A11 disciplinary case – Mr GC Duffield

At its meeting on 30 November 2017, the Kennel Club Disciplinary Committee considered a complaint brought by the Kennel Club under Rule A11 a (1) (b) against Mr GC Duffield; namely that he behaved discreditably and prejudicially to the interests of the canine world with the repeated submission of discrepancies and inaccurate judging figures for first time judging appointments in a period between September 2015 and February 2017.

The complaint is upheld and the committee impose the following penalties:



To warn him as to his future conduct

[A11 j (1)]


To censure him

[A11 j (2)]


To disqualify him from acting as an Officer or serving on the committee of any canine society

[A11 j (6)]


To disqualify him from judging at any event licensed by the Kennel Club

[A11 j (8)]

The period for the above listed disqualifications is from 30 November 2017 until 31 December 2020.

The committee noted that Mr Duffield admitted the complaint and has apologised. Mr Duffield recognises and accepts this is due to his poor record-keeping practices.

These issues resulted in an unnecessary diversion of time, attention and resources of both Kennel Club staff and committees.  It is a situation that ought to have been resolved by Mr Duffield much earlier. Mr Duffield admitted that he was aware of Kennel Club regulations regarding accurate record keeping. Mr Duffield accepted that he may have been passed for breeds that he was not qualified to judge due to inaccuracies. Mr Duffield also acknowledged that some of his resubmissions may still not be correct and he promised to keep accurate records in the future.

The committee noted Mr Duffield had already lost several pending judging appointments due to his failure to comply with requests from the Kennel Club.

The committee accepts that Mr Duffield may have made honest mistakes but there remains a duty to be accurate on the part of all judges, both to the Kennel Club and canine clubs and societies nominating judges. 

The Judge Competency Framework, which Mr Duffield will, in due course, be able to use in respect of those breeds where he is not already qualified, will require even more stringent record keeping.

A disqualification from acting as an officer of a registered club or society is also appropriate, in that this is a role that requires competent record-keeping which has not been displayed by Mr Duffield.

Mr Duffield intends to appeal this decision.