Allegation (#4) Dr. Hutber reported: "At a hearing you anticipate that there'll be arguing about the relevant facts, but you don't expect the material facts to be concocted or for hypocrisy to be demonstrated. Simon White from Whitelodge Vets appeared as a RCVS witness. White had lost one of his samples from his remedial surgery of my bilateral sacculectomy, and presented a large sample as an in situ sac [rather than more common retained tissue]. Relevantly, my VDS consultant was a vet who had experienced a couple of instances of retained anal gland tissue in 20 years [whilst I'd experienced one instance of complications over a decade]. White's presented sample conflicted with the dog owner's observation of the left anal gland sample being 'pea-sized'. White had switched the left and right hand samples, and had only surgically removed his presented sample three months after my sacculectomy, explaining the larger sample size. The dog experienced discomfort [but not distress]. Simon White described his veterinary work as 'gold standard'. The RCVS declined to send his sample for histology. White's clinical notes showed that he'd used less pain relief than I had, and the RCVS charged me with using insufficient pain relief. Either the RCVS was hypocritical with respect to its own witness, or my pain relief was adequate. I suggested the latter."
"The RCVS complaints against me were from clients who'd transferred to Whitelodge Vets and had been misinformed. Simon White visited my practice and had asked to buy it, three months after I'd bought it from Margaret Weaver. When I declined, White opened a startup site next to mine and used Weaver as his new Practice Manager [contrary to our purchase contract]. Weaver employed two of my staff [who'd remained loyal to her] and encouraged clients to transfer. Weaver had acted similarly against her husband's business shortly before she divorced him and remarried. The RCVS were aware of these facts."
"I submitted 14 witnesses to the hearing because I believed that the RCVS would question my honesty. This was a risk where the RCVS system was inherently partial with RCVS lawyers presenting to a RCVS Committee - I was informed that 14 witnesses would antagonise the RCVS Committee. However, I judged that with former RCVS President(s), Chief Veterinary Officer(s), vet school lecturer(s), ecclesiastical officer(s), and former client(s) and employee(s), all kindly vouching for my honesty, this wouldn't be ignored by the Committee. The RCVS lawyers made a counter move that I hadn't anticipated. My witnesses were challenged under the ruling that RCVS witnesses couldn't call others to vouch for their honesty, and that my honesty was not raised as an issue in the charges. The RCVS unilaterally withdrew one charge that suggested a questioning of my honesty. I was consequently left unaware that my witnesses had not been called nor informed of the hearing dates and had made holiday plans, other arrangements, etc. Many therefore did not attend the hearing. The RCVS lawyer re-introduced her questioning of my honesty in her closing presentation of evidence. This was a clever but dishonest action."
"The RCVS took sanctions against me citing a 'lack of insight' with respect to the seriousness of their charges. After reading the evidence my barrister [who'd acted as a Regional Judge] stated that "we're not in the territory of sanctions unless the committee don't like you". My solicitor subsequently described the sanctions as "very harsh". My ecclesiastical colleagues described the RCVS charges as "petty schoolground banter". Logically, I was therefore not alone in missing the alleged seriousness of the RCVS charges."
"Whilst I remain innocent of misconduct charges I had apologised for the known textbook surgical complications. Furthermore I had offered my client remedial surgery at zero cost. My client had scheduled the remedial surgery at my practice until Whitelodge Vets had persuaded her otherwise. I had done all that was available to me to solve the problems that I'd encountered with the purchased surgeries."
"The RCVS representation of findings became corrupt where it held political objectives. During my presentation of oral evidence, Bobby Moore [a RCVS Committee member] audibly exclaimed 'this is ridiculous!'. In isolation this comment could belie a variety of motives, but in conjunction with other comment(s), indicated partiality. Mr. Moore verified partiality during Committee questions. After I'd stated that Kris Kaminski was resonsible for his own veterinary cases, Mr. Moore asked me whether I'd assumed that 'the buck stopped with me'. I refuted the suggestion."
"The RCVS political objectives were evidenced in its charge against me for Kris Kaminski's failed queen spey. Written evidence from Alex McRae [my Animal Assistant] required the RCVS to drop the charge. However, my failure to anticipate a similar situation with another of Kris' cases [Charge #3] meant that the RCVS could pursue its charge. Alex McRae lived in the village where she had worked for me, and my chances of receiving further support from Alex, understandably proved to be unrealistic."