Dr Patrick Casey, who has been practising as a veterinarian for more than 20 years, is facing five charges of professional misconduct before a Veterinary Council hearing in relation to the administration of the drug Ketoprofen to the racehorse Faalcon.
IN THE MATTER of the Veterinarians Act 2005 AND IN THE MATTER of disciplinary proceedings against Dr Patrick Casey of Auckland, Veterinarian BEFORE The Judicial Committee of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand PENALTY DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE: APPEARANCES: Mr B A Corkill QC (Chair) Ms P Mudford, Dr D Bayvel, Dr M Simpson and Dr J O'Brien (Members) Ms S D'Ath (Secretary) Mr M McClelland, on behalf of the ComplaintsAssessment Committee Mr E St John, for the practitioner
Introduction: 1. In its substantive decision of 8 July 2013, the Judicial Committee concluded that Particulars 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the charge which is the subject of this proceeding were established; the established departures from acceptable standards were significant enough to require disciplinary sanction, and brought discredit to the profession. The Committee concluded that in considering the established particulars cumulatively, professional misconduct was established; but that when considering penalty issues the Committee would be mindful of the overlap between Particulars 1, 3 and 4. 2. The Committee does not propose to repeat its earlier findings in this decision; this decision should be read alongside the decision as to liability. 3. Submissions and relevant evidence as to penalty and costs have been filed. There is now agreement between the parties as to an appropriate penalty, although as will be explained below the Committee nonetheless has the ultimate responsibility of determining the appropriate outcome to the charge. CAC's ﬁrst submission: 4. For the CAC it was submitted: 4.1. The relevant legal principles on sentencing were outlined; these are referred to in detail below. 4.2. It was submitted the relevant aggravating features were: 4.2.1. Dr Casey had adopted a totally uncooperative if not obstructive approach to the various investigations. He failed to engage in any way with the NZTR in its investigation of the circumstances leading to the positive swab; he failed to assist Mr Rae and Mr Carter when Mr Rae was facing a serious charge; he failed to cooperate with the CAC's investigation; he brought judicial review proceedings which were "doomed to failure from the outset"; and he raised numerous defences to the charge.
4.2.2. As found by the Committee, he was evasive and unreliable, and in several instances his evidence had been rejected.1 4.2.3. Wherever possible he attempted to shift blame to third parties. 4.2.4. His misconduct exposed Mr Rae and the owners of Faalcon to severe financial and reputational consequences. 4.2.5. He had called evidence from experts, which he ought to have known would lack credibility for the reasons given by the Committee. 4.2.6. He displayed disregard and contempt for the CAC's investigatory powers, verging on "gross arrogance". 4.2.7. No insight to the misconduct had been demonstrated, which was of particular concern. 4.3. Accordingly it was submitted that the only way to protect the public and to deter others, to set professional standards, and to punish Dr Casey to reflect the seriousness of the established misconduct and impose a penalty which was fair, reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances was to cancel Dr Casey's registration, and order that he not re-apply for re-registration before the expiry of 12 months. Additionally, he should pay a fine. 4.4. Submissions were also made as to costs. Dr Casey's evidence and submissions: 5. Dr Casey filed an affidavit, testimonials, and submissions. It is appropriate to summarise each. 1 Reference was made to paras 68 & 69 of the Committee's decision.
In his affidavit Dr Casey gave evidence on the following topics: 6.1. 6.2. 6.3. 6.4. 6.5. 6.6. 6.7. 6.8. Background: he summarised his schooling and tertiary education to graduation (including his postgraduate study, internship and commencement of teaching as a clinical instructor). Doctoral work: Dr Casey said he entered a doctoral programme at UC Davis, and completed a PhD in comparative pathology in 1992, during which time he received a scholarship and began publishing in the peer- reviwed scientific literature. Academic work: Dr Casey said he worked with the late Professor Sir Graeme Liggins, at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the University of Auckland where a new laboratory was established for services relating to human fertility and also for the veterinary ﬁeld. Mentoring: Dr Casey said he mentored graduate students to completion and undertook collaborative research and publication. Auckland 200: Dr Casey outlined particular projects in which he has been engaged, which included working with the Department of Conservation and New Zealand Fish and Game. Community interests: Dr Casey explained that he has a close association with members of his community; he also acts as a mentor for young persons who have a passion for veterinary science, or their parents; and has provided extensive veterinary services at Kumeu. Other professional interests: he acts as a scientific and clinical consultant both nationally and internationally. Dr Casey gave an unreserved apology for his conduct arising from the findings of the Committee. He said he understands his ability to practise veterinary medicine is a privilege, and he does not wish to bring harm or create mistrust for the profession. He stated he would
6.9. 6.10. 6.11. 6.12. 6.13. 6.14. take "stiff remedial steps" to ensure there would not be a recurrence of the matters considered by the Committee. He was aware of, and respected, the NZEVA Guidelines for pre-race medications in racing horses, and would continue to adhere to them if allowed to continue in practise. At no time did he intend to be disrespectful to his colleagues, the Council or clients in any way. He apologised for any disrespect shown. He had dedicated his professional life to the treatment of animals and the advancement of veterinary science, and wished to maintain his research studies and keep faith for his many clients in Kumeu who depend on him for their pet care and welfare. His conduct had already had a severe economic impact on himself and his family. He had been forced to sell key financial assets and had to borrow. Details in that regard were provided. He explained that the financial stress had also had an emotional impact on himself and his young family; reference was made to newspaper publicity which had contributed to this. He said that his role as an expert witness in New Zealand and ' overseas was now over, because he could no longer be regarded as a credible witness with a finding of professional misconduct. He requested that he be permitted to practise so that he could earn money to pay all recompense. lf permitted to do so, he would only act with the strongest of professional conduct and demeanour. He would wish to join his colleagues as a member of NZVA and NZEVA, if permitted to do so. He would be willing to practise under supervision, carefully, taking heed of all suggestions and instructions given. He believed he could be rehabilitated, and could add significant value to the public, profession and animal welfare in New Zealand
7. Testimonials were provided from nine persons, all of whom are senior members of the profession or community. Those testimonials were all positive, indicating that the referees involved held a high opinion of Dr Casey; further, each of them considered he had shown genuine remorse and contrition as a result of the Committee's decision. One in particular proposed that he be appointed as a mentor/supervisor to oversee Dr Casey's veterinary practice in certain defined respects. 8. The legal submissions given for Dr Casey were as follows: 8.1. It was emphasised that a censure was appropriate; this would reflect the expectations of a censure as indicated by the Courts. 8.2. Supervision subject to conditions would fulfil all relevant sentencing objectives, as identified in Roberts v Professional Conduct Committee.2 8.3. There had been a single error of judgment, albeit with very serious consequences. It was submitted, however, that his judgment was not shown to be so sufficiently flawed as to doubt his ability to continue to practise if the Committee could be satisfied that similar conduct would not be repeated. It was acknowledged that the second particular, the response to the professional body, would be of concern to the Committee. Because it occurred over time, it was acknowledged the Committee would be concerned that it reflected a pattern of behaviour that would be considered unacceptable, but which might also be considered unredeemable. It was pointed however that that conduct related to one error of judgment, and that Dr Casey understood the Committee's conclusions in that regard. 8.4. Dr Casey has, and will, suffer significantly from the finding of professional misconduct, nationally and internationally. 2 As set out more fully below.
8.5. 8.6. it was indicated that whatever percentage of costs of prosecution were imposed would have a serious effect on Dr Casey's finances because he is not in a strong financial position. He would now have to sell his remaining asset to meet any award of costs. The above submissions were amplified. In particular it was submitted that the characterisation of aggravating factors for the CAC was inappropriate for the following reasons: 8.6.1. 8.6.2. 8.6.3. 8.6.4. 8.6.5. 8.6.6. 8.6.7. The NZTR investigation was not part of the particulars. Judicial review proceedings had been brought on legal advice; reliance on legal rights could not be an aggravating factor. Failure to cooperate with the CAC investigation was not an aggravating factor because it was a particular of a charge. The assertion of untenable defences amounted to an "attack on Counsel"; it was noted the Committee had not criticised the defence by Dr Casey in its substantive decision. That the Committee found Dr Casey evasive and unreliable was not in itself an aggravating factor. Nor was it accepted that Dr Casey had "wherever possible attempted to shift the blame on to third parties". What he did was offer five possibilities as to why there was a positive test result, a defence which was rejected by the Committee. That could not be an aggravating factor not to have offered an apology when he pleaded not guilty. He had believed that the administration of the higher than label It was submitted that Dr Casey clearly has insight. recommendation dose was not responsible for the positive
8.7. 8.6.8. 8.6.9. test result; he had now been corrected in that regard, and accepted the finding. It was not unfair or unreasonable for him to assert that he held particular expertise. In short, it was not accepted that the CAC had correctly characterised the aggravating aspects. It was submitted there were the following mitigating factors: 8.7.1. 8.7.2. 8.7.3. 8.7.4. 8.7.5. 8.7.6. 8.7.7. 8.7.8. 8.7.9. That Dr Casey has not been previously the subject of a disciplinary hearing. He had practised for 24 years. There was no harm to the animal and the actions were to treat the animal. He had contributed not only vocationally to the profession but academically. He holds a PhD in comparative pathology; he had devoted his professional life not just to treatment but science. He had published widely in international journals. He is positively thought of within the profession. He had not and does not seek name suppression. He had throughout made clear he administered 1800 mgs of Ketoprofen. In this respect he had from the outset been quite clear as to what he did.
8.7.10. 8.7.11. 8.7.12. 8.7.13. 8.7.14. 8.7.15. 8.7.16. 8.8. His actions inadvertently led to a positive swab. He did not seek to influence the race. He provides veterinary support for the under privileged in the community. His qualifications have led him to being employed as an on- course veterinarian. He has been called upon to give expert evidence. He has provided free of charge his research and academic qualifications in support of worthy community interests. He has taught at graduate and postgraduate levels for 20 years. The submission that there should be a fine of between $10,000.00 and $15,000.00 did not take account of Dr Casey's financial circumstances; and the ultimate penalty of strike off was disproportionate to a single clinical decision and response to the CAC. 8.9. Detailed submissions were made as to the penalties which it was understood the CAC was then seeking. 8.10. It was submitted that the cases emphasise that although the interests of an individual practitioner may not be absolute, the existence of the public interest in not ending the career of a competent practitioner could play a part3 3 As referred to by Keane J in A v Professional Conduct Committee; the relevant dicta is referred to below.
10 CAC second submission: 9. 10. The CAC filed a second submission, stating: 9.1. 9.2. 9.3. It had taken the opportunity to consider carefully the penalty submissions filed for Dr Casey together with his affidavit and testimonials; and had also sought further information from Dr Casey which had been provided. Constructive discussions between Counsel had occurred. The CAC wished to record it was very encouraged to see that Dr Casey's acknowledgment of his misconduct together with what it This led it to accept that Dr Casey now had insight into the misconduct and was The CAC accepted that, albeit belatedly, Dr Casey had accepted "ownership" of his actions. considered to be a responsible attitude to outcomes. remorseful. For those reasons, the CAC was less inclined to the view that there was a significant public risk and, therefore, it no longer considered an order for cancellation of registration was necessary to protect the public interest. It was submitted that it would be appropriate to order that: 10.1. 10.2. 10.3. Dr Casey be subject to a condition that he practise subject to the supervision of a VCNZ approved veterinarian in order for VCNZ to be assured that the public interest is being protected. This condition should be removed from his practice after two years, subject to VCNZ being satisfied that it is no longer required. The purpose of supervision would be to ensure that: 10.3.1. Dr Casey's therapeutic pre-race treatment of horses complies with the NZEVA list of "Prohibited Substances Recommended Withholding Times" and the requirements of the VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinarians.
10.4. 10.3.2. 10.3.3. 11 Dr Casey fulfils his undertaking to increase his interaction with veterinary colleagues. This includes, in the first instance, applying for membership of NZVA and NZEVA. The supervisor would be appointed by VCNZ after consultation with Dr Casey. Specific requirements of supervision would include: 10.4.1. 10.4.2. 10.4.3. 10.4.4. 10.4.5. 10.4.6. 10.4.7. The supervisor being provided with a copy of the Judicial Committee's decision; his Counsel's submission on penalty of 22 August 2013 and his affidavit of 21 August 2013. Meeting with his supervisor on at least a three monthly basis. Reporting to VCNZ by his supervisor on a three monthly basis on Dr Casey's performance and progress of the meeting of the above requirements, and at any other time should the supervisor have concerns about Dr Casey's fitness to practise. The supervisor would review all pre-race records to confirm professional requirements are being met. The supervisor would have access to all of Dr Casey's records (including case records, appointment book, diaries, drug purchase records and reconciliations) in order to undertake a more comprehensive audit should this be requested. Dr Casey to meet the costs of complying with the supervision requirements. The CAC sought a censure but not a fine.
11. 12. 12 Whereas the CAC had previously submitted that an appropriate award of costs would be 75%, it now submitted that, taking into account the financial information that had been provided, 50% would be appropriate. It was confirmed that Dr Casey was agreeable to the foregoing, and that his Counsel would confirm this. It was accepted, however, that a final decision as to his dependency was for the Committee. Dr Casey's confirmation: 13. 14. Dr Casey, through his Counsel, then confirmed that the proposal for supervision and conditions, and as to costs set out above was agreed, and confirmed that the issue of penalty could be determined on the papers. Details of the quantum of costs at the liability and penalty stage was made available by the Committee's secretary to Counsel; Counsel for Dr Casey confirmed that Dr Casey accepted he should pay 50% of the costs as advised. Legal principles as to imposition of penalties: 15. 16. Both Counsel referred to relevant legal principles relating to sentencing. There is a convenient summary of these in Katamat v P00:4 " In Roberts v Professional Conduct Committee, Collins Jidentiﬁed the following eight factors as being relevant whenever the Tribunal is determining an appropriate penalty. They are which penalty: ( 1) most appropriately protects the public and deters others; (2) facilitates the Tribunal's in setting professional standards; "important" role (3) punishes the practitioner; (4) allows for the rehabilitation of the health practitioner; (5) promotes consistency with penalties in similar cases; 4  NZHC 1633, 21 December 2012, per Williams J.
13 (6) reflects the seriousness of the misconduct; (7) is the least restrictive penalty appropriate in the circumstances; and (8) looked at overall, is the penalty which is "fair, reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances”.  In Patel v Dentists Disciplinary Tribunal, regarding the decision to de-register the practitioner speciﬁcally, Randerson J held that: the task of the Tribunal is to balance the nature andgravity of the offences and their bearing on the dentist's ﬁtness to practise against the need for removal and its consequences to the individual: Dad v General DentalCouncil at 1543. As the Privy Council further observed: [in Dad] Such consequences [cancellation] can properly beregarded as inevitable where the nature or gravity of the offence indicates that a dentist is unﬁt to practise, that rehabilitation is unlikely and that he must be suspended or have his name erased from the register.In cases of that kind greater weight must be given tothe public interest and to the need to maintain public conﬁdence in the profession than to the consequences of the imposition of the penalty to the individual.  Similarly in A v Professional Conduct Committee, Keane J derives the following ﬁve principles from the Privy Council speeches in Taylor v General Medical Council: First, the primary purpose of cancelling or suspendingregistration is to protect the public, but that 'inevitably imports some punitive element'. Secondly, to cancel is more punitive than to suspend and the choice between the two turns on what is proportionate. Thirdly, to suspendimplies the conclusion that cancellation would have beendisproportionate. Fourth/y, suspension is most apt where there is 'some condition affecting the practitioner's ﬁtness to practise which may or may not be amenable to cure '. Fifth/y, and perhaps only implicitly, suspension ought not to be imposed simply to punish.  Keane J continued, afﬁrming the importance of considerations of rehabilitation: the Tribunal cannot ignore the rehabilitation of thepractitioner: B v B (HC Auckland, HC 4/92, 6 April 1993)
17. 14 Blanchard J. Moreover, as was said in Giele v The General Medical Council  EWHC 2143, though '...the maintenance of public conﬁdence must outweigh the interests of the individual doctor', that is not absolute — 'the existence of the public interest in not ending the career of a competent doctor will play a part.’  In summary, the case law reveals that several factors will berelevant to assessing what penalty is appropriate in thecircumstances. Some factors, such as the need to protect thepublic and to maintain professional standards, are more intuitivein their application. Others, such as the seriousness of offending and consistency with past cases, are more concrete and capableof precise evaluation. Of all the factors discussed, the primaryfactor will be what penalty is required to protect the public and deter similar conduct. The need to punish the practitioner can be considered, but is of secondary importance. The objectiveseriousness of the misconduct, the need for consistency with past cases, the likelihood of rehabilitation and the need to impose the least restrictive penalty that is appropriate will all be relevant to the inquiry. It bears repeating, however, that the overall decision is ultimately one involving an exercise of discretion." It is necessary to consider the correct role of a decision maker where there is consensus between the parties as to the appropriate penalty. In Commerce Commission v New Zealand Milk Corporation Ltd (1994) 2 NZLR 740, the Court held that when parties have reached an agreement, the Court is likely to provide its approval if it accepts that the agreed penalty is "proportionate to The Court cited an Australian case, Trade Practices Commission v Allied Mills Industries Pty Ltd (No 4) (1981) 37 ALR 256 where Shepherd J at page 259 said: "It is, of course, true that the penalty has been suggested to me by the the evidence available, and the Defendant's conduct". agreement of the parties. Uninformed of their agreement I may have selected a different ﬁgure, but I am satisﬁed that it would not have been very different from theirs ..." This line of cases has been applied previously in a disciplinary context: Johnston v PCC, a decision of the Appeals Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand dated 23 December 2003.
15 18. The Tribunal agrees that providing the terms proposed by the parties are proportionate to the evidence and the practitioner's conduct, it is likely the Tribunal will approve the terms proposed by the parties. But the final decision is for the Tribunal. Penalty — discussion: 19. The Committee has carefully considered the various submissions made, particularly as to aggravating and mitigating factors. 20. As the Committee stated in its first decision5 whichever of Particulars 1, 3 or 4 are considered, the failure to have adequately considered the consequences of administering an above label dose in the particular circumstances amounts to a signiﬁcant professional breach. lt resulted in the horse, when it won the race, being disqualified because it produced a positive swab for a prohibited substance. As the Committee has already indicated it is completely inappropriate for a veterinarian to place a racing animal and the owners/trainers at risk of adverse consequences. It was wholly unacceptable for Dr Casey to have allowed this to have occurred. Given his extensive qualifications and experience it is very concerning indeed that he allowed this to occur. 21. As regards the issue raised by Particular 5, as the Committee stated previously6 it is very concerned that an approach which can only be described as obstructive was adopted to legitimate investigation by the CAC, in terms of Dr Casey's failure to answer proper questions. The CAC investigative process is an important process in the context of professional regulation. It is incumbent on registered veterinarians to cooperate when questions are asked. As has been stated in other professional contexts, there is a duty to act in a professional, candid and straightfonlvard way when dealing with the Council and its representatives.7 5 At para 90.1. 6 Para 92 of its substantive decision. 7 Parlane v New Zealand Law Society (Waikato Standards Committee No 2), at  referred to at para 86.1 of the Committee's ﬁrst decision.
22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 16 Having regard to the Committee's findings, it is clear this duty was breached significantly, in the hope that Dr Casey would be able to avoid the adverse consequences which it was plain would othenivise follow. Unfortunately, the Committee had the impression that an attitude of arrogance was adopted, which influenced the practitioner's conduct. Turning to mitigating factors, there is no doubt that there are a range of factors as described by Dr Casey's Counsel, which can properly be considered. Foremost amongst them is the insight and judgment now demonstrated in Dr Casey's affidavit. Dr Casey has stated he has learned a significant lesson; that he wishes to increase his interaction with colleagues, and that he wishes to ensure he adheres to proper professional standards. These are important observations. The Committee also accepts that there have already been significant adverse consequences for Dr Casey, both reputational or financial; and that these are likely to be ongoing particularly in those aspects where credibility may be a requirement. The Committee has carefully considered the sentencing objectives which have been outlined. It has concluded that when balancing the aggravating and mitigating factors identified above in order to reach a proportionate outcome, a rehabilitative focus is now appropriate. Had Dr Casey not expressed the remorse and contrition which is evident from his affidavit and from the evidence provided by multiple referees, significantly more serious sanctions would have been justified. In short, the Committee is satisfied that in broad terms the penalty approach adopted by the parties is proportionate to the evidence available and the practitioner's conduct. it is appropriate, however, to make some specific comments about the terms of the proposed penalty of supervision:
28. 29. 17 27.1. The order should be clear that VCNZ is to appoint a respected and independent equine veterinarian to be the supervisor. 27.2. The proposal that the condition be removed after two years, subject to VCNZ being satisfied that it is no longer required would leave the It is doubtful that the Committee is permitted to impose an order that is uncertain in length — length of the supervision order as uncertain. even although it would be the Council itself that might have the power to extend it. Rather, the Committee considers that it is appropriate for supervision to be in place for a period of two years. in the Committee's view, this will be long enough to ensure that Dr Casey's practice is rehabilitated on a structured basis, but that the ultimate objective of having him return to independent practice can also be achieved within a reasonable period. 27.3. The Committee would not anticipate that there would be ongoing difficulties beyond two years supervision. If, contrary to its expectation that were to occur, VCNZ will have other mechanisms that it could consider at that time. A specific purpose to that effect is accordingly appropriate. 27.4. As regards the purposes of supervision, there should be an overarching emphasis on compliance with the requirements of the VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct for veterinarians, and in the Committee's order that requirement is emphasised as being the paramount requirement of supervision. Further, if VCNZ considers there are any issues of judgment that are evident during supervision, the supervisor can be instructed to focus on them. Subject to those specific comments, the orders set out below reflect the proposal jointly advanced by the parties. In summary, the Committee is satisfied that supervision and censure will ensure the maintenance of professional standards and rehabilitation.
18 Costs: 30. The final issue relates to costs. The parties agreed that 50% of reasonable costs would be appropriate. 31. At the time of the preparation of its decision, the CAC costs (exclusive of GST) for both the liability and penalty hearings total $99,973.00, and the Committee's costs for the liability and penalty hearings have been estimated at $64,900.00, but may be less. As the Committee understands it, Counsel for Dr Casey has been advised as to the extent of these figures on an indicative basis, and is willing for the Committee to proceed on the basis that these sums will be maximum liability which it should consider for cost purposes. 32. The correct approach as to costs was summarised by Priestley J in Vatsyayann, as follows: " So far as the costs orders were concerned, the Tribunalcorrectly addressed a number of authorities and principles. These included that professional groups should not be expected to bear all thecosts of a disciplinary regime and that members of the profession who appeared on disciplinary charges should make a proper contributionstowards the costs of the inquiry and a hearing; that costs are notpunitive; that the practitioner's means, if known, are to be considered; that a practitioner has a right to defend himself and should not be deterred by the risk of a costs order; and that in a general way 50% of reasonable costs is a guide to an appropriate costs order subject to a discretion to adjust upwards or downwards. The Authority went on to consider High Court judgments where that standard had been appliedsubsequently, and where adjustments were made when GST had been wrongly added to costs orders." 8 33. The Committee is satisﬁed that 50% is indeed the appropriate percentage of the costs and disbursements incurred. This is appropriate having regard to: 33.1. The total reasonable costs incurred. 8 Vatsyayann v PCC  NZHC 1138. Footnotes omitted.
33.2. 33.3. 33.4. 33.5. Conclusion: 34. 34.2. 34.3. 19 The outcome of the charges, including the fact that one particular was not established. What is reasonable by way of a contribution from the profession. Dr Casey's financial circumstances which have been carefully considered. The consensus reached by the parties. The penalty orders of the Committee are accordingly: 34.1. From a date which is 14 days after the date of this decision (which will allow an opportunity for VCNZ to appoint the supervisor) Dr Casey is to practise subject to a condition that his practice be supervised by a VCNZ appointed respected and independent equine veterinarian in order for VCNZ to be assured that the public interest is being protected. This condition will remain in place for two years. The purpose of the supervision will be to ensure that: 34.3.1. Dr Casey adheres to the requirements of the VCNZ Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinarians. 34.3.2. Dr Casey's therapeutic pre-race treatment of horses complies with the NZEVA list of "prohibited substances recommended withholding times". 34.3.3. Dr Casey fulfils his undertaking to increase his interaction with veterinary colleagues. This includes, in the first instance, applying for membership of NZVA and NZEVA. 34.3.4. There is compliance on any other issues relating to appropriate judgment as VCNZ thinks ﬁt.
35. 20 34.4. The supervisor is to be appointed by VCNZ, although it will seek Dr Casey's views on the proposed appointee before making the appointment. 34.5. 34.5.1. 34.5.2. 34.5.3. 34.5.4. 34.5.5. 34.5.6. The specific requirements of supervision are: The supervisor is to be provided with a copy of the Judicial Committee‘s decisions and Dr Casey's affidavit of 21 August 2013. Dr Casey is to meet with the supervisor on at least a three monthly basis. There is to be a report to VCNZ by the supervisor each three months on Dr Casey's performance and progress in meeting the requirements of supervision; and additionally at any time should the supervisor have concerns about Dr Casey's fitness to practise. The supervisor shall review all pre-race records to confirm professional requirements are being met. The supervisor shall have access to all of Dr Casey's records (including case records, appointment books, diaries, drug purchase records and reconciliations) in order to undertake a more comprehensive audit should this be required. Dr Casey shall meet the costs of complying with the supervision requirements. There is an order of censure: the Committee must formally mark its disapproval of the serious misconduct it was required to consider.