Paragraph 33 of Kirk v RCVS 19th Jan 2004 Privy Council Judgment indicates this must also apply to other professions.

PC judgment is now compounded by being included in the Dec 2007 RCVS Guidance to forthcoming disciplinary committees. Drawn up, incidentally and passed by many already implicated in Maurice's multiple refusals for re-instatement and several having sat on the original committee to have him struck off.

The latest RCVS admission, printed, is that the 1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act appears in breach of the Human Rights Act.

Maurice's 6th Application, currently before only one person of the RCVS college council, now given this new power, it appears, by Mr Justice Lloyd Jones, is to refuse an applicant even a hearing before the disciplinary committee. If Maurice requests for 'disclosure' of vital evidence, currently withheld by repeated committees, often with similar jury members or Chairman over the past 6 years, classing those witness statements as 'privileged' evidence, as it was collected from his own clients by RCVS lawyers, when much of it was not, thereby making my clients their clients, then Maurice runs the risk of raising 'an irrelevant issue'. The same RCVS chairman described it last year as such and so refused a hearing.