The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has severely reprimanded and warned as to his future conduct a veterinary surgeon who failed to make sufficient enquiries about the location or condition of a cat; unreasonably refused to provide it with first aid and pain relief; and failed to provide it with adequate 24-hour emergency care.

Following a three-day hearing, the Committee found Marcus Kutschera, of South London Emergency Veterinary Centre, Streatham, guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to events on 16 May 2011. Mr Kutschera was Clinical Director of the practice, which provided out-of-hours emergency services to several London veterinary practices. At about 1.45am, the practice received two telephone calls from a representative of a registered charity about a cat, which the caller considered should be seen by a veterinary surgeon as soon as possible. The charity was itself a client of one of the practices whose out-of-hours emergency services were provided by the South London Emergency Veterinary Centre. The cat was later euthanased by the RSPCA.

After listening to a recording of a telephone call between a representative of the charity and Mr Kutschera, during which Mr Kutschera failed to ask about either the condition or location of the cat, the Committee was in no doubt that the caller believed Mr Kutschera would not see the cat unless he was able to pay when it was presented. The Committee said that, once the telephone call had been received, the primary responsibility of the veterinary surgeon was the welfare of the animal, and Mr Kutschera had no good reason not to see the cat or to follow the procedures set out in the Guide to Professional Conduct 2010. If he had made proper inquiries, he would have been able to make a provisional diagnosis that the cat was likely to be euthanased. Mr Kutschera was guilty of unreasonably refusing to provide first aid and/or pain relief to the animal, and of failing to provide adequate 24-hour emergency care.

The Committee concluded that Mr Kutschera's conduct fell far short of that to be expected of a veterinary surgeon. Although he did recommend that the cat should be taken to the RSPCA, his primary concern was the ability of the client to make a payment on presentation of the cat, and not the animal's welfare. He had a responsibility for ensuring that proper emergency cover was provided.

In mitigation, the Committee noted that the event was a single, short telephone call between Mr Kutschera and the client in the early hours of the morning, and there was no evidence to suggest similar behaviour on his part on other occasions. Mr Kutschera accepted that he made no inquiries into the cat's condition or location, and the Committee accepted that he had shown some insight into what went badly wrong. He said that he had subsequently changed his practice when speaking to clients on the telephone. The Committee also took account of the impact on Mr Kutschera of the case hanging over him since the complaint was made in August 2011 and, as the cost of the Disciplinary Committee inquiry was not covered by his professional indemnity insurance, he had taken on a substantial financial commitment to pay for legal representation.

Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "The primary purpose of the sanction is not to punish but to protect the welfare of animals, maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards of conduct. Whilst there are undoubted financial issues that can arise in the operation of an out-of-hours service, the primary responsibility of the veterinary surgeon is for the welfare of the animal."

The Committee recommended that Mr Kutschera undertake, within 12 months, continuing professional development training, with a particular emphasis on animal welfare, ethics and client care, in the context of providing out-of-hours services. It imposed on Mr Kutschera the sanction of a severe reprimand and a warning as to his future conduct.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has restored Portsmouth-based Simon Wood MRCVS to the Register. 

Mr Wood was removed from the Register in 2018 after being convicted of posessing indecent images of children and made subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for five years.

Mr Wood first applied to rejoin the Register in 2020 but his application was rejected. 

At the outset of his second application last month, Mr Wood’s counsel argued that he is professionally competent to be restored, that he had strong mitigation for his offending, that he had consistently and repeatedly expressed and demonstrated profound remorse, that he posed a low risk of re-offending, that he had proactively engaged with the Probation Service and voluntary counselling to gain further insight into his offending, and that he had completed his community sentence and was no longer subject to any of the court orders arising from his conviction.

The Committee then weighed up whether Mr Wood had accepted its original findings in 2018, the seriousness of the offences, whether he demonstrated insight, protection of the public and the public interest, the future welfare of animals should he be restored to the Register, the length of time off the Register, Mr Wood's conduct since he was removed and evidence that he had kept up-to-date with veterinary knowledge, skills and practice.

Dr Kathryn Peaty MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee is satisfied that Mr Wood has done everything required of him in order to be able to satisfy the Committee that he is fit to be restored to the Register.

“At the last application in June 2020, he was unsuccessful largely because of the outstanding ancillary Court Orders that did not conclude until early 2023. Those Orders have now concluded

“He has shown significant insight into his offending behaviour. He has been proactive in his rehabilitation and taken significant steps to ensure there would be no repetition.

“He has a small, but strong, network of people around him who appear to genuinely care about him and support him. He has worked hard at maintaining his skills and knowledge, in so far as he has been able to in light of not being able to practise as a veterinary surgeon.

“He is thoughtful and realistic about his prospects going forward. His responses to questions about addiction were appropriate and persuasive. He has expressed genuine remorse and there is, in the Committee’s view, a public interest in allowing him to be restored to the Register.”

www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

Derbyshire surgeon Victoria Lilley BVSc CertSAM MRCVS has launched a petition calling on the RCVS to abandon its plans to remove Certificate and Diploma holders' post nominals from the RCVS Register at www.rcvs.org.uk.

Under the current plan, which followed a consultation in 2011 and a submission to Council in 2012, the College will only distinguish the new "Advanced Practitioners" and "RCVS Recognised Specialists" in the Register from some time after the autumn. Vets with old-style RCVS Certificates can apply for "Advanced Practitioner" status but must complete module A of the CertAVP or 100 hours of equivalent CPD and pay £50 to apply, plus £110 per year to maintain the status. 

Victoria said: "I want to spread the word that this is happening, as I don't feel the RCVS has publicised it well enough. I did my certificate in practice, it was a lot of hard work and I feel that the RCVS removing my CertSAM post-nominals from the register undermines this. Whilst I acknowledge that I could apply for "Advanced Practitioner" status, I strongly feel that spending a large proportion of my CPD time and budget learning about ethics and public safety is not going to help me improve my small animal medicine knowledge or skills. I also don't feel that I should be penalised by having to pay to be an "Advanced Practitioner" when the Royal College should be supportive of vets who undertake further study. My biggest objection is to post-nominals being removed from the register, which I feel is very unfair."

Speaking at the RCVS's online Question Time on thewebinarvet.com, RCVS Treasurer and Vice-President-elect Dr Bradley Viner said: "To clarify the situation with the Register: the Register no longer goes out to members routinely as a printed document. It is now primarily online, and in line with other regulators such as the GMC, the only information that is in the official part of Register is whether that person is a Member or a Fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and their registrable qualifications, in other words the primary qualification they achieved which entitled them to become a Member or Fellow of the Royal College.

"But we are certainly not going to be inhibiting people from using their post-nominals freely. They can use any of the post-nominals that they have achieved as long as they are not misleading.

"But I think there is confusion between a qualification and a status. A qualification is something that you obtain and you've got for life, and of course the old style Certificate is one of those, the new RCVS CertAVP is another. A status is something that a qualification within our context might enable you to attain, but it is something that has to be maintained.

"So what is going to be happening, hopefully from autumn this year, is that in line with the recommendations of the Specialisation Working Party, [there will be] an extra tier. So there will be Practitioners, there will be Advanced Practitioners and there will be RCVS Recognised Specialists, and there will be lists of those available via the Royal College. An Advanced Practitioner will be somebody who has a relevant qualification in the area of their advanced practice, and that may well be an old-style Certificate, certainly the CertAVP but there are also other qualifications which can also be relevant and used for that purpose. But they also have to prove that they are working actively in that area of practice, and they have an advanced requirement for CPD.

"Now in the case of old style RCVS Certificate holders, that qualification will be in line with the qualification they require to be listed as an Advanced Practitioner, but within the first three years they will have to show that they have either done the RCVS A module which is part of the new RCVS Certificate, or have done work that is equivalent to that in various areas such as communications, teamworking and personal and professional development, because we think from a Royal College point of view that it is really important that those areas are included within the Advanced Practitioner Status."

To sign the petition, visit: http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/royal-college-of-veterinary-surgeons-keep-post-graduate-qualifications-on-the-rcvs-register?recruiter=89624244&utm_campaign=mailto_link&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended Leicester-based Jatinder Dhami MRCVS for four months after he was found guilty of kicking and stamping on a dog that had bitten him.

The Disciplinary Committee heard three charges against Dr Dhami, relating to events which took place while he was in practice at Vets4Pets in Market Harborough, Leicestershire.

The first charge against him was that, in November 2017, he used excessive force in kicking and stamping on a Staffordshire Bull Terrier he was treating.

The second charge was that, between in October and November 2017, he failed to pay adequate regard to the welfare of a Jack Russell in his care by leaving it in a sink without adequate reason and for an excessive period of time.

The third charge was that, between April and March 2018, he failed to have adequate regard to the welfare of a six-to-eight week old kitten, including providing bedding and warmth.

At the outset of the hearing Dr Dhami admitted to lightly kicking the dog, but denied forcefully kicking it and also denied that he had stamped on the dog, as well as denying the other two charges against him.

In considering the circumstances of the first charge, the Committee heard evidence from two of Dr Dhami’s colleagues stating that the dog had bitten him whilst he was cleaning its ears and, following this, he took the dog out of the consulting room, closed the door and whilst holding the dog’s lead then proceeded to kick her twice, knocking her along the floor both times, and then finally stamp on her when she was prone.

Dr Dhami disputed his colleagues' version of events and stated that he had only delivered two light kicks to the dog’s rump, that neither of these had made her fall to the floor and also denied in categorical terms that he stamped on the animal. Furthermore, he also denied the second and third charges against him.

In considering the evidence as to whether Dr Dhami kicked and stamped on the dog, the Disciplinary Committee found the evidence of his two colleagues to be credible and reliable, and so found all aspects of the charge proven.

Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "For the avoidance of doubt, the Committee finds that the admitted kicks administered to [the animal] by the respondent were of significant force. The Committee rejects the respondent’s assertion that the admitted kicks amounted to mere taps on the backside. The Committee finds that the ‘stamping’ was also of significant force."

In regards to the second and third charges, the Committee was not satisfied that the charges had been proven by the evidence it heard and therefore dismissed them both. 

Having found all parts of the first charge proven, the Committee then went on to consider whether or not Dr Dhami’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct, something that Dr Dhami, following the Committee’s decision on the facts, through his counsel, had admitted.

The Committee identified a number of aggravating factors, including the real risk of physical harm to the animal and the deliberate nature Dr Dhami’s conduct against the animal, committed in anger.

In mitigation, the Committee accepted that this was an isolated incident and that Dr Dhami had been bitten and was in pain. The Committee therefore found that Dr Dhami’s admission of serious professional misconduct was ‘properly and prudently made’. 

The Committee then considered what sanction to impose on Dr Dhami. In doing so it took into account some of the written testimonials and character witnesses called on behalf of Dr Dhami. The Committee was also satisfied that Dr Dhami had had a hitherto long and unblemished career, that he had apologised to colleagues immediately after the incident and that, since the events, he had continued to work as a veterinary surgeon without any problems. 

In relation to insight about the event, the Committee accepted Dr Dhami had provided some evidence of reflection, in that he admitted kicking the dog and accepted that this conduct, once found proven, amounted to serious professional misconduct. 

The Committee decided that suspending Dr Dhami from the Register for four months would be the most proportionate sanction.

Ian Green concluded: "Having regard to all the matters urged by way of mitigation, and having taken into account all the evidence that it has heard, the Committee is satisfied that a period of suspension is sufficient in this case to protect the welfare of animals, maintain public confidence and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct."

Dr Dhami has 28 days from being informed of the outcome of the hearing in which to make an appeal to the Privy Council.

Retired Plymouth-based vet Edmund Shillabeer has had his application to be removed from the Register approved by the RCVS, and will therefore not have to face multiple charges that he failed to provide adequate care for his patients in 2021. 

Mr Shillabeer faced five charges which largely related to his alleged prescription of contra-indicated NSAIDs and corticosteroids.

He was also charged with prescribing frusemide to a pregnant dog when there was no evidence of a benefit of so doing. 

He was also charged with performing inadequate spay surgery.

Mr Shillabeer did not admit to any of the charges, engaged with the College and responded to all requests for information, as well as being present in-person at the hearing.

He made an application to the Committee to dispose of the matter by way of adjournment, subject to the Committee accepting his written undertaking to remove his name from the Register and never to apply to be restored to the Register.

In support of his application, Mr Shillabeer’s legal counsel referred to his client’s witness statement, which set out that he had previously attempted to sell his practice but had been unsuccessful and that he had since closed it.

His legal counsel also asked the Committee to consider the fact that Mr Shillabeer is almost 85 years old and has had an unblemished 60-year career, has had no previous disciplinary findings against him, had put his practice up for sale and made efforts to guide his previous clients to ensure continuity of care elsewhere, and that he deeply regrets anything he has done, which has failed to protect the welfare of animals, or has caused concern or upset to his clients and fellow members of the profession.

Mr Shillabeer's counsel also asked the Committee to take into consideration that his undertakings would have the effect of protecting the welfare of animals and uphold the reputation of the profession as Mr Shillabeer is no longer in practice.

He stated it would be not proportionate, or in the public interest, for there to be a lengthy contested hearing resulting in substantial costs for both the RCVS and Mr Shillabeer.

The College’s legal representative stated that the RCVS did not oppose the application, and that it took a neutral stance.

She highlighted that Mr Shillabeer’s removal from the Register, together with his undertaking never to apply for restoration, would go far beyond anything the Committee could direct by way of sanction after a full enquiry, that Mr Shillabeer retired from practice on 23 July 2024 and does not intend to return, that a full enquiry would take a significant amount of time and expense, that the complainant supports the case being dealt with in the manner proposed by Mr Shillabeer, and that there are no previous findings against Mr Shillabeer.

Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Taking into account the undertaking never to practice again, in conjunction with all of the circumstances and context set out, the Committee considered that by allowing the application, such an outcome would be sufficient to uphold the public interest, confidence in the profession and the RCVS as regulator, and protect the welfare of animals.

“As a result of all the factors set out, the Committee decided that this is not a case in which the public interest or the welfare of animals demands that there be a full hearing.

“Taking into account proportionality and weighing in the balance all the circumstances of the case, the interests of justice, the public interest, the need to uphold proper standards of conduct and performance, and the need to protect the welfare of animals, the Committee decided to grant the respondent’s application.”

Mr Shillabeer was removed from the Register with immediate effect.

https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/ 

RCVS President Neil Smith has issued a statement in response to the petition by Devon vet Jo Dyer which called for the removal of mandatory house visits from the Code of Professional Conduct and received just shy of 1300 signatures over the past 48 hours.

The statement reads:

"I am delighted to see that so many veterinary surgeons are taking seriously our call for views and evidence on all aspects of the provision of 24-hour emergency cover, including those who have signed up to veterinary surgeon Jo Dyer's petition calling for the removal of 'mandatory house visits' from the Code of Professional Conduct.

"However, I am concerned that the petition is working on a misunderstanding. Veterinary surgeons are not mandated to attend away from the practice just because an owner has requested a visit. It is a professional decision based on a range of factors.

"In fact, paragraph 3.13 of the Supporting Guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct states 'Clients may request attendance on a sick or injured animal away from the practice premises and, in some circumstances, it may be desirable to do so. On rare occasions, it may be necessary on clinical or welfare grounds. The decision to attend away from the practice is for the veterinary surgeon, having carefully balanced the needs of the animal against the safety implications of making the visit; a veterinary surgeon is not expected to risk 'life or limb', or that of anyone else, to provide the service.'

"I appreciate that recent disciplinary hearings, especially that of Mr Chikosi, have increased concerns in the profession that vets will be disciplined for not turning out to every single request for a home visit. This is not the case. In order for someone to be taken to a disciplinary hearing for refusing to attend away from the practice, first there needs to be a complaint, and second, the Preliminary Investigation Committee needs to be convinced that the veterinary surgeon could not justify their decision. Such cases are rare. In fact, last year, only 3% of the complaints we received were about 24-hour cover, and not all of those related to home visits.

"Having said this, the number of signatures received on Jo Dyer's petition, and the comments of the signatories, will be fed into the material reviewed by the Standards Committee, alongside formal responses to our call for evidence, and views gathered from animal-owner research.  Clearly if so many veterinary surgeons believe that house visits are mandatory in all circumstances, the wording of our guidance needs to be reviewed, at the very least.

"It is likely that any recommendations for change in our 24/7 policy would go to the June meeting of Council, although this timetable is subject to change, depending on the nature of the report from the Standards Committee."

Warwickshire-based Elizabeth Gatehouse MRCVS has been suspended for two months by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for falsely confirming the vaccination of a horse to a fellow veterinary surgeon, and for fabricating an entry in the horse’s clinical records.

Ms Gatehouse faced two charges, the first being that she inaccurately assured another veterinary surgeon that she had vaccinated a horse against influenza and tetanus  when she had not, and she subsequently failed to undertake adequate checks to confirm whether she had done so. 

The second charge was that she later made a false entry in the same horse’s clinical records to cover up her previous inaccurate statement. 

Ms Gatehouse admitted the facts alleged in relation to both charges and also admitted that in relation to the second charge she was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

The Committee, having heard submissions from Counsel for the RCVS and Ms Gatehouse found her guilty of disgraceful conduct in relation to the first charge.

Under the first charge the Committee found that she had breached the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons by not keeping clear, accurate and detailed clinical and client records, and by acting in a manner that was likely to undermine public trust in the profession.

They also considered that her falsehood was unpremeditated, and that the decision was made in a moment of panic. Ultimately, however, by claiming the horse was vaccinated to another veterinary surgeon and not taking the necessary steps to confirm this, she failed to put the welfare of the animal first, potentially endangering it and any other horses it came into contact with, as well as potentially jeopardising the position of the veterinary surgeon she confirmed it to.

Having found Ms Gatehouse guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to both parts of the charge the Committee then considered its sanction against her. In mitigation the Committee considered the fact that she had been in practice for 22 years without any untoward conduct, the testimony of three witnesses who attested to her being an honest and trustworthy practitioner, and the fact that Ms Gatehouse was in a troublesome relationship with the complainant until June 2014 which led her to be reluctant to contact him to correct her initial confirmation. 

In summing up Stuart Drummond, Chair of the Committee, said: "The Committee has considers that it is material to have regard to the general emotional state to which the Respondent was reduced by the controlling and debilitating conduct of her then partner when they were living together and the consequential loss of self-esteem and ability to stand up to him and his demands. The deleterious effect of an abusive relationship lingers after such a relationship ends. 

"Taking into account this knowledge, the Committee considers that the period of suspension that would, in other circumstances, be entirely merited, can properly be reduced in this instance to reflect the fact that this veterinary surgeon would not have acted as she did during this period but for the fact that her judgement was adversely affected by her experience at the hands of her then former partner. 

"The decision is that, whilst it is necessary, in order sufficiently to protect animals and the wider public interest, to impose a period of suspension from practice, that period can be reduced to one of two months. In so concluding the Committee wishes to make it clear that this decision reflects the special features of this case."

Ms Gatehouse can choose to appeal the decision after a period of 28 days.

Vets Now has published a response to the RCVS DC ruling in which Munhuwepasi Chikosi, a locum working for the company, was struck off for delaying an emergency OOH home visit. 

The response is available in full here: http://www.vets-now.com/news/?item=4191

The BVA and the RCVS have issued a statement which clarifies what work veterinary surgeons and practices are allowed to do under the coronavirus lockdown. 

On 23rd March, the Government demanded that the majority of public-facing businesses close their doors. Veterinary surgeries, however, have been exempted and are allowed to remain open.

However, the number of clients seen face-to-face should be kept to an absolute minimum and veterinary teams must insist on strict social distancing measures at all times.

In addition, the RCVS/BVA say that: 

• Routine treatments should not be carried out until further notice.
• You may offer your clients advice and consultation services via remote means, including prescribing POM-V medicines where appropriate.
• Clients and/or veterinary professionals should only travel to see animals if judged essential to do so.
• Animals should only be seen in emergencies or where, in the judgement of the veterinary surgeon, urgent assessment and/or treatment is needed in order to reduce the risk of patient deterioration to the point where it may become an emergency in the near future (ie within the three-week time frame currently laid out by the Government for these measures).
• Veterinary professionals should exercise judgement as to when it is necessary for you to see an animal and/or their owner in person.
   has updated its FAQs for veterinary professionals, which can be found here:  

The College has updated its FAQs for veterinary professionals, which can be found here: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/advice-and-guidance/coronavirus-covid-19/ 

The BVA is now developing some further guidance to provide examples of what constitutes routine, urgent and emergency care. 

Dermot Costello, a Shropshire practitioner, has been suspended by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for 10 weeks after he admitted being dishonest with a client and falsifying records about the treatment of her dog.

Mr Costello faced four charges against him:  

• On 31 October 2014 in a telephone call to his client Mrs Green, he dishonestly indicated that Scruffy, her Border Terrier/ Collie cross, was still alive, despite knowing that the dog was dead, and told her that the practice had taken positive steps to treat and/or care for Scruffy throughout the previous night despite knowing this was false;
• On 31 October 2014, during a meeting with Mrs Green, acted dishonestly by indicating the above account was correct and failing to inform her it was incorrect;
• On 19 November 2014, during another meeting with Mrs Green, once again acted dishonestly by indicating that the original false account was correct;
• Between 30 October and 4 December 2014 dishonestly created a hospitalisation record for Scruffy which, for 31 October 2014, included records of observations and/or treatment and/or care which he knew had not been made or given and provided this false hospitalisation record to Mrs Green.

At the outset of the hearing, Mr Costelloe, a partner at a veterinary practice in Market Drayton, Shropshire, admitted all heads of charge against him.

Scruffy had been brought to Mr Costelloe for a consultation on 27 October 2014. He carried out a physical examination and arranged for radiographs and routine blood tests while also prescribing anti-inflammatory tablets for spondylosis. Scruffy was brought back to the practice on 30 October 2014 following the deterioration of her condition. Further assessment took place and an abdominal scan was arranged for the next day. She stayed at the practice overnight, but died at some point during the night of 30 to 31 October 2014.

A telephone call between Mrs Green and Mr Costelloe took place shortly after 8am on 31 October during which he told her that "they had struggled with Scruffy all night" and that, as they were speaking, Scruffy was on oxygen and struggling to breathe.

After Mrs Green said she wanted to come to the practice to be with her dog, Mr Costelloe told her to wait and that he would call her back in two minutes. He did so and told her Scruffy had died five minutes ago, when in fact she had died at some point between 11pm on 30 October and 8am on 31 October.

Mr Costelloe continued the deception at meetings with Mrs Green on 31 October and 19 November 2014 and she was given the falsified clinical records on 4 December 2014. Another meeting took place on 14 January 2015 where Mr Costelloe finally admitted his deception to her. This resulted in Mrs Green submitting a formal complaint to the RCVS on 23 February 2015. He admitted his deception to the College in writing on 4 August 2015.

The Committee decided that all four heads of charge amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect as his actions contravened several sections of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons in relation to being open and honest with clients; keeping clear, accurate and detailed clinical records; and not engaging in any actions or behaviour that would likely bring the profession into disrepute or undermine public confidence in the profession.

The Committee noted that, in his statement, Mr Costelloe gave a number of reasons for his conduct, including concern over Mrs Green’s reaction to the death of her dog and concern for the young vet who was on duty when Scruffy died. However, the Committee considered that the need to be open and honest with his clients should have been put above the needs of his practice.

In considering its sanction against Mr Costelloe, the Committee heard mitigating evidence from four character witnesses called on his behalf, as well as a number of written testimonials, and also had regard to his evident remorse, shame and insight into his behaviour.

However, it also considered a number of aggravating factors, including the fact that the misconduct had premeditated elements, was sustained over a period of weeks, and constituted a clear breach of client trust.

The Committee decided that the most appropriate sanction was to suspend Mr Costelloe from the Register for a period of 10 weeks. Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "It [the Committee] concluded that this was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case. The Committee took the view that the likelihood of repetition of dishonest conduct was very low. It had found no ‘attitude of dishonesty’ in the respondent. There were no risks to the welfare or health of animals. The respondent was a good veterinary surgeon and he had shown considerable insight regarding his dishonesty, for example, by actively seeking out Ms Green to tell her the truth. 

"The Committee does not condone what the respondent has done. It considers that the public interest requires that there has to be confidence that veterinary surgeons do not fabricate accounts or documents, no matter what their intentions."

She added: "The Committee has therefore determined that suspension for a period of 10 weeks is proportionate in all the circumstances to mark the nature and gravity of the case and is sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession and to uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour, and directs the Registrar accordingly."

The Committee’s full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).

An unnamed veterinary nurse has been struck off by the RCVS VN Disciplinary Committee for claiming to be a veterinary surgeon and for making offensive and discriminatory remarks on the social media platform X (Twitter).

The individual, referred to as Mrs D throughout the hearing and who was granted anonymity by the Committee on grounds relating to her health, faced three charges against her.

The first charge was that she posted the tweets from her Twitter/X account.

The second charge was that in a number of tweets (Schedule 1 below), she falsely stated or implied that she was a veterinary surgeon, and that, in some tweets, while falsely holding herself out to be a veterinary surgeon, she used language that was offensive and/or unprofessional.

The third charge was that in a number of tweets (Schedule 2 below) she made statements that were offensive, discriminatory and brought the veterinary professions into disrepute.

At the outset of the hearing Mrs D admitted all the facts of the charges against her, and also admitted that her conduct amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional capacity.

The Committee considered that there were a number of aggravating factors in Mrs D’s behaviour, including a lack of probity and integrity, as well as dishonesty, in holding herself out as a veterinary surgeon.

Her conduct was also premeditated and took place over a lengthy period of time, involved abuse of her position, and demonstrated discriminatory behaviour, as a large number of her tweets were highly offensive towards various minority groups.

In mitigation, the Committee heard from the respondent that she had a number of difficulties in her personal life which led to inappropriate use of social media, though she did not suggest these factors excused her behaviour.

The Committee also considered that Mrs D had a long and previously unblemished career of 15 or so years, had made early admissions (albeit she had initially denied being responsible for the tweets) and shown considerable remorse.

However, in terms of the sanction, the Committee considered that removal from the Register was the most proportionate sanction it could impose.

Paul Morris, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: “For a registered veterinary nurse to pretend to be a veterinary surgeon on a public platform is itself an extremely serious matter.

"When that presentation is associated with the highly offensive language of the tweets in this case, extending over a period of years, the conduct is in the view of the Committee fundamentally incompatible with continued registration.

“The Committee has concluded that removal from the register is the only sanction which is sufficient to satisfy the public interest in maintaining proper standards of behaviour for registered veterinary practitioners and public confidence in the profession and its regulation.”

www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

The Tweets

Schedule 1

1. “@cbbc really disappointed that you don’t highlight the work that registered vet nurses do too! A vet practice couldn’t run without us!” 
2. “As a vet nurse she needs more education on foxes! This is scaremongering” 
3. “Funny listening to a teacher, who had brought her poorly cat in, moaning about schools opening next week, to me.. a vet.. who has worked in practice alongside our fantastic nurses and office staff throughout lockdown” 
4. “In my experience as a vet I would take your pup along to your local vets free nurse clinics and they will give you all the correct advice you need” 
5. “Tell u what I worked as a vet nurse whilst I trained to be a vet plus worked at local Beefeater to save what we’ve got-it’s called bloody hard work!” 
6. “I was paid 6k a year working 42 hours a week as a trainee vet nurse in 1996 whilst waiting for opportunity to get into vet school” 
7. “Please give my RVN colleagues the professionals respect they deserve by stating salary range” 
8. “No one claps for us, we don’t get discounts or great pensions… we are there 24/7 for your fur babies… perhaps we should strike?... I don’t know a single vet nurse or vet that would put animal lives in danger to do this though” 
9. “Yeah we’re driving round in Ferraris and doing snow angels in our cash. There’s no NHS for pet which is why twits like you don’t understand costs to run a vet practice” 
10. “My clients are lovely thanks, so are their pets. You’re an obvious pathetic trolling Karen and I feel sorry for your dog (and your vet if you have one, I’m sure you’re very popular there)” 
11. “I’m a vet dear I deal with the aftermath of horse cruelty weekly- considering you’re a minority, traveller horse cruelty is a huge problem!” 
12. “As a vet, and I think I speak for the entire profession, the Tories can feck off” 

Schedule 2 

1. “I’m a vet dear I deal with the aftermath of horse cruelty weekly- considering you’re a minority, traveller horse cruelty is a huge problem!” 
2. “Black people kill more black people than any other race… perhaps they should practice what they preach” 
3. “She stop ALL this woke and immigration crap and return the UK to its indigenous citizens” [In response to question about what Margaret Thatcher would do if she returned to power] 
4. If White British moved to African nations (let’s be honest they’ll be empty soon) and rebuilt towns/cities you can bet all the illegal grimmigrants will flood there… lazy entitled scroungers” 
5. “The #WEF want population control but are happy for feral African men to flood Europe?! I don’t get it” 
6. “Ha ha funny how the #BLM lot are all ‘ard until the pickeys come after them” [In response to a post about a rally staged near traveler homes] 
7. “I bet I know what religion the taxi driver was…” [in respect to an article about a taxi driver who refused to pick up a blind person] 
8. “Kent is a shithole mainly thanks to bottles of piss from lorries being chucked out the window as they travel from ports! Plus the feral being dumped here by London borough councils”
9. “@UK Labour you happy to let this one in too? @refugeecounsel… I think you and yours should be held accountable for each and every crime these ferals commit!!” [In response to a post about a crime committed by an asylum seeker]
10. “Black black black black racist racist racist blah blah blah” [In response to a post about King Charles and Harry/Megan] 
11. “Literal animals” [In response to a post of a picture apparently showing one Muslim woman on top of another- the original post said “was this some kid of modernised Islamic prayer”] 
12. “Import the third world become the third world” [In response to a post about conviction of Somali men on drug charges] 
13. “Feral #BLM” [In response to a post about “cultural decline”] 
14. “Import feral expect feral” [In response to a video apparently showing a school principal stopping a gang attacking a pupil] 
15. “Does he feel as strongly for the underage girls groomed by Pakistani men right under our noses” [In response to a BBC Question Time post of a black audience member’s comments on the case of Shamina Begum]
16. “We know who is responsible and it’s not British Christian’s!! Why has the @Conservatives allowed this to happen to our country?!” [In response to a post about a dead sheep found in Brook in Birmingham]
17. “These aren’t genuine refugees you blinkered melon and that’s why London is a third world s**thole” [In response to post by Sadiq Khan about violence against asylum seekers and refugees] 
18. “Minorities do not want to integrate with anyone and they all hate each other too- Kent is a multicultural sh*t hole” 
19. “Import feral expect feral” [In response to a report about a stabbing incident next to an asylum centre in Ireland] 
20. “Like a swarm of locusts” [In response to a post of a photograph of a small boat apparently carrying migrants off Florida Keys in the United States] 
21. “When you’re in control we are flooded with African freeloaders” [In response to a post about crime in Labour run areas] 
22. “Happy to ban it [the Quran] in the UK- they can move” 
23. “Probably fed up with clearing up [poo emoji] and detritus by the ferals” [In response to a post about a Kerry hotel housing migrants not renewing its contract] 
24. “@SuellaBraverman you’re literally importing thousands of rapists” [In response to an article about an asylum seeker convicted of rape] 
25. “Seriously why do you live here?? There are plenty of predominantly black nations where you won’t suffer hate or violence… oh wait…” [In response to celebrity criticism of Jeremy Clarkson statements on Megan Markle] 
26. “Stop Islamification of this country- ban Halal, 2nd wife benefits & burkas should do it.” 
27. “You are allowing the UK to be turned into a third world country complete with an antiquated homophobic, misogynistic, animal abusing, pedophilic religion dictating law and order.” 
28. “@Conservatives when will you actually ask UK taxpayers if THIS is acceptable for the UK? Misogyny, homophobia, animal abuse, pedophilia is not welcome in civilized society” [In response to a report about building of a mosque] 

Republic of Ireland-based Gary Adams has been suspended from the Register for two years after he was convicted of 34 charges related to prescribing veterinary medicines.

Mr Adams was convicted at Gorey District Court, County Wexford, Republic of Ireland in March 2015 for:

• Nine offences of prescribing animal remedies to animals not under his care;

• Five offences of forging entries in official animal remedies records owned by farmers to suggest he had made visits to farms when he had not;

• Seven offences of dispensing a prescription-only animal remedy but not preparing a veterinary prescription containing the details of the animals;

• Two offences of failing to affix labels in the required form to prescription-only items when selling or supplying animal remedies;

• Six offences of failing to annotate the dispensed prescriptions with the word ‘dispensed’ and failing to sign and date them;

• Three offences of failing to keep a record or purchases and sales (including quantities administered) in respect of each incoming and outgoing transaction; and

• Two offences of selling animal remedies on a wholesale basis without an animal wholesaler’s licence.

The charges related to treatment of animals not under his care throughout 2012 and 2013 which were investigated by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine in the Republic of Ireland. 

In relation to these convictions Mr Adams received a 12-month prison sentence, suspended for two years, was fined a total of €40,000 and ordered to pay costs of €16,400. 

Following his conviction his conduct was considered by the Veterinary Council of Ireland’s (VCI) Fitness to Practice Committee and, in September 2017, the VCI a sanction of 12 months’ suspension from its Register. This sanction was upheld by the High Court in the Republic of Ireland in November 2017.

As well as being a registered veterinary surgeon in the Republic of Ireland, Mr Adams was also on the UK-practising Register with the RCVS, so his convictions were considered under the College’s own complaints and disciplinary process.

At the outset of the hearing, Mr Adams admitted the charges and accepted his convictions rendered him unfit to practise. The College also asserted that Mr Adams' convictions rendered him unfit to practise, noting a number of aggravating factors including the risk of injury to animals, dishonesty, premeditation, financial gain and misconduct sustained and repeated over time. 

In considering the College’s case and Mr Adams’ own admissions, the Disciplinary Committee agreed that his conduct rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery. 

Professor Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee found the conduct to be at the serious end of the spectrum for such misconduct, it being systematic, prolonged and illegal conduct relating to the supply of animal remedies which posed a significant risk to human and animal health.

"Accordingly, the Committee found that the convictions which led to these charges cumulatively render Mr Adams unfit to practise."

In considering the sanction, the Disciplinary Committee took into account a number of mitigating factors including that he had been practising since 1993 and had no previous disciplinary findings, had made open and frank admissions at all stages to the College and had practised between April 2013, when the matters first came to light, and February 2018, when he was suspended by the Veterinary Council of Ireland, without incident. 

It also considered the conditions that were imposed upon Mr Adams by the VCI in terms of notification that he was intending to return to practice, auditing of his practice, his continuing professional development (CPD) and having to undertake personal and professional support programmes and arrangements for professional mentorship for one year after his return to practice. 

In view of the sanctions already imposed by the court in Ireland, and his suspension by the VCI, the Disciplinary Committee decided that a period of two years’ suspension from the UK Register of Veterinary Surgeons was the appropriate sanction.

Professor Barr said: "Whilst Mr Adams would be able to practise in the Republic of Ireland before he was able to practise in the United Kingdom again, the Committee considered that the conditions attached to his supervision in Ireland meant that he would be subject to close supervision before he was allowed to practise again in the United Kingdom and that only a longer period of suspension would allow this to happen.

"The Committee therefore decided that only a suspension of two years would maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct for the serious nature of these charges."

Mr Adams has 28 days from being informed about the Disciplinary Committee’s decision to make an appeal to the Privy Council.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has agreed to adjourn multiple charges against an Essex-based veterinary surgeon who qualified in 1969, following his undertakings firstly to request removal from the RCVS Register and secondly never apply to be restored to it.

At the hearing, which had originally been listed for seven days, Geoffrey Raymond Oliver, 68, was charged with serious professional misconduct over allegations of his inadequate treatment of two dogs and a cat (belonging to three different clients) between 2010 and 2012; inadequate record keeping; failures to deal honestly or properly with his clients; and, failure to heed advice from the RCVS Preliminary Investigation Committee about the importance of proper communication between veterinary surgeons and their clients.

However, before the Committee heard evidence on any aspect of these charges, Mr Oliver lodged his application for adjournment. The Committee therefore made no findings on the charges, and emphasised they had neither been proved against, nor admitted by, him.

The Committee noted that there had been no adverse findings against Mr Oliver during his professional career, that his practice was now closed and that he had no intention of returning to practise in the future. Should he subsequently apply to be restored to the Register, the Committee would resume its consideration of the charges, along with his breach of the undertaking.

The Committee was advised that none of the complainants in the case - which could have incurred considerable time and costs - dissented from the proposed course of action.

Speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, its Chairman, Professor Peter Lees, said: "The Committee has concluded that no useful purpose would be served were it to insist on a full hearing [and it] would be a disproportionate waste of...resources [to do so]. The Committee is satisfied that [granting the adjournment application] protects the welfare of animals and...is in the public interest."

The Committee then accepted Mr Oliver's undertakings, including the removal of his name from the Register with immediate effect.

Professor Lees added: "So that he is in no doubt about the matter, the Committee reminds [Mr Oliver] that, when referring clients of his former practice elsewhere, he should be careful to avoid giving them any advice about the diagnosis or treatment of their animals."