Veterinary Council of Ireland v Ciobanu

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice Micheál O'Higgins
• Judgment Date: 07 May 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 350
• Docket Number: [HMCA 2024/340]

In the Matter of Section 84(5) of the Veterinary Practice Act 2005 (As Amended)

and

In the Matter of a Registered Veterinary Practitioner

and

On the Application of the Veterinary Council of Ireland

Between

Veterinary Council of Ireland

Applicant

and

Valentin Ciobanu

Respondent

[2025] IEHC 350

[HMCA 2024/340]

THE HIGH COURT

Summary strike-off order – Statutory interpretation – Veterinary Practice Act 2005 s. 84 – Applicant applying to confirm a summary strike-off order – Whether s. 84 of the Veterinary Practice Act 2005 was available to the applicant on the facts of the case

Facts: The applicant, the Veterinary Council of Ireland (VCI), in May 2024, decided that the name of the respondent, Mr Ciobanu, should be removed from the Register of Veterinary Practitioners (the Register) on account of having been convicted of drugs trafficking in Romania in April 2013. In deciding on a strike-off order, the VCI did not follow the usual channel of convening a fitness to practise inquiry pursuant to s. 76 of the Veterinary Practice Act 2005. The VCI availed of a summary procedure under s. 84 of the 2005 Act whereby the name of a registered veterinary practitioner can be removed from the Register, based not upon the grounds of complaint referred to in s. 76(1) of the Act, but instead on the fact of a sufficiently serious criminal conviction. The respondent argued that the section can only be invoked where the person is convicted of a sufficiently serious offence while registered. The VCI said that the section can be used regardless of when the conviction occurs, emphasising that the section permits the VCI to act or react in a speedy fashion in order to protect members of the public and to protect the reputation of the profession; the registrant had already had the benefit of the inquiry process that resulted in the criminal conviction.

Held by the High Court (O’Higgins J) that, applying Heather Hill Management Company CLG v An Bord Pleanála [2022] IESC 43, there were two overarching principles which had a particular bearing on the interpretive task the court had to perform: firstly, the words of the section are the first port of call in its interpretation; secondly, the onus is on the party contending that a statutory provision does not have the effect suggested by the plain meaning of the words chosen by the legislature to establish that this is the case. O’Higgins J was not satisfied that the VCI had discharged that onus. He held that s. 84(1) only applies where a person is convicted whilst their name is registered on the Register. He held that such a construction is in keeping with the nature and purpose of the section and not inconsistent with the Act as a whole or with the objectives of the legislation; nor is it absurd that the Oireachtas would have intended to limit this far-reaching summary power in that fashion, particularly where the registration scheme under the Act envisages that convictions will be picked up at the point of registration or, in the case of a false or fraudulent application, later in the process by way of a complaint under s. 76(1)(c).

O’Higgins J held that since the respondent’s criminal conviction did not occur at a time when his name was on the Register, but rather occurred prior to registration, the section was not correctly engaged; therefore, s. 84 was not available to the VCI on the facts of the case. O’Higgins J refused the VCI’s application to confirm the summary strike-off order.

Application refused.

Appearances

For the applicant: Remy Farrell S.C. and Eoghan O'Sullivan B.L. instructed by Fieldfisher Ireland LLP

For the respondent: Donall O'Riordan B.L. instructed by Tom Collins & Co. Solicitors LLP

Judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Micheál O'Higgins this 7 ^th day of May 2025

Introduction

1 . This case raises a net but quite challenging issue of statutory interpretation. In May 2024, the Veterinary Council of Ireland (VCI) decided that the respondent's name should be removed from the Register of Veterinary Practitioners (the “Register”) on account of the respondent having been convicted of drugs trafficking in his native Romania in April 2013. The respondent was first registered in Ireland in 2018.

2 . In deciding on a strike-off order, the applicant did not follow the usual channel of convening a fitness to practise inquiry pursuant to s. 76 of the Veterinary Practice Act 2005 (“the 2005 Act”). Instead, the applicant availed of a summary procedure under s. 84 of the 2005 Act whereby the name of a registered veterinary practitioner can be removed from the Register, based not upon the grounds of complaint referred to in s. 76(1) of the Act, but instead on the fact of a sufficiently serous criminal conviction. From the VCI's point of view, the summary procedure under s. 84 carries certain practical advantages in that it does not require the facts underlying the conviction to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt; the process will be less prone to delays associated with the tiered committee structure of the Preliminary Investigation Committee (PIC), the Fitness to Practice Committee (FTPC) and the VCI itself; and in fact there may be no need to call witnesses at all.

3 . Section 84 of the 2005 Act provides as follows:

“(1) Where a person whose name is registered on a part of the Register, or on the Register of Veterinary Nurses is convicted in the State of an offence triable on indictment, or is convicted outside the State of an offence consisting of acts or omissions which would constitute an offence triable on indictment if done or made in the State, the Council may decide that the name of such person shall be removed from the part of the Register concerned or the Register of Veterinary Nurses as appropriate.” (emphasis added)

4 . The legal issue in the present case is whether the summary procedure under s. 84 can apply in the case of a criminal conviction entered before the respondent was registered on the Irish Register. The respondent argues that, correctly construed, the underlined words mean that the section can only be invoked where the person is convicted of a sufficiently serious offence while registered. The applicant argues otherwise and says that the section can be used regardless of when the conviction occurs.

5 . In contending for a broad interpretation of the section, the applicant emphasises that the section permits the VCI to act or react in a speedy fashion in order to protect members of the public and to protect the reputation of the profession. The registrant has already had the benefit of the inquiry process that resulted in the criminal conviction.

6 . As well as the interpretation issue, the respondent also raises a second point and contends that, in the circumstances of the case, the VCI erred on the merits in granting the strike-off order pursuant to s. 84(1). The respondent says the strike-off order fails to have regard to the severe effects of the order on the respondent and his family; the fact that he admitted the conviction as soon as he was questioned about it; the fact that the conviction dates from 12 years ago and both the criminal process and regulatory process in Romania have long since been finalised; the contention that he paid his debt to society for the crime and was now back on the veterinary register in Romania, having served the 12 months suspension order imposed by the Romanian authorities; and the contention that the applicant failed to have sufficient regard to various matters put forward by way of mitigation. It seems to me this second (merits) question will only fall to be determined if the respondent is unsuccessful on the first point, the issue of interpretation or jurisdiction.

Background facts

7 . Before considering the legal issues further, I will say something more about the facts of the case. These are helpfully summarised in the grounding affidavit of Rachel Brown, President of the VCI sworn on 8 July 2024. The complaint which prompted the applicant to take action was a letter received by the VCI from the owner of Mulroy Vets and Letterkenny Small Animals Veterinary Hospital, County Donegal on the 25 ^th April 2022. The letter expressed concerns, inter alia, that the respondent was involved in drug trafficking offences in Romania. The applicant directed Authorised Officers to carry out an investigation into the concerns raised in the complaint. The respondent was interviewed on the 2 ^nd December 2022 and admitted that during 2012 or 2013 he had been investigated in Romania for supplying ketamine to another person. He was held in detention for three months before being convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment which was fully suspended.

8 . The College of Romanian Veterinarians confirmed the criminal sentence imposed on the respondent and that he had been suspended in Romania from practising veterinary medicine for a period of one year from July 2017. The certificate of conviction was obtained confirming that the respondent was convicted in or around 16 ^th April 2013 at the Court of Bucharest Criminal Section II for drug trafficking offences.

9 . The respondent was invited to attend a meeting of the Council to consider a report prepared by the Authorised Officers. The respondent attended the meeting of the 25 ^th April 2024 and was legally represented. Counsel on behalf of the respondent made oral submissions that the applicant did not have the power under s. 84 of the Act to remove the respondent's name from the register on the basis that the conviction in Romania pre-dated his registration in Ireland. No authority or legal reasons were advanced at that stage and the point had not been raised previously.

10 . The Veterinary Council decided to adjourn the meeting to enable the legal issue to be fully considered. The VCI convened again on the 23 ^rd May 2024 wherein it drew a number of conclusions. Firstly, the VCI determined that it...