Former Co. Down vet removed from RCVS Register

Former Co. Down vet removed from RCVS Register

A former County Down-based veterinary surgeon has agreed to remove himself from the Register and not to apply to be restored to it during a hearing of the RCVS disciplinary committee.

The hearing for Banbridge-based Stephen Cargill Wilson took place over two days at the end of September with two charges raised against him.

The first charge was that, on or around October 20, 2017, he provided inaccurate information to an insurer in respect of a Labrador he treated by saying that the dog was presented to him with a lame left foreleg on June 13, 2017, when in fact the dog had been presented for treatment on June 7 and that his conduct was therefore, dishonest and misleading.

The second charge was that between January 17, 2017 and January 17, 2018 he failed to have any arrangements in place for professional indemnity insurance and then, that between January 8 and December 5, 2019, he failed to respond to reasonable requests from the RCVS regarding his insurance.

Prior to the hearing, in March 2020, Mr Wilson had made an application to the Committee to adjourn the hearing subject to the committee accepting his undertakings to remove himself from the Register and never to apply to be restored.

Mr Wilson’s legal representative at the hearing submitted to the disciplinary committee that granting the application would be in the public interest on the basis that Mr Wilson was 68 years of age and had retired from the profession and closed his practice; that he had dedicated his entire working life to veterinary practice; had a previously long and unblemished career with no other complaints and that he was well-regarded by clients and professional colleagues. Furthermore, he said that the undertakings would protect animal welfare and the reputation of the profession as Mr Wilson would no longer be practising and that there were a number of precedents of such applications being accepted by the Committee.

The application was not opposed by the RCVS whose representative informed the committee that, relating to the charge of dishonesty, the College had taken into account that the insurance claim form was not submitted by Mr Wilson himself, and that there is no evidence of any financial motivation behind the charge nor any allegation of harm to an animal.

The committee subsequently decided that Mr Wilson’s voluntary undertakings went well beyond any sanction that could be imposed by the committee and considered that the application would protect the public interest, confidence in the profession, and the welfare of animals.

The full findings of the disciplinary committee can be found at