The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) has suspended an Aberdeenshire-based vet surgeon for offences relating to cows owned by his father.
The disciplinary committee of the RCVS ruled that James Dean Gracey’s conduct risked undermining procedures designed to promote public health and animal welfare and was also in part dishonest.
The RCVS has suspended the vet for a period of six months.
Gracey was found guilty in respect of five charges in relation to cows owned by his father. These were:
- On or about December 15, 2016, Gracey signed a Food Chain Information form in relation to a cow without declaring that there was a conflict of interest because the cow belonged to his father and without including his and his practice’s contact details with his signature;
- On or about March 30, 2017, he signed a Food Chain Information form in relation to a cow, also without declaring a conflict of interest or leaving sufficient contact details;
- On or about April 6, 2017, he signed an Emergency Slaughter form for a cow without declaring a conflict of interest as above, and that he stated that he had not administered any treatment to the cow within the previous seven days of signing the form when he himself had;
- On or about July 2, 2019, signed a Food Chain Information form stating that a cow was fit for travel when it was not;
- That his conduct in relation to the proven charges risked undermining public health and animal welfare, and in relation to the Emergency Slaughter Form his conduct was dishonest and misleading, according to the RCVS.
Hazel Bentall, chair of the disciplinary committee, said the committee concluded that there was “serious professional misconduct” from Gracey, as he had “failed to meet the necessary high standards of honesty and transparency”.
“In particular the fact that there were four separate events relating to animal welfare and public health was significant when considering what sanction to impose,” she said.
“The committee is satisfied that such conduct, when taken together, would be considered deplorable by other members of the profession.
“The respondent’s conduct on four occasions in respect of four animals and three conflicts of interest called into question his competence in relation to completing such forms.”
