All Headlines >>
Mr Seymour-Hamilton was originally struck off in 1994 after his Kent practice was found to be unhygienic and unsterile with poor record keeping.
However, he has always maintained that the reason his premises were unhygienic and unsterile was because they were closed.
As in previous applications, he said his reason for applying for restoration was to help him gain recognition for his alleged herbal and natural remedy discoveries and that he had no intention of going back into general practice.
As with previous applications, the Committee said that Mr Seymour-Hamilton has shown no real insight into the conduct underlying the original findings and nor has he shown insight into matters identified by previous restoration hearings.
The Committee also considered that Mr Seymour-Hamilton has been off the Register for some 31 years and would therefore need prolonged, intensive, formal retraining to ensure that he was now fit to practise, without which he might pose a risk to animal welfare.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton's case was not helped by the fact that he indicated that he had practised veterinary surgery while off the Register – including conducting two spay procedures in Calais, France, and treating two of his own dogs for cancer.
He also referred to having cultured faecal bacteria in a witness’ kitchen.
The Committee felt it was concerning that Mr Seymour-Hamilton thought these things were compatible with being on the Register and upholding the professional standards expected of a veterinary surgeon.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Mr Seymour-Hamilton still lacks an understanding as to why he has not been restored in the past.
"Apart from additional CPD, he has not set about effectively addressing any of his shortcomings.
"He relies passionately on his research, yet he does not support that research with any peer-reviewed publications, indeed all his attempts to gain recognition have been rebuffed.”
He added: “The Committee is firmly of the view that after such a prolonged period of failing to be reinstated as a veterinary surgeon, Mr Seymour-Hamilton has to face the reality that his continued applications, taking up time, resources and expense (which is ultimately borne by all those veterinary surgeons who are on the Register), are vexatious and ultimately unlikely to succeed.
“Whilst the College cannot prevent him from continuing to apply to be restored to the Register, Mr Seymour-Hamilton should by now realise that this is not a good use of the College’s finite resources.
"He is now 86 years old and has not practised for over thirty years and in fact has now been off the Register for longer than he was on it.
"This is now the twelfth time he has been found to be not fit to be restored to the Register.
"The Committee hopes Mr Seymour-Hamilton will now take time seriously to reflect and take into account the impact to all concerned of his continued applications, before deciding to submit any more.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vet nurses.