Alexander McKinstry and Andrew Rutherford were both charged with writing letters indicating that Rebecca Inman had undertaken an assessment when in fact they had done the assessments themselves, the former without Ms Inman's knowledge, the latter with.
The charges were that all three, who worked at the same practice group in North-West, had been dishonest, misleading and risked undermining procedures designed to promote animal welfare.
At the outset of the hearing, all three admitted the charges against them and the Committee found serious professional misconduct in the case of all admitted charges.
The Committee then considered the sanctions for all three of the respondents.
In the cases against Mr McKinstry and Mr Rutherford, the Committee considered that the conduct was premeditated, that they had an increased position of trust and responsibility as practice directors at the time of the misconduct and that it was a breach of trust for the farm clients.
Additionally, Mr McKinstry had put Dr Inman’s professional reputation in jeopardy by not informing her of his conduct.
In mitigation, the Committee considered that there was no harm or risk of harm to animals, the conduct was not done for personal financial gain, that both had been open and frank in their dealings with the RCVS and had shown insight into their behaviour, and their previous good character and unblemished careers.
Regarding Dr Inman, the aggravating factors were the abuse of her position of trust as a registered mobility scorer and the breach of trust with the farm clients.
In mitigation the Committee considered that it had been an isolated incident involving, from Dr Inman’s point of view, a single telephone call.
It also considered that there was no risk of harm, no personal financial gain, her open and frank admissions in dealings with the RCVS, demonstration of insight, previously unblemished record, and efforts to avoid repeats and remediate past misconduct.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee carefully weighed the demands of the public interest, as well as the previously stated mitigating and aggravating factors and all the particular circumstances before it.
"The Committee concluded that a period of suspension was sufficient and proportionate in this case to meet the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards.
"It had a sufficient deterrent effect upon others in the profession and was sufficient to mark that the disgraceful conduct was unacceptable.
“The Committee considered all of the factors before it, and decided that given the personal mitigation in this case, as set out above, a period of one month was appropriate and proportionate in all the circumstances."
The full findings of the Disciplinary Committee regarding this case can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The Disciplinary Committee heard four charges against Dr Schulze Allen.
The first charge related to the original criminal conviction in the County of San Bernardino in California dating from September 2013, where Dr Schulze Allen pleaded guilty to petty theft for which he was fined US $435 and ordered to pay a fee of US $35.
The second charge related to the fact that, on or around 3 December 2013 in a written application for restoration to the Register, Dr Schulze Allen was dishonest in representing that he did not have any cautions or criminal convictions.
The third charge related to the fact that on or around 4 December 2013 in a sworn affidavit before a Notary Public in Riverside, California, he dishonestly and falsely represented that he had, at no time, been convicted of a criminal offence in the UK or elsewhere.
The final charge was that, in an email to the RCVS in June 2016, he dishonestly and falsely represented that he had "no criminal record whatsoever".
Having found Dr Schulze Allen guilty of all four charges the Committee then considered whether the conviction rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery and whether the remaining charges amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Committee noted that the conviction was for a minor matter but had regard to all the evidence before it and considered that as an offence of dishonesty it represented a breach of one of the fundamental tenets of the profession. It further considered that Dr Schulze Allen’s dishonesty toward the College and his completing a legal document which he knew would be relied upon by the College was conduct that fell far short of the standard expected of a member of the profession.
With regard to the final charge, the Committee considered this a "clear attempt to deliberately misrepresent the fact that he had a conviction for a criminal offence." The Committee considered that Dr Schulze Allen’s conduct had been aggravated by the fact that it was protracted and repeated over a period of time.
Ultimately the Committee considered that the conviction rendered Dr Schulze Allen unfit to practise veterinary surgery and the remaining charges amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "His conduct represented a blatant disregard of the role of the RCVS and the systems that regulate the veterinary profession. The Committee also remained particularly concerned at Dr Schulze Allen’s very limited insight into his conduct."
He added: "In mitigation the Committee noted that this is not a case where harm was caused to any animals or humans. It noted that prior to these matters which are before the Committee that Dr Schulze Allen had an unblemished career and that he had been of good character. In respect of purely personal mitigation the Committee noted that Dr Schulze Allen is the main breadwinner of the family."
However, the Committee considered that Dr Schulze Allen’s conduct had fallen significantly short of standards expected of a veterinary surgeon.
Ian Green concluded: "The Committee considered that the only appropriate sanction is that of removal from the Register. Such a sanction is required to send a clear message to Dr Schulze Allen and to veterinary surgeons of the unacceptability of being dishonest to the RCVS. Such conduct undermines public confidence in the profession and fails to uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.
"Accordingly, the Committee has decided that removal from the Register is appropriate and proportionate in this case. The Committee will direct the Registrar to remove the respondent’s name from the Register forthwith."
Dr Schulze Allen has 28 days from the date of the decision to appeal the Committee’s decision.
The Committee’s full findings and decision is available at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons last week directed that the name of a man who had been illegally practising as a veterinary surgeon in the North West of England be removed from the RCVS Register, having found him guilty of fraudulent registration.
In March 2008, Russell Lewis Oakes had been charged with fraudulent entry onto the Register of Veterinary Surgeons, on the basis that he had (either (A) knowingly, or (B) unknowingly) submitted a fake degree certificate and letter of 'good standing' from Murdoch University, Australia. Mr Oakes agreed that the hearing could proceed in his absence provided the Committee confined itself to consideration of charge B alone.
The hearing commenced on 18 April 2008, but the Committee decided to adjourn, as Mr Oakes was also subject to a police investigation which required that the hearing be held in private. The Committee felt that it was in the public interest for an open hearing to take place in respect of both charges at a later date. Mr Oakes' bail conditions prevented him from practising as a veterinary surgeon at this time.
On 16 October 2009, Mr Oakes was convicted at Liverpool Crown Court, on a guilty plea, of a substantial number of offences, including those under consideration by the Committee: he was sentenced on 11 January 2010 to two years in prison.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee's hearing resumed and concluded on 5 February 2010. Mr Oakes was not present.
The Committee was provided with evidence from RCVS staff regarding the registration process, and received statutory declarations from representatives at Murdoch University. The latter confirmed that signatures on the certificate submitted by Mr Oakes were fake and that there had never been a student with his name at the University. Furthermore, a letter purporting to be one of support from Professor Edwards of Murdoch University contained text he would not have written and was signed with a false signature.
The Committee was also provided with evidence from equine veterinary surgeon Seamus Miller, who had become suspicious of Mr Oakes' qualifications and membership of the College. He outlined incidents which had cast doubt on Mr Oakes' competence. Mr Miller's complaint had initiated enquires which led to the charges against Mr Oakes by the College, and the Committee recorded its commendation of Mr Miller, and his colleagues.
Having found that Mr Oakes knowingly submitted fraudulent registration documents, the Committee was bound, under Sections 14 and 16 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, and paragraph 17 of the 2004 Rules, to direct that his name be removed from the Register.
Alison Bruce, Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee, said: "Even if it retained any discretion by virtue of Section 16 of the Act in respect of sanction, the Committee would have had no hesitation in directing Mr Oakes' name to be removed from the Register in this case. This was a deliberate and dishonest offence by a man without the necessary qualifications to practise as a veterinary surgeon, and it had the effect of exposing members of the public to his fraud, and their animals to harm."
The College has revised its registration procedures in the light of this case, and now requests that all registrants produce original copies of certificates and letters of 'good standing' at the registration ceremony.
The Committee heard that Mr Dingemanse had one conviction relating to four separate offences committed in 2019 of making indecent photographs of a child Category A, B and C and possession of 22 extreme pornographic images that were grossly offensive.
He had been sentenced at Oxford Crown Court to eight months’ imprisonment, suspended for 24 months, directed to sign the sex offenders register for 10 years and fined £420 for prosecution costs and £140 victim surcharge.
The Committee were presented with evidence taken from the transcripts of Dr Dingemanse’s Crown Court sentencing hearing.
The transcript outlined that Dr Dingemanse used an online messaging service to engage in conversations about child sexual abuse under a pseudonym. According to Wales Online, the conversations related to children as young as four.
His IP address was traced and he was arrested on suspicion of possessing indecent images of children.
Counsel for the College submitted to the Disciplinary Committee that the nature of circumstances of the offences rendered Dr Dingemanse unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
In its decision relating to Dr Dingemanse’s fitness to practise, the Committee described Dr Dingemanse’s behaviour which led to the conviction as “inexplicable” and “abhorrent”, and that his possession of the images of children and animals was “disgraceful conduct of the most grievous and reprehensible kind.”
The Committee did not consider that there were any mitigating factors in the case, but did consider there to be several aggravating factors including: actual (albeit indirect) injury to an animal or child; the risk of harm to an animal or child; lack of integrity for a regulated professional to have behaved in such a way; premeditated conduct; and, that the offences involved vulnerable children and animals.
Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, added: “Dr Dingemanse’s conduct was [also] liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession and to undermine public confidence in the profession.
"The fact that he was a veterinary surgeon was made clear at the Crown Court hearing.
"The Committee considered that members of the public would rightly be appalled that a registered veterinary surgeon had committed offences of this nature.”
When deciding on the appropriate sanction, the Committee took into account all of the evidence, including Dr Dingemanse’s expression of remorse and steps towards rehabilitation.
Mr Dingemanse's solicitor invited the Committee to consider suspending Dr Dingemanse from the Register as his client’s sanction, but the Committee did not feel that this was appropriate.
Cerys Jones added: “The Committee considered that suspending Dr Dingemanse’s registration would not be sufficient to maintain confidence in the profession and that therefore, for public interest reasons, as well as animal protection, a suspension would not be sufficient.
"Committee was of the view that the nature and seriousness of Dr Dingemanse’s behaviour, which led to the conviction, was fundamentally incompatible with being registered as a veterinary surgeon and that all of the above matters listed were applicable in this case.
"The Committee decided that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case was removal from the Register.”
Dr Dingemanse has 28 days from being notified of his removal from the Register to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.
The Committee’s full findings can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
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."
Miss Padron Vega faced four charges. The first and second alleged that in February 2016, for the purposes of an application to the Food Standards Agency for a Certificate of Competence under the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing Regulations 2015, she backdated two separate veterinary witness certificates to 7 December 2015. The third charge alleged that her acts of backdating were misleading, dishonest and in breach of the RCVS Principles of Certification.
The fourth charge against Miss Padron Vega was that, between September 2015 and February 2016, she failed to fulfil her duties as an Official Veterinarian in respect of: failing to prepare herself for the implementation of the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing Regulations 2015; failing to have regard to the information provided to her by her employers about the regulations and their implementation; failing to take any steps to ensure that the two individuals for whom she had given veterinary certification were licensed to perform slaughter in accordance with the regulations; and failing to identify that two individuals were not licensed to slaughter in accordance with the regulations.
The Committee heard that the Welfare at the Time of Killing Regulations were introduced on 5 November 2015 which placed the responsibility on slaughtering operations not to permit animal welfare abuses and required certification by a veterinary witness regarding compliance.
The new regulations required existing slaughter licence holders to apply for a Certificate of Competence before midnight on 8 December 2015 or they would not be permitted to continue operating even with experienced operatives.
During the hearing, Ms Padron Vega admitted charges 1 and 2, admitted that she had been in breach of the Principles of Certification and admitted the fourth charge against her.
However, she denied she had backdated the certificates in a misleading or dishonest way, maintaining that she had done so by mistake.
In considering the facts of the case, however, the Committee rejected this argument and, taking into account that she had been responsible for veterinary certifications in the UK since 2001, found that her conduct was knowingly misleading and dishonest.
The Committee then went on to consider whether the charges she admitted and the charges found against her constituted serious professional misconduct, both individually and cumulatively.
The Committee found that all the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In relation to charge 4 in particular Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee has found that the respondent failed to read even those emails which her employer sent to her which were marked ‘urgent’ or ‘OV importance high’. She must have known that her employers were directing attention to some new statutory scheme for she was provided with PowerPoint slides in that regard which she could read at any time of her convenience. The Committee has been driven to the conclusion that the respondent did not even bother to read those slides for, had she done so, she would have known that she needed to apprise herself of the requirements of the impending new statutory scheme.
"The respondent’s failings in this regard are little short of extraordinary, especially given her obligations as Lead OV for FAI Farms. The total abdication of her responsibility to understand the requirements of the Regulations governing the slaughterhouse operations constitutes, in the judgement of this Committee disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
The Committee then went on to consider the aggravating and mitigating factors in the case. In terms of aggravating features the Committee noted a lack of insight into the gravity of her conduct, that her conduct undermined in the most serious way public confidence in veterinary certification, and that there were animal welfare implications on her conduct as a number of chickens had to be removed from the slaughterhouse and alternative arrangements made because an auditor from the Food Standards Agency found that it was not compliant.
In mitigation the Committee considered that, despite the potential risk of harm, there was no actual harm occasioned to animals, that Miss Padron Vega has had a long and otherwise unblemished career and no previous issues with the RCVS and that she had admitted some of the charges against her.
Stuart Drummond added: "Ultimately, the Committee was driven to the conclusion that the public’s desire to see the implementation of the highest certification standards in relation to activities which impact on animal welfare and public health, and which did not occur on 3 February 2016, must outweigh this particular veterinary surgeon’s desire and need to continue in practice. This is not a conclusion which the Committee has arrived at lightly. On the contrary, it has reached this decision because it has been driven to the conclusion that it would be failing in its public duty to protect the wider public interest in the maintenance of standards of honesty and right conduct in a member of the profession.
"It is, therefore, the conclusion and decision of this Committee that the only proper sanction that can be imposed in this case is that the respondent’s name should be removed from the Register and it directs the Registrar accordingly."
Miss Padron Vega has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has dismissed a case against a veterinary surgeon said to have been dishonest in claims made against insurance following a dog's veterinary treatment.
At the end of the four-day hearing, the Committee found Sheena Brimelow, formerly employed by Kinver Veterinary Practice in Kinver, Stourbridge, not guilty of charges relating to seven insurance claims submitted between 1 January 2008 and 1 October 2009. These related to her parent's dog, a Cairn terrier, which she had treated at her then employer's practice. Ms Brimelow admitted that she had submitted invoices with her claims showing the retail prices for several items, when she had paid the practice only the cost prices. She said that she had deleted records from the practice computer showing the retail prices so that the ingoings and outgoings in the practice finances were accurate.
The Committee considered whether Ms Brimelow had either behaved dishonestly or, in the alternative, ought to have known not to have included the sums she did in the insurance claims forms. The Committee found that Ms Brimelow was an honest and reliable witness. She had explained openly what she had done, entirely consistently, from the first time the allegations had been put to her by the practice owner. It noted that an insurance company representative also considered her actions to be "a genuine misunderstanding," although subsequently a complaint was made by the insurance company to the College about Ms Brimelow's actions. The Committee found there were no clear guidelines in the practice as to how staff insurance claims should be handled. It also felt that, as a result of the insurer's communications failures, it was not difficult to believe that Ms Brimelow was unaware of how claims concerning the insured pets of veterinary practice staff members were expected to be handled.
From the evidence presented in the hearing, the Committee calculated that Ms Brimelow had benefited by only £90.50. The Committee noted that she had offered to repay any monies to her employer or the insurer, and that the insurer's loss adjusters had thought this was a matter for Ms Brimelow and her employer. The College had also referred the matter to the police, who said it was not in the public interest to proceed with the matter, a decision they based on the low value of the loss and Ms Brimelow's offer to pay back the money.
Professor Peter Lees, chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee said: "The Committee notes the reasons given by the police for undertaking no criminal investigation in this case, and agrees with that analysis. The Committee must apply the same standard of proof as would have been applied in a criminal case. In all the circumstances, the Committee is far short of being satisfied so that it is sure that Ms Brimelow acted dishonestly in this case."
"The Committee considers that [Ms Brimelow] was naïve and misguided in handling the insurance claims in the way that she did," he continued. "However, the Committee considers there was a lack of proper guidance within the practice as to how staff insurance claims should be handled. In these circumstances the Committee is not sure that the College has proved that the Respondent ought to have known that she should not have included sums on the claims form, which did not represent the costs that she had incurred."
Both elements of the charge were accordingly dismissed.
The new guidance will remove the absolute requirement for veterinary surgeons to perform a physical examination before prescribing POM medicines, making it instead a matter for your professional judgement.
However, the proposed new guidance also imposes a requirement for veterinary surgeons who do NOT physically examine the animal prior to prescribing to provide a 24/7 follow-up service which includes a physical examination.
Furthermore, the new guidance will state that: "Where the veterinary surgeon is not able to provide this service [the physical exam] themselves, they should arrange for another veterinary service provider to do so. This arrangement should be made before veterinary services are offered and confirmed in writing as part of the conditions of service agreed by the client."
This requirement to provide a physical 24/7 follow-up would appear to safeguard animal welfare and protect against the risk of online-only businesses (in the UK or abroad) with lower overheads cherry-picking the job of prescribing medicines.
It should also protect against veterinary surgeons feeling pressured to prescribe inappropriately, because the new, stricter requirements will make it easier for them to decline to do so.
However, the BVA doesn't agree with the new proposals. It feels that remote prescribing should be delivered under the auspices of a Veterinary Client-Patient-Relationship (VCPR), which, according to the American Veterinary Medical Association, requires a physical examination.
BVA President Malcolm Morley, said: “The changes to ‘under care’ guidance are a watershed moment, so it’s positive to see that they have evolved in response to feedback from the profession. New technology presents exciting opportunities to enhance existing veterinary services and has benefits for practices as well as clients and their animals.
"However, BVA has been very clear that we believe remote prescribing can only be safely delivered where a vet-client-patient relationship has been established.
"This is an internationally recognised concept, and we are disappointed that the RCVS has decided not to embrace it.
“Having voted to implement these changes, it is incumbent upon the RCVS and the profession to scrutinise how they play out.
"At BVA we plan to develop advice and resources to support our members and help them comply with the new guidance and realise any benefits of remote veterinary service provision.’
“It is now vital that a timeframe for a review is quickly put in place, so any negative impacts on animal welfare or the sustainability of veterinary services can be dealt with swiftly.”
Council voted by a majority of 20 to 3 in favour of the changes, which it then decided should come into force between 1st June and 23rd December 2023, subject to a review at the next meeting.
Discuss here.
The hearing concerned three separate charges against Mr Mallon. The first charge related to his treatment of a Labrador named Bailey on 15 September 2016 in which he was alleged to have euthanased the animal without the owner’s consent, after having been called out to her home following concerns about Bailey’s arthritis.
The second charge related to failure to keep adequate clinical records for Bailey between 14 March 2015 and 30 September 2016.
The third charge related to failing to respond adequately to communications regarding Bailey’s treatment from his owner between 15 September 2016 and 6 January 2017.
At the outset of the hearing, Mr Mallon admitted the charge relating to keeping inadequate clinical records. However, he disputed the College’s evidence regarding euthanasing Bailey without his owner’s consent. He claimed to have had previous discussions with the owner’s husband about euthanasia six months prior to the event, that he had been informed that the owner had mentioned a possible need for euthanasia in a phone call earlier that day and that, on attending the premises, the owner’s mother had mentioned a need to put Bailey down. During the course of the hearing, Mr Mallon accepted that these incidents could not have reasonably amounted to consent.
The Committee also heard and accepted evidence that the owner’s mother, who was present when Mr Mallon visited, had wished to contact her daughter to inform her about the planned euthanasia but that Mr Mallon proceeded to euthanase the animal regardless. The Committee also noted there was no contemporaneous clinical records nor any signed consent form for the procedure. Furthermore, the Committee found no evidence that there was a need to put Bailey down immediately and no reason why Mr Mallon could not have waited until the owner was present and had given consent.
Regarding the third charge, the Committee heard that the communications between Mr Mallon and the owner amounted to a telephone call on 15 September and a letter from the owner dated 16 September in which she asked a number of questions about Bailey’s treatment. The Committee accepted that, during the phone call, the owner had made a number of threats to Mr Mallon that had caused him to be fearful for himself and his property. Furthermore, the Committee found that there were a number of points in the subsequent letter to which he could have responded and the Committee noted that, when he was giving evidence, Mr Mallon expected the owner to apologise to him and withdraw the threats before he would engage with her complaint. The Committee therefore found the charge proved.
After finding the charges proved the Committee then went on to consider whether, individually and cumulatively, they constituted serious professional misconduct. It found this to be the case in respect of all three charges. Commenting on the first charge Jane Downes, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "He should have allowed the owner to come to an informed decision. He had an opportunity to obtain informed consent and he failed in this regard. By failing to take this opportunity he overrode the possibility of allowing [the owner] the right to choose whether to be present or to discuss Bailey’s prognosis."
The Committee then went on to consider the sanction for Mr Mallon and heard from a number of clients and professional colleagues who spoke to his skill, care, passion for animal welfare and high standing in his community. The Committee also considered 30 written testimonials from clients. In mitigation, the Committee also considered Mr Mallon’s otherwise unblemished 30-year career, the fact it was a single isolated event related to one animal and the fact that there was no evidence of systemic or repeated behaviour.
Jane Downes added: "The Committee concluded that the appropriate and proportionate sanction is a reprimand in this case. The Committee is confident that Mr Mallon will not repeat the conduct identified in this case again. The Committee wishes to advise Mr Mallon of the need to reflect on the outcome of this case, the need to have clear communication systems in place at this practice that are effective so as to avoid any possibility of miscommunication. The Committee further advises Mr Mallon of the need to be familiar and comply with all aspects of the Code [of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons] and its associated guidance, particularly in respect of keeping clinical records, informed consent and effective complaint management."
Dr Fures was convicted of driving with excess alcohol in the Dublin Criminal Courts of Justice in December 2018.
Later, when renewing his UK RCVS registration, Dr Fures told the RCVS Chief Investigator that on the day of his offence, he'd been on a flight from Frankfurt to Dublin which suffered engine failure, causing the pilot to perform a forced emergency landing in Amsterdam. There, he claimed, the passengers switched to an airworthy plane for the rest of the journey, during which he had several drinks to calm his nerves.
In a remarkably detailed and complex investigation, the RCVS Chief Investigator rang Lufthansa and discovered that the flight had not suffered engine failure and had flown direct from Frankfurt to Dublin without incident.
In May and July 2020, the RCVS Chief Investigator wrote to Dr Fures setting out the result of his investigations and research. In his responses Dr Fures accepted that his memory of the incident was wrong.
At the outset of the hearing Dr Fures made an application to the Committee enter into undertakings to voluntarily remove himself from the UK Register and to not apply to re-join. However, the Committee did not accept these undertakings in part on the basis that he was not of retirement age and intended to continue to practise in Ireland.
The Committee considered that if it were to accept his undertakings, then there would be no judgement or findings that could be passed on to the Veterinary Council of Ireland for consideration via its own disciplinary procedures.
Ian Arundale, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee decided that this is a case in which the public interest, confidence in the profession, and, potentially, the welfare of animals, demands that there be a full hearing, with determinations made by the Disciplinary Committee."
The Committee then went on to consider the facts of the case.
Dr Fures admitted that he had supplied the RCVS with false information about his conviction for drink driving but denied that this was dishonest at the time that he supplied the information. He accepted that the information he provided was wrong, in that his flight between Frankfurt and Dublin, while delayed by just over an hour, did not have to land in Amsterdam as he had previously claimed.
He said that his false statement was based on misremembering the circumstances and that he had genuinely believed his statement was true at the time it was made to the RCVS. He said that, due to shame over his conviction and the negative impact it had on the life of him and his family, he had created a false memory of the circumstances.
However, the Committee was not persuaded that there was any other explanation in this case, other than that Dr Fures deliberately and dishonestly gave false information to the RCVS, to excuse his behaviour.
The Committee then considered if the admitted and proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Ian said: “The Committee was of the view that Dr Fures’ actions in dishonestly giving false details to his regulator was serious. While it was the case that there was no actual harm or risk to animals arising out of his conduct, the Committee took into account that the dishonest account was given deliberately.
“In addition, it was sustained, in that it was relied upon and expanded upon on several occasions when the College sought further clarity. Dr Fures had the opportunity to correct the situation, and give the truthful account, but he did not do so. The dishonesty was designed to achieve personal gain to Dr Fures, in that he wished to minimise the actions which the College may take against him, and, in consequence, safeguard his career.
“Dr Fures’ action in dishonestly giving false information to his regulator struck at the heart of his obligation, as a registered professional, to be open and honest with his regulator. This obligation is necessary to allow the College, as regulator, to carry out its crucial and statutory functions in ensuring that it investigates concerns properly.”
In considering the sanction for Dr Fures, the Committee took into account the mitigating factors, including the fact that there were no previous regulatory findings against Dr Fures or any previous conviction for dishonesty, that he had demonstrated remorse for his actions, that there was no actual harm or risk of harm to any animal, that no concerns raised about Dr Fures’ practice, that there was no repetition of the dishonest conduct and that he had demonstrated some insight.
However, in terms of aggravating factors it considered that there was deliberate and sustained dishonesty and that he had sought personal gain as a result of his actions.
After considering various options, the Committee decided that a reprimand and warning as to future conduct was the most appropriate sanction for Dr Fures.
The full findings for the case can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Ms Mulvey faced a total of nine charges against her:
Ms Mulvey did not respond to the charges, was not present at the hearing and was not represented.
She told the College that she couldn't attend for health reasons, but did not then provide any medical evidence and did not apply for a remote hearing, which was offered.
She had appeared before the Disciplinary Committee twice previously, facing a number of similar charges.
In 2016/2017, Ms Mulvey admitted all charges she was faced with and was found guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Committee then decided to postpone the sanction for a period of one year.
In 2019, Ms Mulvey appeared before the Committee for the resumed sanction hearing and faced further new charges relating to failures to provide clinical history, failing to communicate with clients, failing to respond to requests for information from the College concerning complaints made against her, continuing professional development and indemnity insurance.
Ms Mulvey admitted the new charges and that she was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, for which she was struck off for six months.
Taking into account the fact that this was not Ms Mulvey’s first time before the Committee, as well as new accompanying evidence, the Committee considered the facts of each subsection of each charge individually.
The Committee found all charges proved, apart from one subsection of charge 1.
The Committee then went on to decide if Ms Mulvey was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, noting that it was entitled to consider the facts on a cumulative basis.
In other words, whilst any one charge may not fall far below the relevant standard expected of a veterinary surgeon on a standalone basis, it may when considered in conjunction with other failings that have been found proved.
The Committee found a number of aggravating factors in the case, including actual injury to animals (including death and amputation), dishonesty, breach of trust, sustained behaviour, disregard of the role of the RCVS, lack of insight by the defendant and previous adverse findings.
There were no mitigating factors.
The Committee then went on to decide upon a sanction.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee found that Dr Mulvey has demonstrated a wilful disregard for the role of her regulator and the systems that regulate the profession which are designed to ensure animal welfare.
"She has failed to learn from, or respond to in any meaningful way, her previous appearances before her regulator and advice given.
"The instant charges found proved dated back to shortly after the earlier suspension had elapsed.
"The Committee further noted that, if a period of suspension were to be imposed, at the end of the suspension Dr Mulvey would be entitled to resume practice without any preconditions.
“This is a case involving serious malpractice.
"It was sustained over a period of time.
"It followed previous adverse findings for almost identical failures.
"From as long ago as 2013, Dr Mulvey was given ample opportunity and support to remedy the deficiencies in her practice, which she squandered.
"Dr Mulvey’s conduct had very serious consequences for animal welfare.
"She continued, and continues, to display a wilful disregard for her responsibilities as a veterinary surgeon under the Code of Professional Conduct.
"Dr Mulvey’s conduct was a gross departure from the conduct expected of a veterinary surgeon.
“Dr Mulvey’s disgraceful conduct is so serious that removal from the Register is the only means of protecting animals and the wider public interest which includes protection of the public, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, and the upholding of standards.”
Dr Mulvey has 28 days from being notified of her removal from the Register to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
The RCVS has released the photograph of a man apprehended by Wiltshire police whilst working as a bogus veterinary surgeon at a practice in Swindon.
Peter Keniry, who had been practising under the name of a properly qualified and legitimately registered veterinary surgeon Shaun Kehoe, was arrested on 23 August and appeared in Swindon Magistrates' Court on charges of fraud and practising veterinary surgery unlawfully. He was released on bail.
Mr Keniry is no stranger to the College or the police, and has already been dealt with in 1998, 2001 and 2005 for similar offences. On each occasion, Mr Keniry has impersonated a member of the College whose name is legitimately on the Register, which makes it difficult even for practices that do check the credentials of prospective employees.
Gordon Hockey, Head of Professional Conduct and Assistant Registrar at the RCVS said: "We were alerted to the potential fraud on 23 August and immediately liaised with the police to facilitate Mr Keniry's arrest that same day. The next day, RCVS Council member Dr Bob Moore and I visited Swindon police station to assist the police.
"It appears that Mr Keniry has continued his pattern of re-offending, and we hope that by publicising his photograph any other practice that has employed him recently will recognise him and contact the RCVS Professional Conduct Department, and potential employers and locum agencies will keep his photograph to reduce the chances of this happening again."
The RCVS Professional Conduct Department can be contacted on: profcon@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0789.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has this week directed that the name of a Grimsby veterinary surgeon should be removed from the RCVS Register, having found him guilty of serious professional misconduct for advising and undertaking surgical procedures without sufficient clinical grounds or considering alternative treatment options; failing to obtain the informed consent of his clients; undertaking procedures outside his area of competence; failing to refer or discuss the option of referral to a specialist; and, failing to provide his patients with adequate pain relief.
Mr Joseph Lennox Holmes, of Waltham Veterinary Clinic, Grimsby, faced nine charges relating to two separate complaints, at a two-week hearing in October which resumed this week.
These complaints concerned four consecutive staphylectomies and a tracheostomy that Mr Holmes performed on Jake, a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel owned by Ms Marsden; the dental treatment he gave to three Persian cats called Dream Topping, Charlie Brown and Henry, together with the advice he gave to their owner, Mrs Auckland.
On 25 October 2007, Mr Holmes performed a staphylectomy on Jake during dental surgery. He gave the Committee various reasons why he thought the procedure was necessary; however, the Committee accepted the opinion of two expert witnesses Professor Dan Brockman, a specialist in soft tissue surgery at the Royal Veterinary College, and Mr Andrew Ash, the senior veterinary surgeon at a 17-vet small animal practice, that there were insufficient clinical grounds for such a surgical procedure to be undertaken. The Committee also found Mr Holmes had not adequately considered other treatments, or obtained fully informed consent from Jake's owner for this procedure.
Mr Holmes performed further staphylectomies and a tracheostomy on Jake, a procedure described by Professor Brockman as "by definition, high risk and best performed by a specialist". He did not consider referral, or inform Mrs Marsden that such referral was an option. Nor did he provide sufficient aftercare or pain relief. Following these surgeries, Jake was euthanased .
In the second complaint, Mr Holmes performed dental extractions on two cats, Dream Topping and Henry, and advised removing teeth from a third, Charlie Brown, in October 2008. The Committee, however, accepted the view of expert witness Mr Ash and Dr David Crossley, RCVS Recognised Specialist in Veterinary Dentistry, that the dental extractions performed, and the advice given, were not justified on the available clinical evidence. The Committee also found that Mr Holmes did not discuss alternative treatment options with Mrs Auckland, or obtain her informed consent. In the case of Dream Topping, consent was sought after the cat had been sedated for an unrelated procedure and Mrs Auckland had felt under pressure to consent.
Mr Holmes had also relied on anaesthesia-inducing drugs to provide analgesia for the dental extractions, without any other form of pain relief. The Committee agreed with the expert witnesses that this was wholly inadequate.
The Committee found many aggravating factors in both cases, including actual injury to animals from unnecessary surgery, and a serious breach of the trust in which Mr Holmes' clients had placed in him to make the welfare of their animals his primary consideration. His repeated misconduct had been sustained over a period of time in the face of a previous adverse finding of the Committee in 2006.
It also found that Mr Holmes failed to appreciate when a case was outwith his experience, and had continued his course of action despite Jake's deterioration; he had not considered referral or accepted that others in the profession might know more than he did; in formulating clinical practice and policies, he made no reference to peer-reviewed literature or continued professional development; and, his use of outmoded drugs and medicines intended for human use was of concern, as was his lack of appreciation of the need for adequate pain relief when performing painful surgical procedures.
Towards the end of the hearing, Mr Holmes said in mitigation that he regretted unreservedly any adverse effects that his treatment had had on the animals concerned, and that he now realised that his long history of working alone had allowed him to become professionally isolated, to become over-confident in the value of his own experience and rather "set in his ways".
Having given serious consideration to postponing judgment, subject to undertakings from Mr Holmes, Disciplinary Committee Chairman Mrs Caroline Freedman said: "We are mindful that the sanction which we apply must be proportionate to the nature and extent of the misconduct found proved and must balance the public interests against the interests of the Respondent.
"We are, however, also mindful of Mr Holmes' conduct during the previous 11½ days of the hearing, during which time his every action was vigorously defended and no insight whatsoever was shown."
The Committee also considered suspending Mr Holmes from the Register. "In view of the serious and long-term nature of the conduct found proved in the charges, we do not feel that it is appropriate that Mr Holmes should be permitted to return to the Register without further assessment of his efforts to update his knowledge," said Mrs Freedman, before concluding: "The only appropriate sanction in each case is that the Registrar be directed to remove Mr Holmes' name from the Register."
The report also revealed the devastating impact on overworked veterinary staff, with some left in tears by abusive owners venting their frustration at being unable to find care for their animal.
Anecdotally, the problems highlighted by ITV News are being seen elsewhere in the country, with more and more vets now starting to question whether or not the current requirement to provide out of hours care is sustainable in a world where there are more clients who increasingly expect flea treatment advice and other non emergency situations to be dealt with at 3:00am in the morning.
Various solutions have been proposed in a forum discussion on VetSurgeon.org, including the removal of the requirement to provide an OOH service, for the RCVS to give vets the confidence to say no to non emergencies, a change to the CoPC to require vets to provide emergency care within 24 hours, not 24 hours a day, a requirement for new grads to undertake OOH as part of their PDP, and/or a requirement for OOH centres to have 3 vets on duty at any one time (which could improve working conditions).
As the ITV report pointed out, the fundamental issue is one of a shortage of supply over demand, for which there is no overnight fix. However, many feel that reducing the demands of providing OOH could ease the situation considerably.
The RCVS has advised that veterinary surgeons should delegate Schedule 3 work to veterinary nurse students only during students' training, following a series of queries from employers about such students locuming.
Veterinary surgeons have dispensations under Schedule 3 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act to delegate to student veterinary nurses in the course of their training, so that students can learn how to give medical treatments to animals.
Crucially, these dispensations apply only when the student is working as a student in their approved training practice or on a placement organised by their university, and is under the supervision of qualified staff.
These dispensations do not apply to any extra-curricula activity so, if working as locums, they are legally classified as unqualified lay staff
The RCVS is concerned that locum agencies do not always appear to know this and are placing locums in their capacity as students, or even "senior students." This has the potential to mislead employers and the students concerned, and result in illegal practice.
Liz Branscombe, Chairman of the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council said: "We know that student VNs, especially those on university courses, often undertake locum work to supplement their earnings. However, beyond the training practice which employs them, or in a placement organised by their university, they can only carry out tasks that may be expected of an unqualified staff member, and cannot legally undertake Schedule 3 work."
Practices may check the details of a student VN directly with the RCVS or with the student's college. If you notice an agency promoting student VN locums, please contact the RCVS so that we can provide guidance.
There were two charges against Mr Staton, the first being that he failed to comply with eight requests from the RCVS sent by letter between November 2014 and August 2017 in relation to his continuing professional development (CPD) records.
The second charge was that between 1st January 2012 and 7th November 2017 he failed to have professional indemnity insurance or equivalent arrangements in place.
Mr Staton’s request to adjourn the hearing and agree undertakings was not opposed by the RCVS. The Committee had regard to advice of the Legal Assessor and submissions from both counsel for the RCVS and legal advisor for Mr Staton. In accepting Mr Staton’s request for adjournment and his undertakings no admissions have been made in respect of the charges against him.
In deciding whether to accept the adjournment and undertakings, the Committee was asked to consider a number of factors including Mr Staton’s age and health, his unblemished career of more than 50 years, the fact that he had closed his practice and retired from clinical practice on 31 March 2018 and that he had no intention of practising as a veterinary surgeon again. For those reasons the Committee felt it would be disproportionate to take Mr Staton through a full hearing.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "In coming to this decision the Committee considered the respondent’s application to adjourn this inquiry in the light of the evidence he adduced. It had regard to the interests of justice, the public interest in ensuring high standards are maintained by veterinary surgeons and the need to ensure the protection of animals and their welfare."
Should Mr Staton seek to apply to rejoin the Register then the proceedings will become active again and a Disciplinary Committee hearing will be scheduled.
Dr Kettle faced a charge that he had grabbed the dog, a Shih Tzu named Bella, when she was in a kennel, and/or failed to take sufficient care to ensure that Bella did not fall from her kennel, hit Bella with his hand and/or muzzle, and carried Bella only by her collar and/or scruff.
At the outset, Dr Kettle admitted that he had committed the acts as alleged and that his conduct represented serious professional misconduct.
Having taken evidence from the College and the respondent into account, the Committee considered that Dr Kettle’s actions had not only placed Bella at risk of injury but had also caused her actual injury evidenced by her tongue turning blue for a few seconds, the fact that she soiled herself and her stillness in the treatment room.
However, it also concluded that the incident was a single episode in respect of a single animal that had occurred over a period of 30 seconds, so whilst his actions were serious, they were not aggravated by being sustained or repeated over a period of time.
In terms of mitigating factors, the Committee considered that the circumstances at the time of the incident were relevant.
It found Dr Kettle to be a credible witness and accepted that, during the time that the incident occurred, he had been going through a very difficult time personally with the loss of locum staff, the increased work pressure during the pandemic and unrelated adverse comments on social media.
The Committee considered that whilst these factors did not excuse his behaviour, they had affected how Dr Kettle had reacted towards Bella on the day.
The Committee also noted from clinical records that Dr Kettle had been Bella’s veterinary surgeon for over seven years, on nine occasions prior to the incident and on seven occasions subsequently.
There has been no such evidence of any other incidents happening within this time. Dr Kettle received highly positive testimonials attesting to his usual high standards of practice, both before and since the incident, and the Committee was satisfied that this incident could properly be characterised as isolated and out of character.
Kathryn Peaty, Chair of the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “It was clear that Dr Kettle was deeply remorseful and ashamed of his actions, immediately recognising the seriousness of what he had done.
"Indeed, it was apparent to the Committee from Dr Kettle’s evidence that this remorse and regret continue to weigh heavily on him.
“In all the circumstances, although the Committee did not consider that Dr Kettle’s misconduct was at the lower end of the spectrum of seriousness, given the absence of future risk to animals or the public, and the evidence of exemplary insight, the Committee concluded that a reprimand was the appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.
“The Committee was satisfied that a reprimand would mark Dr Kettle’s misconduct and reassure the public that veterinary surgeons who act as Dr Kettle had done, would face regulatory consequences and sanction.”
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that Somerset-based veterinary surgeon Dr Marcus Hutber be removed from the Register, having found him guilty of serious professional misconduct following multiple complaints made against him.
During the 11-day hearing, the Disciplinary Committee heard eight, separate and unrelated complaints against Dr Marcus Hutber, made whilst he was the owner of the veterinary company Epivet Ltd, with practices in Williton and Wiveliscombe, in 2009. The complaints involved a series of allegations including lack of adequate professional care, failure to have regard to animal welfare, failure to make or maintain adequate clinical records (and to provide them on request), and failure to treat clients with courtesy and respect.
In the first case, Dr Hutber was found to have performed surgery on a dog inadequately; failed to provide adequate post-operative pain relief; failed to obtain informed consent for the surgery from the dog's owner; and, failed to keep adequate clinical records of the dog's treatment. In a second case of inadequate professional care, Dr Hutber failed to ensure a cat's condition was monitored adequately; failed to ensure that the cat received appropriate fluid therapy; and, failed to keep adequate clinical records.
Dr Hutber was found to have brought the profession into disrepute by speaking rudely to one of his clients. On a separate occasion, a different client was found to have been treated without due courtesy or respect when Dr Hutber told her to come to the practice at once to get tablets and give them to her dog, otherwise the dog would die (of a disease he had diagnosed without carrying out the necessary investigations) - an instruction he then later repeated despite being told the dog was now being treated at a different practice.
One other complaint, where charges were proved, involved Dr Hutber's refusal to provide an animal's clinical records to a former client.
The Disciplinary Committee found Dr Hutber's conduct in respect of the charges proved in relation to each complaint, standing alone and taken collectively, amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In reaching its findings, the Committee considered the oral evidence and written statements of 20 witnesses (including Dr Hutber), two expert witness reports, a large quantity of documentary evidence, Dr Hutber's extensive rebuttal material and Counsels' submissions. Generally, the Committee preferred the evidence of the College's witnesses to that of Dr Hutber. Despite the Committee accepting he was of previous good character, it found him to be unhelpful and uncooperative, frequently lapsing into periods of silence that could last minutes, and staring fixedly (and, in the Committee's view, intimidatingly) at witnesses and College Counsel. There were also inconsistencies between his written rebuttal to the College, his witness statement and his oral evidence, about which the Committee found him evasive and illogical.
The Committee considered Dr Hutber had shown no insight into the allegations, or appreciated the significance or impact of his conduct upon his clients and their animals. He had shown no remorse or regret for his actions, and had continued to assert that he had done nothing wrong.
Further, he had caused actual injury to an animal by subjecting it to unnecessary revision surgery; displayed an inadequate and incomplete understanding of the concept of informed consent; demonstrated a lamentable lack of concern for animal welfare; brought the profession into disrepute with his treatment of his clients; and, exhibited conduct that fell far short of that to be expected of a member of the veterinary profession.
Chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee, Professor Peter Lees, said: "The Committee has found that there were fundamental failings in the Respondent's clinical competence, and that there were serious defects in his interpersonal skills in relation to clients. He has throughout displayed a tendency to blame others for things which have gone wrong. [The Committee] is not satisfied that there is a realistic prospect of the Respondent having the ability or inclination to remedy his failings [and] remains unconvinced that there is a real possibility of a change in his attitude.
"The Committee is fully conscious that the purpose of sanction is not to punish, but to protect animals and the wider public interest and to uphold the reputation of the veterinary profession. Having regard to the serious aggravating factors [in this case], the Committee considers that the Respondent's conduct, taken as a whole, is so serious that removal of his professional status is the only appropriate sanction."
Accordingly, the Committee directed the Registrar to remove Dr Hutber's name from the Register.
The full details of the Committee's findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
Morally injurious events are defined as experiences which violate one's moral or ethical code.
The research will consider the types of moral injuries veterinary professionals might encounter, their prevalence, the perceptions amongst professionals around how these moral injuries come about, and what support is needed when they occur.
The project is being led by psychologists Professor Neil Greenberg, Dr Dominic Murphy and Dr Victoria Williamson.
The research revolves around an online questionnaire which the researchers say should take no more than 20 minutes to complete: https://tinyurl.com/y7ue5ezw
Victoria said: “If you have experienced an upsetting event in your veterinary role, it would be really helpful if you could fill in our questionnaire which is anonymous and confidential. As part of this study, we are particularly interested in hearing about experiences that may have caused you to question the kind of person you are, or the kind of world we live in. These are things that you feel you may have done or failed to do, or things that others did or failed to do.
"We hope our results will help us to find better ways of meeting the needs of veterinarians in future so we would encourage veterinary professionals to also circulate this study to colleagues. Some participants may be invited to take part in a follow-up telephone interview; however, we would like to assure you this element of the project is completely voluntary.”
The survey will be followed by 1 hour telephone interviews with those who have indicated they are happy to be interviewed about their thoughts, feelings and beliefs since their challenging experience and how the event may have affected them.
The results of the study will be published in scientific journals and summaries will be made available for the relevant stakeholders with the aim of informing future research studies to support veterinary wellbeing, as well as clinical practice and policy.
Those who wish to find out more about the study before completing the survey can contact Victoria at: victoria.williamson@kcl.ac.uk
Mr Makepeace faced five charges.
The first charge was that in 2022 Mr Makepeace was convicted at Scarborough Magistrates Court of assaulting by beating his ex-partner.
He was sentenced to a community order and a curfew order and was ordered to pay a £95 surcharge and £85 in costs.
It was alleged that the conviction rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
The second was that in August 2022, Mr Makepeace submitted a character reference which purported to have been written by his ex-partner saying that they "still live happily together", when this was untrue. It was also alleged that the reference purported to have been signed by Mr Makepeace's ex-partner when he knew that was not the case.
The third charge alleged that Mr Makepeace had sent WhatsApp messages to his ex-partner which were offensive, insulting, abusive, threatening and/or intimidating.
The fourth charge was that was a repetition of the second.
The fifth and final charge was that in relation to charges 2 and 4, that Mr Makepeace’s conduct was misleading and/or dishonest; and that it is alleged that in relation to charges 2,3,4 and/or 5, whether individually or in any combination, that Mr Makepeace was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The first charge was proven by virtue of a certified copy of the memorandum of an entry in the Magistrates’ Court register.
Mr Makepeace also admitted the facts of all the other charges, meaning they were found proven by admission.
In terms of the conviction, the Committee assessed the incident to be serious – the assault was prolonged, involved strangulation and biting which led to physical injuries, and involved a pursuit.
This was found by the Committee to bring the reputation of the profession into disrepute.
The Committee therefore found that the conviction rendered Mr Makepeace unfit to practise.
With regard to the remaining charges, the Committee found Mr Makepeace’s behaviour serious, saying that it showed a blatant and wilful disregard of the role of the RCVS and the systems that regulate the veterinary profession, and that his actions were intended to dishonestly subvert that process.
The Committee considered that his actions fell sufficiently below the standards expected in terms of honesty and integrity, as well as in terms of the behaviour expected of a registered professional.
All this constituted disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
When making a decision on the appropriate sanction, the Committee took into account evidence from Mr Makepeace, two character witnesses, and a document bundle including evidence of training, continuing professional development (CPD) and other testimonials.
Aggravating factors taken into account were:
Mitigating factors taken into account were that Mr Makepeace made full admissions at the start of the hearing; he expressed remorse; was shown to be of previous good character; that there had been a significant lapse of time since his conviction; he had made subsequent efforts to avoid repetition of the behaviour which led to the conviction; the financial impact upon Mr Makepeace if he was prevented from being able to practise; and the testimonials.
Neil Slater, Chair of the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee’s view was that the demands of the public interest in this case were high, and in light of all of the circumstances, removal from the register was the only means of upholding the wider public interest, which includes the need to uphold proper standards of conduct and performance, and to maintain confidence in the profession and its regulation.
“The Committee therefore decided to direct that the respondent should be removed from the Register.
"In coming to this decision, the Committee carefully applied the principle of proportionality and took into account the impact of such a sanction on the respondent’s ability to practise his profession, as well as the financial impact upon him, taking into account his evidence in this regard.
“However, the Committee determined that the need to uphold the wider public interest outweighed the respondent’s interests in this respect.
"In light of the gravity of the conduct, and all of the factors taken into account, any lesser sanction would lack deterrent effect and would undermine public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.
"Removal was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction.”
Mr Wood was convicted of three offences which involved the download of 38 videos and 13 indecent images of children, at Portsmouth Magistrates’ Court in December 2017.
In January 2018, he was sentenced to a three-year Community Sentence for each offence, to run concurrently, and was made subject to a five-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order.
He was also fined £1,000 and ordered to pay costs of £340 and a victim surcharge of £85.
Mr Wood was also placed on the barring list by the Disclosure and Barring Service and required to register with the police pursuant to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for a period of five years.
Mr Wood appeared before the Disciplinary Committee, admitted his conviction and accepted that it rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
In determining the sanction, the Committee says it took into account a number of mitigating factors: his conviction involved no actual harm or risk of harm to an animal; there was no financial gain; he had engaged in open and frank admissions at an early stage; he was experiencing mental ill-health at the time of the offence; he had taken subsequent steps to avoid a repetition of such behaviour; there had been a significant lapse of time since the incident; and he showed insight into the harm caused by his offence.
The Committee also considered that the purpose of a sanction is not to punish, but to protect the welfare of animals, as well as maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct. On consideration of the appropriate sanction, the Committee decided that postponement of judgement was not appropriate, and that taking no action was not an option.
The Committee then considered whether a reprimand or warning was appropriate, but they considered that would not match the gravity of the offence – a period of suspension would also mean Mr Wood would automatically return to the Register after the period of time without the College being able to review his fitness to practise, rendering it an inappropriate sanction. The Committee therefore determined that the removal of Mr Wood from the RCVS Register was the only way to protect the wider public interest and maintain confidence in the profession.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee has not taken this decision lightly, and, lest it be misinterpreted, it has not taken it in order to satisfy any notional public demand for blame and punishment.
"It has taken the decision because in its perception, the reputation of the profession had to be at the forefront of its thinking and ultimately it was more important than the interests of the Respondent.
"The decision is not simply based on the fact that these offences were of a sexual nature but because they were repeated frequently over a significant period of time, and at the time, the Respondent knew on his own admission that what he was doing was wrong.
"Accordingly, the Committee had decided that removal from the Register is appropriate and proportionate in this case. The Committee will direct the Registrar to remove the Respondent’s name from the Register forthwith."
Mr Wood has 28 days to appeal the Committee’s decision after which, if no appeal is received, the Committee’s judgment takes effect.
The RCVS is encouraging veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and other members of the practice team to respond to a government consultation on changing the law to introduce English language testing for veterinary surgeons who have qualified from elsewhere in the European Union.
Under the proposals outlined in the consultation by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the test would apply before an individual joined the Register and only where the RCVS had ‘serious and concrete doubts’ about their English language abilities. The plan to consult on this issue had been welcomed by RCVS Council at its June 2015 meeting.
Every year, around half of all new veterinary surgeon registrants are from outside the UK, the majority from other EU or European Economic Area (EEA) countries. These individuals fall within the scope of the Mutual Recognition of Professional Qualifications (MRPQ) Directive, which applies to all EU nationals wishing to practise in a regulated profession in another member state.
Last year, a revised version of the MRPQ Directive came into force, which made a number of changes, including clarifying and reinforcing the role of competent authorities such as the RCVS. One of these changes is that language testing is expressly permitted, but only where serious concerns have been identified.
Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar, said: “Under the current legislation the College is not able to bar someone from joining the Register, and therefore practising, on the basis of language ability, even where we may have serious concerns.
“I would encourage all veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and other members of the practice team to engage with this consultation and consider whether the College should have the right to impose a language test where it has serious doubts, more in line with medical doctors, and the form such testing would take.”
Under the proposals, applicants would be asked a series of questions concerning their language qualifications, experience and general ability to use the English language before registering. Depending on how they answer the questions they may then have to pass a language test before registering, or delay their application while they improve their language skills.
The consultation results will inform the College’s work with Defra to determine whether to proceed with implementation and, if so, to develop the most appropriate system of language testing. The College would implement language testing for veterinary nurses in parallel with any changes for veterinary surgeons.
Those who wish to take part in the consultation can do so at https://consult.defra.gov.uk/animal-health-and-welfare/vet_language_controls. The deadline for responses is Wednesday 30 September 2015.
During the four-day hearing, the Committee heard evidence in respect of three separate heads of charge brought against Mr Shah following a castration operation conducted on Shadow, a six-year old Newfoundland dog, which took place on 20 June 2014.
The three charges were as follows:
There was no complaint made as to the undertaking of the operation itself, and the Committee followed the advice from the Legal Assessor that each charge should be considered separately. When making its decision, the Committee did not take into account the fact that Shadow had died as it is impossible to say whether he would have survived had Mr Shah acted differently.
The Committee found each of the allegations against Mr Shah proved. In respect of the first charge the Committee heard from two expert witnesses, Professor Williams and Mr Plumley, who agreed that the decision to discharge Shadow at about 6pm on 20 June 2014, given his condition, was inappropriate.
The Committee considers that discharging Shadow at that time into the care of the owner given his state on discharge, was grossly negligent and a serious error of judgement. It therefore found Mr Shah to be guilty of the first charge.
The Committee then considered that, after being alerted to Shadow’s continued lack of progress by the telephone call from Gemma Ballantyne between 30 and 45 minutes after discharge, Mr Shah exacerbated the situation by the inadequacy of his response in dealing with the concerns raised which, in the Committee’s view, represented a continuation of his previous poor judgement.
The Committee considered that Mr Shah was under a duty of care to advise Gemma Ballantyne to seek urgent veterinary attention for Shadow and by his own admission he failed to do so, and he was therefore found guilty of the second charge.
During that telephone call Mr Shah also gave no further details about the out-of-hours care available to Gemma Ballantyne other than to inform her that there would be an additional cost.
He did not seek confirmation that any such information been supplied by his colleague, Emma Martin (who at the relevant time was a student nurse), however, and at no time did he see Gemma Ballantyne in possession of the discharge sheet. The Committee therefore found Mr Shah guilty of this final head of charge.
The Committee did accept that there was no element of dishonesty, nor was there an aim of financial gain in the case. The Committee also considered that Mr Shah was acting in good faith at all times. It also accepted that Mr Shah was entitled to assume that normal practice had been followed and that a previously compiled discharge sheet, containing the number of the out-of-hours provider, had been supplied to Miss Ballantyne.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "Balancing all of the factors as the Committee must, it is clear that on this occasion Mr Shah’s conduct fell far short of that which is expected and it therefore finds he conducted himself disgracefully in a professional respect."
Mr Green added: "In imposing the sanction of a reprimand, the Committee urges Mr Shah in the strongest possible terms to ensure that his future conduct by way of training and support systems within his practice are such as to avoid any possibility of a future incident such as this occurring in order to ensure animal welfare and public confidence in the veterinary profession. The Committee notes that in her evidence, Emma Martin said that the working practices at the surgery have been changed and the Committee expects that all animals kept in the care of Mr Shah are fully monitored, examined and assessed in relation to their condition before being discharged."
A man who worked as a veterinary surgeon in Wiltshire, despite being neither qualified nor registered with RCVS, has received a 20-month sentence at Swindon Crown Court.
Peter Keniry (also known as Patrick Keniry), from Great Yarmouth, had been practising under the name of a properly qualified and legitimately registered veterinary surgeon, and was arrested on 23 August. At his initial hearing in Swindon Magistrates' Court, Mr Keniry pleaded guilty to charges of fraud by misrepresentation and unlawfully practising as a veterinary surgeon, and was released on bail.
At the Crown Court on Friday, Mr Keniry also pleaded guilty to additional charges before being sentenced. It is understood he will serve a number of months in prison, before being released on licence for the remaining period.
The RCVS assisted Wiltshire police in their apprehension of Keniry in August, having been alerted the previous day to his fraudulent activities. Mr Keniry is no stranger to the College or the police, having already been dealt with in 1998, 2001 and 2005 for similar offences. On each occasion, Mr Keniry has impersonated a member of the College whose name is legitimately on the Register, which makes it difficult even for practices that do check the credentials of prospective employees to pick up a problem.
Commenting on the recent sentencing, Gordon Hockey, RCVS Head of Professional Conduct said: "We are satisfied that the Court has clearly recognised the risk posed to both animal welfare and public safety by bogus veterinary surgeons. Anyone working as a veterinary surgeon when not qualified to do so, risks a custodial sentence.
"Mr Keniry's continued pattern of re-offending shows him to be a very convincing fraudster. By publicising his photograph, we hope to help any potential employer or locum agency reduce the chances of this happening again," he added.
The RCVS has extended its alternative dispute resolution (ADR) trial until October 2015 and broadened its remit, allowing more cases to be considered.
The idea of the ADR is to provide an alternative form of resolution for the many concerns raised with the RCVS which do not meet the College's threshold for serious professional misconduct and are, therefore, not taken through its disciplinary process.
The trial, which was originally due to end in May 2015, aims to gather evidence needed to develop a permanent scheme.
As well as the time-frame being extended, the trial will now also be widened to include concerns raised about the treatment of horses and other equines - in addition to those raised about small animals.
The RCVS has also lowered the maximum financial award that can be recommended by the Ombudsman Services, a not-for-profit complaints resolution service which is administering the trial, to £3,000 for small animal cases. The maximum financial award that can be recommended by the Ombudsman Services in relation to equine cases remains at £10,000.
Nick Stace, RCVS Chief Executive, said: "The trial got off to a slower start than we expected and so we have decided to extend its length and breadth to allow more time and scope to gather the evidence and testimonies which we need to assess the trial.
"It's important to stress again that the trial is free, voluntary, as both parties must agree to take part, and that the recommendations made by the Ombudsman Services are not binding - it is up to either party as to whether they accept them."
The results of the trial will now be reported to the November 2015 meeting of RCVS Council. For further information about the ADR trial please visit www.rcvs.org.uk/adr