Reprimand and formal warning for vet who kicked horse that kicked him
D2ART6 Ascheberg, Germany, shod hoof
(Image credit: Alamy Stock Photo)
A vet who kicked and swore at a horse who had kicked him has been reprimanded and given a formal warning after he made “heartfelt apologies” for his behaviour.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) disciplinary committee has published its findings and sanctions in relation to equine vet Samuel Hutton, a sole practitioner as Sheffield-based Hutton Equine Limited, and an incident in February 2021.
Apology
“In the hearing, Mr Hutton apologised for the incident with Angel. He said it had happened in the heat of the moment. He wished that he had apologised straight away.”
Mr Hutton did not agree that Ms A had told him to be careful when lifting Angel’s hind feet; he remembered Ms A saying the mare was “not that bad”.
“Mr Hutton said that after the kick he had not punched Angel but had pushed himself away,” the report states. “He apologised that he had sworn. He denied using the sole of his foot to kick Angel. Mr Hutton agreed he should have thought about it before kicking Angel. He said he would not have kicked Angel, if he had thought about it. He did not think that he was acting in self-defence and accepted that after he had stepped back following Angel’s kick, he had put himself in a safe place.”
Mr Tremaine, the expert called by Mr Hutton, said large animals can cause severe injuries with kicks, which “would result in shock, severe pain, rapid assessment of one’s own injuries and possible relief if there were none”.
“Mr Tremaine stated that the kick had been an inappropriate action,” the report states. “However, he stated, the single lapse of professionalism, even if irrational, was not serious professional misconduct. He did not condone or defend physical reprimand in the form of a kick, but he accepted the rationale behind physical reprimands as a behaviour-modifying tool in a situation such as led to Mr Hutton’s response. He felt that Mr Hutton may have been insufficiently warned by Ms A about Angel’s behaviour.”
The committee heard that there was no evidence of Mr Hutton having kicked other animals, nor that this was his instinctive reaction.
“The committee bore in mind that the events had occurred suddenly and unexpectedly,” the report states. “The committee took into account Mr Hutton’s previous good character as supporting his credibility when assessing his evidence.”
The committee found that Mr Hutton had pushed himself away from Angel rather than punching her, and that the kick came “after a gap in time, albeit brief”.
Mr Hutton said the kick had occurred in “an emotional haze”, that he had not been thinking straight and that it had been a natural reaction to having just been kicked. He said his reaction related to things he had learned 20 years ago, and he “realised now it was ‘not the way forward’.”
“In the last two years, he said he had learned to be more controlled.”
The committee found Mr Hutton had made a conscious decision to kick the horse, although noting his description of his state of mind, and that he had been in pain. It accepted that the kick was an “isolated incident” and took into account testimonials provided, which “indicated that Mr Hutton is capable of dealing with horses, including those with difficult temperaments, very well”.
Committee chair Judith Way said: “The committee determined that taking all circumstances and its findings into account, this conduct was a single, but serious failure on the part of Mr Hutton and found the facts proved amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
In determining sanction, the committee heard from character witnesses, who said Mr Hutton had an “excellent approach to horse welfare”, “never lost his cool”, even handling challenging horses, and was “pleasant, straightforward and truthful”. The committee also considered testimonials from 41 character witnesses.
The committee heard there was “no actual harm” to animal or human, and no financial gain, and found that Mr Hutton had since “sought appropriate training” and “demonstrated insight” by acknowledging his inappropriate action. He had an “unblemished” record, and the committee considered it relevant that, at the time he had been kicked, Mr Hutton had been concerned about a previous injury to his other leg, which “played on his mind when Angel kicked him”.
The committee found that “in light of Mr Hutton’s admissions, heartfelt apologies, developing insight and the testimonial evidence, that he is very unlikely to repeat his past misconduct”.
“It was clear that this had been a singular aberration by an otherwise competent and caring veterinary surgeon of long standing,” the report states.
The committee issued a reprimand and a formal warning.
“It has determined that this would be proportionate and sufficient to provide adequate protection for animals and maintain public confidence in the profession,” Mrs Way said.
Mr Hutton declined to comment further when approached by H&H.
You might also be interested in:
Subscribe to Horse & Hound magazine today – and enjoy unlimited website access all year round
TOPICS
