaccination card did not show any record of rabies vaccination nor tapeworm treatment, and so the Animal Health inspector with Renfrewshire Council, Mr Ferry, was contacted and the puppy ultimately placed in quarantine. 24. Mrs M later received the puppy s passport in the post. This indicated that rabies vaccination and tapeworm treatment had indeed been administered. As a result of the concerns to the age of the puppy, Mr Ferry referred the matter to Bury Council as the local authority for the borough where the puppy was sold. Facts underlying convictions 1 to Following receipt of the information from Mr Ferry, including copies of the vaccination certificate and pet passport for Janet, on 26 February 2016, Bury Council's Animal Health Inspector, Sandra Coombes, accompanied by a Trading Standards Officer, Alex O'Farrell, 6

7 visited the Respondent s home address. He was not present, but his girlfriend (and codefendant in the criminal proceedings) was. At the Respondent s home address, Ms Coombes saw four adult dogs and five miniature Dachshund puppies. These were the puppies subject to the charges/convictions. The Respondent s girlfriend produced pet passports which identified her as the owner of the three bitches and Mr Molnar as the owner of the two dogs. The passports bore the details of the same veterinary surgeon shown on Janet s passport and vaccination certificate. 26. Ms Coombes was concerned that the puppies might be younger than the age indicated on the passports, having regard to their appearance and size. She took one to the nearest veterinary surgery, where the puppy was examined by a veterinary surgeon, Nicholas Maxwell, who estimated her to be between two and four months old. 27. The puppies were placed in quarantine. They were there weighed and examined by veterinary superintendent Ian Taylor who observed that their behaviour was consistent with puppies significantly younger than the age suggested on the passports. He directed blood tests to check for rabies and the results of these showed that none of the puppies had the required immunity. From his observations, the blood test results and analysis of the puppies weights, Mr Taylor concluded that the puppies were likely to be approximately ten weeks of age, significantly short of the fifteen-week minimum required by law. 28. Checks were made with APHA to ascertain whether they had been provided with the required health certificates for the puppies, but APHA had no record of any such certificates for the Respondent s address. Enquiries were also made concerning the requisite import notification, but APHA no longer held records for this time. As noted in the opening note, it was for the prosecution to prove to the criminal standard that each of the five puppies were landed in Great Britain from a member state of the EU. This did not appear to be in dispute. It was for the Respondent to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the landing of the puppies was with lawful authority or excuse, and that the relevant trade requirements had been complied with. The prosecution did not have to prove that the Respondent had failed to comply with the requirements for a certificate, nor did it have to prove that the required notification had not been given. Instead, it was for the Respondent to prove that he had the certificates and that the notification had been given. It appears that neither was proved. 29. The Respondent pleaded guilty to these five offences, together with operating a pet shop without a licence. He thereby accepted that he did not import the puppies lawfully and that he was operating a pet shop unlawfully. Comments to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons 30. The RCVS wrote to Mr Molnar asking him for his comments on the convictions. He replied by on 18 April 2018, stating: "I would like to let you know that I bought puppies from Hungary online from an Hungarian seller and they came in UK legally. by courier with Hungarian pet passports and with vaccination records. 7

8 I checked rabies vaccinations and microchip numbers of puppies on Hungarian Petvetdata of Hungarian Veterinary Chamber. Everything were correct same as in the Hungarian Pet Passports. So, I had no reason to doubt in the age and vaccinations of puppies. I bought puppies for myself but I had to sell them because of the personal circumstances being changed and I was not able to keep them. Unfortunately I did not know that I need a pet shop licence then." 31. The College would note that insofar as the comments in the Respondent s above suggest that the Respondent is not guilty of the offences, he is not entitled to go behind the fact of the conviction; and the College would note that in fact he pleaded guilty to those offences. Further, it is of note that the Respondent confirmed by later that he was represented and had an interpreter at the criminal proceedings, and so his guilty pleas were entered in that context. Findings of the Committee on facts 32. This is a conviction case; the convictions are set out in the charges listed above. The charges have been proved by certificates of convictions from the relevant Magistrates Court. The Respondent pleaded guilty to all the charges. The convictions are proved by the certificates, and the Respondent has accepted that he was convicted and sentenced as set out in the certificates. 33. The Committee accepts the submissions of the College that, in so far as his dated 18 April 2018 is concerned, he is not entitled to go behind the fact of the conviction. The Committee notes that the Respondent confirmed by a later that he was represented at the Magistrates Court and had an interpreter at the criminal proceedings. 34. In these circumstances, the Committee is satisfied that the convictions set out in the charges have been proved and is satisfied that the facts underlying the convictions are as set out in the College s submissions, which were provided to the Committee in written format. Decision on fitness to practise veterinary surgery 35. The College submits that the convictions render the Respondent unfit to practise veterinary surgery. The Committee notes that a finding of unfitness to practise by virtue of a conviction may, but does not automatically, lead to removal from the College s Register. If the Committee concludes that a conviction renders a Respondent unfit to practise, the Committee must then go onto consider its decision as to sanction. The College submits, and the Committee accepts, that the test for considering whether a conviction renders a Respondent unfit to practise is to all intents and purposes the same as that for assessing whether behaviour amounts to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, namely whether the conduct falls far short of that which is expected of a member of the veterinary profession. This is a matter for the Committee s judgement. 8

9 36. Written submissions on fitness to practise veterinary surgery were provided by the College. The Committee was referred to relevant provisions in the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons, and the Code s Supporting Guidance. The Committee has taken these provisions into account. The Disciplinary Committee Procedure Guidance sets out matters which may be considered as aggravating and mitigating features. Aggravating features in this case include: risk of injury to an animal or human and financial gain. The Committee accepts that the legal requirements relating to the importation of animals into Great Britain are of the utmost importance in relation to the maintenance of both human and animal health. That importance includes ensuring that all animals are properly vaccinated against serious diseases such as rabies, which are present in mainland Europe but not Great Britain. In this context, contravention of import regulations risks a serious detrimental effect on both animal and human health by introducing potentially lethal diseases into the country. The Committee notes that, when tested, the puppies in this case did not have rabies immunity. 37. The Committee accepts the College s submission that the fact that they were imported contrary to the law of the UK, because they were under age and had not been properly vaccinated undermines the integrity of a system which is designed to ensure that effective vaccination and precautions against disease take place in every case. The Committee also notes that the convictions in this case were directly linked to the Respondent s veterinary practice, as they related to animal sold from his veterinary practice address. By operating an unlicensed pet shop, and by doing so through an address that referred to his occupation as a veterinary surgeon, the Respondent was abusing his position as a veterinary surgeon, and acting in a way that was liable to undermine the reputation of the profession. 38. The Committee finds that the Respondent s conduct fell far short of that expected of a member of the profession. This was not a one-off isolated incident but related to five individual puppies. The conduct was linked directly to the Respondent s veterinary practice and involved a substantial risk to animal welfare and human public health. The Committee finds that such conduct has the potential to bring the profession into disrepute and undermine public confidence in the veterinary profession as a whole. Decision on sanction 39. In considering the question of sanction, the Committee accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor, which was in the following terms. The Committee should have in mind that the primary purpose of the sanction is not to punish but to protect the welfare of animals, maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct. The sanction which it applies must be proportionate to the nature and extent of the conduct and the Committee must weigh the public interest against the interests of the Respondent. 40. The Committee should first consider whether it wishes to postpone judgement for a period not exceeding two years. If it decides not to do so, the options are to: (i) reprimand and/or warn the Respondent as to his future conduct; (ii) direct that the Respondent s registration 9

10 be suspended for a specified period; (iii) direct the Registrar to remove the Respondent s name from the Register. 41. The Committee was advised that it should consider these sanctions in that order and it is only if the Committee determines that it is not sufficient to protect the welfare of animals and serve the public interest to impose a sanction at a low level that it should go on to consider the next level. 42. As stated in its decision on fitness to practise, the Committee considers that this case is very serious, because of the risk of serious harm both to animals and the public, as well as being for financial gain. The Committee considers that the Respondent, as a veterinary surgeon, must have known the serious implications and consequences of what he was doing by importing these puppies unlawfully. The public should expect to be able to trust a veterinary surgeon to ensure that his conduct does not put at risk the health of both animals and humans. In this case, on his own admission, the Respondent committed serious criminal offences. 43. The Committee considered that the Respondent placed material interests over those of the profession and the public. His actions posed a real risk to the puppies in not receiving the correct vaccinations. He further risked their welfare through premature travel. 44. The Committee notes that the Respondent has no previous convictions, or adverse professional findings against him. He pleaded guilty to the offences charged ion the Magistrates Court. The Committee gives him credit for these matters. The Committee decided that postponing judgement in this case would not be appropriate, and that because of the seriousness of the offences, a reprimand or warning would not be appropriate either. The Committee considered that suspension would not be an adequate sanction, because it did not address the potential harm arising out of the Respondent s criminal actions. Accordingly, it determined that the seriousness of the Respondent s conduct leading to these convictions could only be properly dealt with by directing the Registrar to remove the Respondent s name from the Register. DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE 2 AUGUST