Disciplinary Committee - Mr D S W Hubbard DipWCF
9 December 2016
On 21 November 2016 the DC of the FRC heard a complaint brought against Mr Daniel Scott Walter Hubbard DipWCF of Hunters Hall, Old Barn Lane, Redhill, Bristol BS40 5TW. Mr Hubbard was charged thus:
That, being registered under the Farriers (Registration) Act 1975 (as amended) (“the Act”):
On 8 May 2014 in the Crown Court at Bristol, you were convicted, on your own confession, of production of a Class B controlled drug - Cannabis,
for which offence you were sentenced on 9 October 2014 in the Crown Court at Bristol to 32 months’ imprisonment, ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £120.00, and made subject to a Confiscation Order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in the sum of £100,244.00;
And in relation to the facts alleged above, you are guilty of serious misconduct in a professional respect.
Mr Hubbard attended the hearing and the DC received submissions from Mr Hubbard’s legal representative. The DC considered the evidence and their decision is set out below.
“The Committee has considered this matter carefully and has concluded that this is a serious matter bringing the profession of farriery into disrepute and therefore considers that this constitutes serious misconduct is a professional respect.”
The Chairman added,
“This was a serious criminal conviction, an offence carried out for profit which involved the commercial production of cannabis for supply to the public. While this was not directly connected with the profession or practice of farriery, it does constitute serious criminal behaviour which brings the profession into disrepute and constitutes serious professional misconduct which will damage public confidence in the profession. We particularly have in mind the fact that farriers, as a profession, work in remote locations including race yards in contact with impressionable adolescents and young adults. The professional standards of farriers requires adherence to the law and the offence in this case was very serious.”
With regard to sanction the decision of the Committee was as follows.
“We have heard the advice of our Legal Assessor that the purpose of sanctions is primarily for the protection of horses and the public interest and not to punish. The Committee considers that, under the circumstances, it wishes to postpone judgement for a period of 12 months during which time you can practise and, providing that you practise satisfactorily, the Committee would not expect to remove you from the Register at the postponed hearing. At the postponed hearing, we wish to be provided with updated references from those for whom you are working and also full details of all continuing professional development training that you have undertaken in the interim.”