The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended London-based veterinary surgeon Dr Zahra Tahaneem Rafiq for six months, and found no misconduct against Mr Oscar Perez Maillo in the hearing of a case in which two newborn puppies were taken from their owner.

The hearing concerned an incident which took place at the VetsNow Huyton premises in Liverpool. There were two charges against Dr Rafiq. The first was that in December 2017, shortly after a litter of puppies was delivered by caesarean to a French Bulldog named Lila, she took one of the puppies away from the practice with the intention that it should not be returned to Lila’s owner and that, in doing so, she was dishonest, misleading and had not acted in the best interest of the puppy’s welfare.

Another puppy was taken away by an animal care assistant who was also working at Vets Now Huyton on the night in question.

The second charge against Dr Rafiq was that she had told her employer at VetsNow that the puppy she had taken from the practice had died in the car when she had been driving home when, in fact, the puppy was alive at that stage and, in telling her employer this, she had been dishonest and misleading.

There was one charge against Mr Perez: that he had made an entry in the clinical records for Lila that she had given birth to four live puppies when in fact she had six; that he had only discharged four of the six puppies to the owner; that he knew that his colleagues intended to remove or had removed the puppies; that he had failed to prevent the removal of the puppies and had failed to report to a colleague the removal of the puppies. The charge also stated that, in relation to the incident, Mr Perez had been dishonest, misleading, did not act in the best interests of the puppies’ welfare and failed to keep accurate clinical records.

At the outset of the hearing, Dr Rafiq admitted in full the charges against her and accepted that she had acted dishonestly. Mr Perez admitted some of the charges against him including that he had made the false clinical record, had discharged four rather than six puppies and had failed to keep accurate clinical records, however he denied any knowledge of the intention to remove puppies and denied that his conduct had been misleading or dishonest. 

The Committee was not satisfied that Mr Perez knew at the time of surgery that his colleagues intended to remove the puppies and also considered there was insufficient evidence that he subsequently became aware of their removal.

As a result, the Committee found that he could not have prevented their removal or reported the matter to a colleague. However, the Committee did find that his actions were unintentionally misleading regarding the clinical records and the discharge of the incorrect number of puppies.

The Committee found all the charges against Dr Rafiq proven.

The Committee considered whether the admitted and/or proven charges against Dr Rafiq and Mr Perez amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In respect of Mr Perez, the Committee was critical of his failure to keep accurate clinical records and considered that it was his duty to know how many puppies were born and to record them accurately.

However, while the Committee concluded that Mr Perez’s conduct fell below the expected professional standards of a veterinary surgeon, it did not fall so short as to constitute serious professional misconduct. As a result, no further action was taken against Mr Perez.

In regard to Dr Rafiq, the Committee recognised her admission at the outset that her actions constituted serious professional misconduct and noted her expression of remorse.

The Committee did however have concerns regarding the evidence she gave as to her actions being motivated by animal welfare concerns. The Committee felt that such concerns should have been raised with colleagues and it found that Dr Rafiq had acted recklessly and had been dishonest both with the owner and with her colleagues.

The Committee therefore concluded that her conduct fell so far short of what would be expected of a veterinary surgeon that it constituted serious professional misconduct.

The Committee then considered the sanction against Dr Rafiq, taking into account aggravating and mitigating factors. The aggravating factors included a risk of injury to the puppies, an abuse of the client’s trust, sustained misconduct as the puppy was retained by Dr Rafiq from 2/3 December until its actual death on the night of 5 December, that the dishonesty was sustained until 7 December and that she had only demonstrated limited insight in respect of her wider professional responsibilities.

In mitigation, the Committee considered that her actions involved no financial gain, that it was a single and isolated incident, that she had no previous adverse findings, that she had demonstrated genuine remorse and that she had made admissions at an early stage.

Dr Rafiq, who was unrepresented during the hearing, also submitted evidence in mitigation including testimonials from colleagues and clients, her youth and inexperience at the time, and her remorse, among other things.

In deciding the sanction Ian Arundale, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: "The Committee concluded that Dr Rafiq was a competent veterinary surgeon who was very unlikely to pose a risk to animals in the future.

"However, it considered the reputation of the profession and the need to uphold standards was an important consideration that outweighed the hardship which would be suffered by Dr Rafiq by not being able to practise in her chosen profession. It considered that Dr Rafiq would be fit to return to the profession after a period of suspension.

"It therefore determined that, notwithstanding the nature and extent of the dishonesty in this case, a suspension order was a sufficiently severe sanction to maintain the reputation of the profession and to meet the wider public interest. It took into consideration the overall dishonesty, including that Dr Rafiq had been dishonest when first confronted about these matters, when deciding on the length of any suspension.

"The Committee considered the sanction of suspension was proportionate in the circumstances of this case where there was supporting evidence that Dr Rafiq was a competent and well-regarded veterinary surgeon. It considered the positive testimonial evidence given… and that she was held in high regard by her current employers who were aware of the admitted misconduct, were significant factors in deciding that a suspension order was the proportionate sanction."

The Committee determined that a six-month suspension order would be the most appropriate sanction under the circumstances and directed the Registrar to remove Dr Rafiq from the Register for this period of time.

The RCVS has launched a revamp of its website, www.rcvs.org.uk, now redesigned to make it easier for people find what they want, faster.

The redesign includes an overhaul of the layout, structure and navigation of all the College’s websites: Professionals, Animal Owners, Find a Vet and RCVS Knowledge. 

Some of the main changes are:

• A new level of navigation at the top of every page to make it easier to switch between the College’s different sites (similar to the BBC website).
• A greater focus on important content and services straight from the homepage, including latest updates from 'external' sites like Mind Matters and Vet/VN Futures.
• A dedicated site for the College’s Find a Vet service, with further improvements that make it easier to find veterinary practices, veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses.
• New 'mega menus' and improved search tools.
• Page design and layout more in line with current best practice, to make reading easier and navigation simpler.
• A 'mobile first' approach to design to ensure the website works optimally on all mobile devices, as well as desktop.

Ian Holloway, Head of Communications, said: "We’re delighted to be launching our new-look site today and hope all the improvements we’ve incorporated will make using the site a much better experience for veterinary professionals and animal owners alike.

"Working closely with our website provider, NetXtra, over the past nine months, we’ve been able to develop a new-look site with vastly improved design, structure and navigation, whilst avoiding the major expense of building a completely new website from scratch.

"We’re very grateful to them, and to all those vets, vet nurses and members of the public who have helped us with user-testing and content mapping to improve the site as much as possible for everyone who uses it."

Anyone with any comments or feedback about the new-look site is invited to send it to communications@rcvs.org.uk.

The RCVS has been out promoting the profession, the Practice Standards Scheme (PSS) and its new 'Find a Vet' search tool to animal owners at BBC Countryfile at Blenheim Palace last week.

The RCVS stand was designed to look like a veterinary practice, complete with waiting room, consulting room, prep room, operating theatre and RCVS Accredited Practice logos.

The team from the College handed out around 1,500 ‘Find a Vet’ canvas bags containing 'Find a Vet' and Practice Standards Scheme leaflets and merchandise, and persuaded over 200 people to take part in special ‘Find a Vet’ and PSS-themed games and competitions.

These included having to find a veterinary surgeon or nurse around the showground (volunteers from RCVS Council and VN Council, including RCVS President Chris Tufnell and VN Council Chair Liz Cox, along with David Catlow, Neil Smith, his dog, Fire, Lucy Bellwood and Amber Richards).

The College reports that there was also a continual stream of children eager to pretend to be veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses for the day and have a go at the on-stand ‘animal examination’ and ‘animal surgery’ activities. All this gave rise to plenty of photo opportunities, which parents and competition entrants were encouraged to share on social media, to help spread the word about the College’s activities. 

Ian Holloway, RCVS Head of Communications said: "This was the first time the RCVS had been to such a large-scale and high-profile public event, and it provided a superb opportunity to explain to animal owners who we are and how we can help them.

"We had a great deal of interest in our new Find a Vet service, and people also seemed reassured that there was a scheme in place to accredit veterinary practices around the country. Having attended both the London Pet Show and BBC Countryfile Live this year, we now plan to increase the number of animal owner events we attend next year, to further raise public awareness of the RCVS Practice Standards Scheme and our Find a Vet service."

For more pictures of the event, see: https://flic.kr/s/aHskEQkDPc 

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended Dr Jacqueline Bohnen, a South African veterinary surgeon who had been working in the County of Moray, Scotland, for being misleading and dishonest in relation to her treatment of a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel in March 2017.

Dr Bohnen faced two charges. The first was that in March 2017, she failed to attend to Belle, a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, in order to provide appropriate and adequate care including: assisting Belle with urination, monitoring her with a view to considering alternative treatment options, and monitoring her with a view to providing her owners with an update on her condition.

The second charge was that Dr Bohnen later claimed dishonestly that she had attended to the animal, both to the owners, in clinical records hospital records, in a note provided to colleagues and during internal disciplinary proceedings held at her practice.

At the outset of the hearing the Committee considered an application from Dr Bohnen for the hearing to be postponed as she was now based in her home country of South Africa, and said she could not apply for a visa to return to the UK until later in the year and internet access in her location was poor.

However, the Committee found that the RCVS had properly served the notice of inquiry to Dr Bohnen in accordance with the current rules, that she had had sufficient time and opportunity to apply for a visa since receiving the notice and that, in any case, she could remotely ‘attend’ the hearing via Skype or telephone if necessary by travelling to somewhere that did have adequate internet connectivity, and so it refused the application. 

The Disciplinary Committee then considered the facts of the case and heard evidence from the owners of Belle, the clinical director of the practice that Dr Bohnen worked in at the relevant time and a veterinary nurse, who was a student doing her training at the practice during the time of the events in question.

Having considered all of the evidence, the Committee dismissed the parts of the first charge relating to considering alternative treatment options and updating the owners in relation to Belle’s condition. They did, however, find the charge proven in relation to Dr Bohnen failing to assist Belle with urination.

The Committee found all aspects of the second charge proven in its entirety after Dr Bohnen admitted in advance of the hearing, that her representations were false and misleading.

The Committee then went on to consider whether the second charge and the aspects of the first charge that were found proven amounted to serious professional misconduct both individually and cumulatively.

The Committee considered that Dr Bohnen’s conduct in failing to assist Belle with urination, whilst falling below the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon, did not amount to serious professional misconduct. 

The Committee did however find that Dr Bohnen’s conduct with regards to the second charge constituted serious professional misconduct.

Professor Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee considers that the respondent’s dishonesty was the prime aggravating factor in this case. Although overall it could be regarded as a single incident, the Committee has found that it involved the fabrication of a number of notes and clinical records in the immediate aftermath of the death of the dog, but, thereafter, the respondent continued to deny the falsity of the fabricated records that she had created up to and until the conclusion of her interview by the practice on 30 March 2017. 

"During that time, the respondent had contacted the alarm company responsible for the security of the premises of the practice, to enquire whether the security system would record the times of the alarm being switched on and off. This indicated that the respondent’s dishonesty continued over a significant period of time, and that her persistence in sticking to her story became premeditated. In other words, the respondent’s conduct over this time indicated a clear attempt to deceive."

Regarding the sanction for Dr Bohnen, the Committee considered that the principle aggravating factors in the case were serious dishonesty towards both her colleagues and the owners of the dog and involved clear breaches of the Code of Professional Conduct. By way of mitigation, the Committee noted that Dr Bohnen is of previous good character with no other professional findings against her and that she had demonstrated some insight into her behaviour and had admitted being dishonest and misleading prior to the hearing. 

Summing up, Professor Barr said: "Because of the seriousness of this case, the Committee did not consider that it was appropriate to postpone judgement, take no further action, or to administer a reprimand and warning as to future conduct. The Committee considered that the respondent’s conduct, involving significant and admitted dishonesty over a period of time, required a significant penalty, in order to protect the welfare of animals and to serve the public interest.

"Accordingly, the Committee has decided to direct that the respondent’s registration be suspended for a period of nine months."

Dr Bohnen has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.

Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vets.

The RCVS has called for comments on a Concept Note which considers how the Practice Standards Scheme might develop in the future.

The Scheme is administered by the RCVS and the detailed Standards are decided in consultation with the Practice Standards Group (PSG), which includes representatives from all of the key veterinary organisations.

The PSG is considering the future direction of the Scheme as part of the second five-year review that has been undertaken - the first resulted in a new Manual and Standards in 2010.

The proposal this time is to move to a more modular approach, with greater flexibility and an increased focus on behaviours. The proposals also aim to address some of the perceived shortcomings of the Scheme, for example, that it is a 'box-ticking' exercise; that the Scheme puts too much emphasis on paperwork requirements; and, that it is inflexible, particularly at Hospital level, meaning that to qualify, practices would have to purchase expensive equipment that they would never use.

PSG Chairman, Peter Jinman said: "Although the fundamental aim of the Scheme remains to raise and maintain high standards, the PSG recognises that it's important to address criticisms that may be acting as barriers to new members joining.

"It is hoped that changes can also be made that will provide a pathway for existing members to attain higher, more meaningful standards, which are directly relevant to animal care."

The Concept Note is available on www.rcvs.org.uk/consultations, and feedback should be sent to Practice Standards Scheme Manager Eleanor Ferguson, at e.ferguson@rcvs.org.uk, or to a Practice Standards Group member (as outlined in the Concept Note), by 20 December 2012.

This feedback will inform the development of more detailed proposals, which will be put out to full consultation in due course.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that the name of a Berkshire-based veterinary surgeon, previously convicted of four offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, should be removed from the RCVS Register of Veterinary Surgeons.

Dr Ohene-Gyan was convicted at Reading Magistrates Court on 13 June 2012 of offences involving causing unnecessary suffering to three dogs and a cat that he had treated whilst working at Woosehill Vets, Wokingham, between February and October 2011. These offences related to failing to provide adequate or appropriate veterinary care or treatment, or failure to investigate and address an animal's poor condition. He was sentenced to 21 weeks' imprisonment concurrently for each offence.

Dr Ohene-Gyan did not attend the one-day Disciplinary Committee hearing and was not represented, although College records showed that he was aware of the dates of the hearing, and had had opportunity to apply for an adjournment. In the absence of any known good reason for Dr Ohene-Gyan's non-attendance, the Committee concluded that it was in the interests of justice that the hearing go ahead.

In considering whether the Respondent's convictions made him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon, the Committee depended on the findings of the District Judge and the remarks she had made when sentencing. "I found as a matter of fact that some of your actions were taken simply to run up a bill for the owners of pets," she had said. "You were in a position of special responsibility, trusted by the owners of the animals to treat them appropriately and to alleviate their suffering. You ignored advice from staff. Several animals were affected by your cruel disregard of their welfare. Some of the cruelty arose due to your incompetence. You have demonstrated that you are not fit to be trusted with the care of animals."

The Disciplinary Committee Chairman, Professor Peter Lees, speaking on behalf of the Committee, said: "The Respondent's actions, motivated by financial gain, caused serious actual injury to the four animals over a prolonged period of time. Clients are entitled to expect that veterinary surgeons will treat animals in their care humanely and with respect, and make animal welfare their first priority. The Committee considers that the care described in the District Judge's findings demonstrated a total disregard for the professional responsibilities of a veterinary surgeon."

The Committee concluded that the removal of Dr Ohene-Gyan's name from the Register was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case in order to protect the welfare of animals, maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards of conduct, and it directed the Registrar to do so.

The RCVS has announced that over the next 6 months, it is investing £225,000 in its Professional Conduct Department’s concerns investigation process.

The investment is being made to increase the speed at which concerns are either closed or referred, ensure that the process meets its service standards and reduce stress for the public and profession.

The decision to increase investment in the process was made by the College’s Operational Board in response to a steady increase in the number of concerns being investigated. The College forecasts that it will receive in excess of 1,000 concerns raised about the professional conduct of veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses this year.

The RCVS developed a simplified, three-stage concerns process in 2014 which included the introduction of targets for cases to be either closed or referred at each stage. In order to ensure that these targets can be met, the College will now be hiring five paralegals to assist the existing five case managers.

Eleanor Ferguson, Acting Registrar, said: "Currently we are only closing or referring just over half of concerns we receive at stage 1 (case examiner stage) within our four month target. In order for the system to run more smoothly we will be investing in extra staff to help clear the backlog and ensure that these targets are met going forward.

"Similarly, in order to deal with the increase in the number of cases being referred to Preliminary Investigation Committee (stage 2), we will be increasing the frequency of these committee meetings from one to two per month.

"It is important to add that this investment is not just about dealing with concerns more quickly but is also about quality of service and having more staff on hand will ensure that this quality is maintained in terms of how we communicate with complainants and members of the profession. Speeding up the process will reduce the stress and anxiety felt by all involved."

More details about the College’s concerns investigation process and its different stages can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns

Suffolk-based Dr Horia Elefterescu has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for dishonesty, clinical failings and poor record keeping.

The Committee heard seven charges against Dr Elefterescu. The charges were:

1. In September 2015, in relation to a male cat called Kitty Brown, he failed to undertake an adequate examination prior to surgery and that he undertook an unnecessary laparotomy.

2. In February 2016, in relation to a male cat called Storm Page, he failed to undertake an adequate clinical examination prior to anaesthesia and made dishonest or misleading entries in the clinical records stating that he had undertaken a full clinical examination.

3. In February 2016, in relation to a male cat called Sampson Page, he failed to undertake an adequate clinical examination prior to anaesthesia and made dishonest or misleading entries to the effect that he had undertaken a full clinical examination.

4. In February 2016, in relation to Tibial Plateau Levelling Osteotomy (TPLO) surgery performed on a female Bichon Frise called Lucy Allen, he failed to undertake adequate examinations into the possibility of a cranial cruciate ligament rupture or failed to record the same; performed the TPLO surgery with insufficient clinical justification; performed the surgery inadequately; failed to take steps to rectify inadequate surgery having obtained post-operative radiographs; made dishonest/ misleading entries into clinical records; and, in a letter to the RCVS on 7 August 2016, made dishonest and misleading comments.

5. In February 2016, in relation to a male cat called Kipper Morley, he failed to take and record a sufficiently detailed history; failed to undertake an adequate clinical examination; that, having noted the possibility that Kipper might have anaemia, he failed to make arrangements for urgent investigations to be undertaken; that, having decided to administer intravenous fluids to Kipper, failed to make arrangements urgently; and failed to keep clear, accurate and detailed clinical records.

6. Between September 2015 and February 2016, he failed to keep clear, accurate clinical records in relation to seven cases.

7. In February 2016, in relation to a male cat named Chino Biggs, he failed to undertake adequate clinical examination and dishonestly made entries in the clinical records saying that he had undertaken aspects of an examination when he had not done so.

Having heard evidence from complainants, witnesses (including expert witnesses) and the respondent himself the Committee determined that the facts of all the charges were proven – with the exception of part of Charge 6 regarding his keeping inadequate clinical records in relation to a male cat called Dax Parham.

The Committee then went on to consider whether the proven charges, both individually and cumulatively, amounted to serious professional misconduct. In relation to the first and fifth charges the Committee found that, while Dr Elefterescu’s conduct fell below what was expected of a professional veterinary surgeon – they did not constitute serious professional conduct.

In relation to the parts of the second, third, fourth, sixth and seventh charges that were found proven, the Committee determined that each constituted serious professional misconduct. 

In relation to these determinations, Ian Arundale, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The respondent’s clinical failures… are very serious, amounting as they do to failures in the basics of animal care and resulting in suffering to the animal. They involve widespread breaches of the Code, including not only the obligation in relation to animal health and welfare… but also the specific obligations of the Code in relation to record keeping. 

"In addition to his clinical and record keeping failures the respondent has been found to have acted dishonestly. This dishonesty would have impacted upon professional colleagues and any owner who viewed the records. It has the potential to undermine public confidence in the profession. The respondent was also dishonest in a letter written in August 2017 to his regulator."

In considering Dr Elefterescu’s sanction, the Committee took into account a number of aggravating and mitigating factors.

Aggravating factors included actual and risk of injury to animals, dishonesty, recklessness, breach of client trust, repeated misconduct and limited insight into his failings.

In mitigation the Committee considered that, at the time of the misconduct, the respondent was new to the UK, he had language difficulties which resulted in communication problems, that he was unfamiliar with UK veterinary computer systems and procedures, that he is of good character, that he has taken steps to avoid a repetition of his misconduct and that there have been no subsequent complaints since the dates of the matters in the charges.

However, the Committee found that, in light of the seriousness of the charges found against him, the only sufficient sanction was to direct the Registrar to remove Dr Elefterescu’s name from the Register. 

Mr Arundale, commenting on the sanction, said: "The respondent’s misconduct involved very serious departures from the professional standards set out in the RCVS Code…. In particular, the unnecessary surgery (both the initial and revision) carried out on Lucy Allen constituted very serious harm to an animal. The Committee considers that the respondent’s lack of insight into his failings, and his wholly unjustified confidence in his abilities constitute an ongoing risk to animal welfare. In these circumstances, the Committee has determined that the only sanction which is appropriate and proportionate, in order to ensure the welfare of animals, the public interest and the reputation of the profession, is to direct the respondent’s removal from the Register."

Dr Elefterescu has 28 days in which he can lodge an appeal with the Privy Council regarding the Disciplinary Committee’s decision.

The BVA and the RCVS have held a meeting at the House of Commons to brief MPs and peers about animal and public health, animal welfare and veterinary workforce issues raised by Brexit.

The briefing highlighted to members of both Houses the vital role the veterinary profession plays in order to ensure that the veterinary resource in clinical practice, public health, government services, academia and research is appropriately considered and effectively used during Brexit negotiations.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), environment spokespeople for the Scottish National Party (SNP) and Plaid Cymru, and other parliamentarians from the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the SNP, joined Crossbenchers, senior civil servants and key stakeholders at the event.

BVA President Gudrun Ravetz delivered a speech highlighting the main asks from the association's Brexit and the veterinary profession report, which was developed through consultation with BVA members, devolved branches, BVA specialist divisions and other key stakeholders.

The report sets out 52 recommendations for the short, medium and long term across seven areas of public policy: veterinary workforce, animal health, animal welfare, food hygiene and safety, veterinary medicines, research and development, and trade. 

Addressing attendees, Gudrun said: "We are a relatively small profession, but we are a diverse profession with far-reaching influence and impact in so many areas of political and public life.

"Last week, we were delighted to hear the Defra Secretary of State, speaking to the Today programme, rightly acknowledged the importance of EU vets to the UK economy; from food hygiene and safety, to monitoring disease outbreaks and facilitating trade. This is why BVA is calling on the Government to guarantee the working rights for non-UK EU vets and vet nurses currently working and studying in the UK at the existing level and with no time limit.

"As we progress with the Repeal Bill we are also calling on the Government to ensure we maintain animal health and welfare current standards – and prioritise them in all trade negotiations, so that high standards of animal health, welfare and food hygiene are a unique selling point for the UK. We can only make a success of Brexit if we harness our veterinary resource."

In his speech, RCVS Junior Vice-President Professor Stephen May highlighted the three RCVS Brexit Principles as well as the findings from the College’s recent survey of non-UK EU vets working in the UK. Professor May also made a call for greater certainty from the Government on the status of EU citizens living and working as veterinary surgeons in the UK and for a substantial transition period to prevent potential veterinary workforce shortages, particularly in areas such as public health and food safety.

Professor May said: "Negotiations with our European partners will no doubt be lengthy and complex on all manner of issues that affect the veterinary sector. For everyone concerned, we join other voices in calling for a substantial transition period to any new order created. This will provide us with time to take stock, to understand the implications and to navigate a pathway that safeguards the interests of our sector and the RCVS is determined to work with all its stakeholders, in particular Government and yourselves [parliamentarians], to ensure that vital veterinary work gets done.

"Key to this will be meeting the need for high-quality, capable veterinary surgeons in all sectors. This can only be achieved in the short-term by emphasising the continued welcome and appreciation of all veterinary non-UK nationals working hard for this country, to encourage them to stay, and continued access to graduates of accredited schools from around the world, alongside increased training of UK nationals to meet our ever expanding veterinary needs."

The event was hosted by BVA Honorary Member and RCVS Past-President, Lord Trees MRCVS, who has sat on a number of House of Lords committees and subcommittees that consider and seek to influence the Government’s plans and policy-making during the UK’s exit from the EU.

Lord Trees closed the BVA and RCVS Brexit briefing by encouraging fellow Peers and MPs to capitalise on the evidence-based, science-led perspective that the veterinary profession is able to provide, particularly as Brexit discussions continue to develop.

Lord Gardiner has since publicly recognised the vital role of the veterinary profession, responding to a question in the House of Lords regarding the retention of skilled workers post-Brexit. In his role as Defra Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Lord Gardiner said:

"I am most grateful to the noble Lord [Teverson] because I was at the BVA and RCVS reception yesterday, where I know a number of noble Lords were also in attendance. This is an important issue and an element of the negotiations that we want to deal with as promptly as possible. Yes, we do rely on and warmly welcome the support we have from EU national vets, who are hugely important to us."

The eminent equine vet, Dr Sue Dyson FRCVS, has been struck off for a series of dishonest statements and actions, including fabricating a letter from a fictitious Home Office Inspector, in order to have her research project published in an international publication.

The Disciplinary Committee heard that in 2018, when Dr Dyson was employed as Head of Clinical Orthopaedics at the Animal Health Trust (AHT), she completed a research project: ‘Influence of rider: horse body weight ratios on equine welfare and performance – a pilot study’, for which she had previously been given the go-ahead by the AHT’s Clinical Research Ethics Committee. The results of the study were then submitted to the Journal of Veterinary Behaviour: Clinical Applications and Research for publication.

After peer-reviewing the project paper at the request of Journal Editor Karen Overall, Dr Matthew Parker, a Senior Lecturer in Behavioural Pharmacology at the University of Portsmouth, was concerned by the lack of a Home Office licence and asked for details of the licence or an explanation of why the project didn’t need one, and for the paper to be re-submitted.

In reply, Dr Dyson then emailed Ms Overall saying: “We have a former Home Office Inspector on our AHT Ethical Committee and two current licence holders (Named Veterinary Surgeons) who are fully conversant with the current legislation ... I also sought informal advice from a current Inspector. All were fully aware of the protocols to be employed and gave me assurance that in their opinion Home Office approval would not be required”.

Ms Overall then asked Dr Dyson to obtain a letter from the Home Office to support this position.

On 24 December 2018, Dr Dyson sent Ms Overall a letter purportedly from a Home Office Inspector called Dr Butler who, she explained, had advised her during the planning phase of the project. In the letter, the fictitious Dr Butler confirmed that their advice was sought for the project and that in their opinion, a Home Office Licence was not required.

Ms Overall then sent the letter to Dr Parker for further review, who decided to contact Dr Martin Whiting, Head of Operations at the Home Office Animals in Science Regulation Unit (ASRU) to ask if he knew of Dr Butler.

Dr Whiting confirmed that the Home Office had no record of employing a Dr Butler as an Inspector and that they were in the process of making further inquiries into the matter.

After Dr Whiting’s reply was forwarded to Dr Dyson, she replied to him saying that she thought the studies’ procedures did not meet the criteria for the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (ASPA), but that this was questioned by peer reviewers.

She said that her decision to send Dr Butler’s letter was one that she would ‘eternally regret’ and that she was ‘an inherently honest person’.

She explained that she was under a huge amount of pressure in her personal and professional life and that she was ‘fully aware that [she] acted completely inappropriately and she requested the incident be overlooked’.

In March 2019, Dr Dyson sent a letter to William Reynolds, Head of the Home Office ASRU, in which she expressed remorse for writing the letter. Mr Reynolds subsequently raised a concern with the RCVS about Dr Dyson’s alleged behaviour. 

Dr Jane Downes, who chaired the Disciplinary Committee, and spoke on its behalf, said: “The Committee heard from Dr Dyson that she had no recollection of several events detailed in the charge, including writing the letter from Dr Butler and sending the email to Ms Overall which contained Dr Butler’s letter. She accepted that the letter was dishonest and that it should not have been sent. However, she also claimed that, as she could not remember writing the letter, she did not act dishonestly.

The Committee heard testimonials from several witnesses who held Dr Dyson in high regard, including colleagues from the AHT, who attested to her integrity.

However, there were many dubious claims made by Dr Dyson throughout the hearing, including that the Home Office Inspector that she referenced as ‘my friendly inspector’ was someone who could have given informed consent to a project as Dr Dyson confirmed that she had met the individual briefly, around two and a half years ago at a drinks reception.

In reaching its decisions, the Committee considered Dr Dyson’s previously impeccable character, the written and verbal testimonies from witnesses. They also considered that during the hearing, Dr Dyson explained that at the time she fabricated the letter, she was under a lot of work and personal pressures, including managing a workload amidst colleagues’ resigning or going on maternity leave and it being the anniversary of her dog having to be humanely destroyed.

However, it did not accept Dr Dyson’s claims that she had amnesia at this time, and considered that she had not owned up to her wrongdoing until it was discovered. Although Dr Dyson maintained her actions were not pre-meditated, the Committee considered that, in the case of the forged letter, a certain amount of planning and careful thought was involved. The Committee believed that Dr Dyson knew what she was doing at the time, but acknowledged she may subsequently have blanked out what she did.

The Committee found all but one of the allegations proved and confirmed that it “was satisfied that the writing and sending of that letter was the culmination of a course of dishonest conduct.”

Committee Chair Dr Downes said: “In assessing [the evidence of] Dr Dyson the Committee took into account the difficulty faced by any Respondent appearing before their Regulator and also the various interruptions occasioned by issues which had to be dealt with during her evidence. Whilst [Dr Dyson is] undoubtedly highly qualified and highly respected, the Committee nevertheless considered her evidence lacked credibility and was not reliable.”

The Committee found that Dr Dyson’s conduct had breached parts of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons and amounted to serious professional misconduct.

Dr Downes continued: “The Committee determined that it was important that a clear message be sent that this sort of behaviour is wholly inappropriate and [was] not to be tolerated. It brings discredit upon Dr Dyson and discredit upon the profession.

"For whatever reason, Dr Dyson chose not to respond to Ms Overall’s email on 30th November 2018 in an honest and straightforward way. Instead, she lied about the makeup of the AHT Ethical Committee in order to cloak her response with authority.

"She also lied about having received advice from a current Inspector for the same reason. In the Committee’s view, she made a conscious decision to provide a dishonest response. She no doubt believed that would be the end of the matter.

"When that did not work, she lied further in the email to her co-author, Andrew Hemmings, claiming to have a letter from her friendly Inspector. When that too did not work, she impersonated a Home Office Inspector in creating the ‘Dr Butler letter’.

"She then added a false declaration to the manuscript, which she subsequently submitted to the Journal along with an email containing yet further lies. That was all done in a blatant and wilful attempt to deceive Ms Overall ... into believing the contents of the correspondence to be true, that confirmation a Home Office Licence was not required had been obtained and all was therefore well with the submitted manuscript.

"There was no rush, or urgency to have the paper published and the actions were not done in a moment of panic. No doubt she had not planned the entire course of events in advance, but instead reacted to each new obstacle that came her way, but her overall course of dishonest conduct spanned over three weeks.

“The Committee was well aware of the impact and ramifications for Dr Dyson of any decision to remove her from the Register but had to weigh her interests with those of the public.

"In doing so it took account of the context and circumstances of the case, all matters of personal mitigation, as detailed above, Dr Dyson’s undoubted distinguished international career and reputation and the need to act proportionally.

"However, for all the reasons given above, the Committee was of the view that the need to uphold proper standards of conduct within the veterinary profession, together with the public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession of veterinary surgeons, meant that a period of suspension would not be sufficient and that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in all the circumstances of this case was that of removal from the Register."

The RCVS is now inviting veterinary surgeons to stand as candidates for Council in its 2020 elections.

In next year's election, there are three places on Council for elected veterinary surgeons, with successful candidates serving four-year terms.

The nomination period runs until 5pm on Friday 31 January 2020. In order to stand, candidates need to complete a nomination form, submit a short biography and personal statement and supply a high resolution digital photo. 

Each candidate also needs to have two nominators who need to be veterinary surgeons who are on the RCVS Register but are not current RCVS Council members.

Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer said: "As always, we would encourage those who are interested in having their say in some of the key debates in the regulatory sphere, such as our under care review, our policies around the impact of Brexit and our vision for new veterinary legislation, to become a candidate.

"RCVS Council is at its best when it encompasses a broad range of perspectives, experiences and knowledge, and so we encourage people from all areas of veterinary life and all levels of experience to put themselves forward and share their expertise and insight." 

Nomination forms, guidance notes and frequently asked questions for prospective RCVS Council candidates can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil20. 

Prospective candidates for RCVS Council are welcome to contact the Registrar, Eleanor Ferguson (e.ferguson@rcvs.org.uk) and the RCVS CEO, Lizzie Lockett (l.lockett@rcvs.org.uk) for more information about the role of the College and/or RCVS Council.

RCVS Council will also be holding its next public meeting on Thursday 23 January 2020, prior to the closure date for Council candidate nominations. Prospective candidates are welcome to attend the Council meeting as an observer. Contact Dawn Wiggins, RCVS Council Secretary, on d.wiggins@rcvs.org.uk if you wish to attend.

The RCVS has launched two new awards for veterinary surgeons or veterinary nurses who are making a tangible positive impact on the profession and who are inspiring others by their example.

The RCVS Inspiration Award is for a veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse who has demonstrated the ability to inspire and enthuse others consistently throughout his or her career.

The award is open to those who have inspired and motivated individuals or groups or who have worked at a profession-wide level. It will recognise those who have gone 'above and beyond' what may normally be expected from a professional colleague or tutor. 

The RCVS Impact Award is for a veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse who has made a considerable impact that has affected the profession, animal health or welfare, or public health. Such impact could have been made through any field of veterinary endeavour, including clinical practice, research, education or veterinary politics.

Chris Tufnell, Senior Vice-President of the RCVS, said: "I am very excited to be introducing these two new awards for those veterinary surgeons and nurses who go above-and-beyond the call of duty for the benefit of their profession, animals and society as a whole.

"I am keen to emphasise that these two new awards are relevant for veterinary professionals from all walks of life and any stage of their career – these are not life-time achievement awards but are for those making a tangible difference whether that’s in their practice, their region or across the country as a whole.

"If you know someone like this then I would strongly encourage you to find out more on our website and fill out a nomination form."

These two awards join four others made by the College:

• The Queen’s Medal, for veterinary surgeons who've made a significant impact on their profession over the course of a career.
• The Golden Jubilee Award, for veterinary nurses who've have made a significant impact on their profession over the course of a career
• Honorary Associateship for laypeople who have made a significant impact in the veterinary field.
• International Award for individuals who have worked internationally from either within or outside the UK, to safeguard and improve animal health and welfare. 

Nominations for all six honours are now open. Nomination forms and guidance notes can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk/honours and any questions can be directed to Peris Dean, Executive Secretary, on p.dean@rcvs.org.uk.

The deadline for making nominations is Friday 22 September 2017.