The campaign gives 11 reasons why owners should register their pets with a veterinary practice, and encourages them to visit www.findavet.org.uk to find the right vet practice for them and their pet.:
Just like people, your pet can benefit from regular health checks to help stay happy and healthy.
Emergencies can happen at any time – registering means you’ll have easier access to emergency vet care whenever you need it.
Your vet knows a lot more about your animal than Dr Google and can provide tailored advice for your pet.
Regular weight checks and nutritional advice can help to keep your pet in shape – your practice’s vet nurses can often help with this.
Many vet practices run pet socialisation and training classes where you can meet other pet owners.
Your vet practice will hold your pet’s medical history to help diagnose any problems quickly.
Your veterinary practice can offer great advice about which pet is right for you because they will know you and your family.
Your vet practice is best placed to recommend other services for your animal, whether that’s pet groomers and trainers, or referral to an advanced practitioner or specialist.
Veterinary staff are often animal owners too, so they understand that pets are a much-loved part of the family.
Vets and nurses have made a solemn promise to look after animals under their care; they study for many years and have to keep their knowledge and skills up to date.
There are some medicines that only vets can prescribe, so it helps to be registered with a practice.
BVA President John Fishwick said: "Pets need vets to ensure their lifelong wellbeing, which is why it is concerning that a large number of pet owners in the country have not registered their animals with a practice. It is important that owners have access to reliable advice and veterinary care to be able to best look after their pets, and so we are calling on the profession to get involved in promoting the wealth of benefits that registering with a vet practice provides."
RCVS President Professor Stephen May added: "Owning an animal is a huge responsibility, which is why access to professional veterinary advice is vital. With this campaign we aim to highlight some of the very considerable benefits of registering pets with a veterinary practice, and raise awareness amongst pet owners who have not yet registered of the value of having access to professional veterinary advice, expertise and treatment to keep their animals healthy. We would be delighted if practices across the country would help share these messages on their own social media accounts."
Vets, vet nurses and veterinary practices can help spread the word on the value of registering pets by sharing campaign resources on social media using the hashtag ‘#petsneedvets’, downloading campaign resources and using the opportunity to encourage local pet owners to register with their practice.
To further highlight the value of veterinary care and the special bond between a veterinary professional and the animals under their care, BVA is also encouraging existing clients to share pictures of their pets at the vets online using the hashtags #lovemyvet and #lovemyvetnurse.
The Pets Need Vets campaign stems from the aim of the joint BVA and RCVS Vet Futures Action Plan to develop communications tools to assist the public’s understanding of veterinary costs and fees, and promote the value of veterinary care.
More information on the campaign and shareable resources are available at https://www.bva.co.uk/petsneedvets and www.rcvs.org.uk/petsneedvets
Reference
Dr Bohnen faced two charges. The first was that in March 2017, she failed to attend to Belle, a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, in order to provide appropriate and adequate care including: assisting Belle with urination, monitoring her with a view to considering alternative treatment options, and monitoring her with a view to providing her owners with an update on her condition.
The second charge was that Dr Bohnen later claimed dishonestly that she had attended to the animal, both to the owners, in clinical records hospital records, in a note provided to colleagues and during internal disciplinary proceedings held at her practice.
At the outset of the hearing the Committee considered an application from Dr Bohnen for the hearing to be postponed as she was now based in her home country of South Africa, and said she could not apply for a visa to return to the UK until later in the year and internet access in her location was poor.
However, the Committee found that the RCVS had properly served the notice of inquiry to Dr Bohnen in accordance with the current rules, that she had had sufficient time and opportunity to apply for a visa since receiving the notice and that, in any case, she could remotely ‘attend’ the hearing via Skype or telephone if necessary by travelling to somewhere that did have adequate internet connectivity, and so it refused the application.
The Disciplinary Committee then considered the facts of the case and heard evidence from the owners of Belle, the clinical director of the practice that Dr Bohnen worked in at the relevant time and a veterinary nurse, who was a student doing her training at the practice during the time of the events in question.
Having considered all of the evidence, the Committee dismissed the parts of the first charge relating to considering alternative treatment options and updating the owners in relation to Belle’s condition. They did, however, find the charge proven in relation to Dr Bohnen failing to assist Belle with urination.
The Committee found all aspects of the second charge proven in its entirety after Dr Bohnen admitted in advance of the hearing, that her representations were false and misleading.
The Committee then went on to consider whether the second charge and the aspects of the first charge that were found proven amounted to serious professional misconduct both individually and cumulatively.
The Committee considered that Dr Bohnen’s conduct in failing to assist Belle with urination, whilst falling below the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent veterinary surgeon, did not amount to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee did however find that Dr Bohnen’s conduct with regards to the second charge constituted serious professional misconduct.
Professor Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee considers that the respondent’s dishonesty was the prime aggravating factor in this case. Although overall it could be regarded as a single incident, the Committee has found that it involved the fabrication of a number of notes and clinical records in the immediate aftermath of the death of the dog, but, thereafter, the respondent continued to deny the falsity of the fabricated records that she had created up to and until the conclusion of her interview by the practice on 30 March 2017.
"During that time, the respondent had contacted the alarm company responsible for the security of the premises of the practice, to enquire whether the security system would record the times of the alarm being switched on and off. This indicated that the respondent’s dishonesty continued over a significant period of time, and that her persistence in sticking to her story became premeditated. In other words, the respondent’s conduct over this time indicated a clear attempt to deceive."
Regarding the sanction for Dr Bohnen, the Committee considered that the principle aggravating factors in the case were serious dishonesty towards both her colleagues and the owners of the dog and involved clear breaches of the Code of Professional Conduct. By way of mitigation, the Committee noted that Dr Bohnen is of previous good character with no other professional findings against her and that she had demonstrated some insight into her behaviour and had admitted being dishonest and misleading prior to the hearing.
Summing up, Professor Barr said: "Because of the seriousness of this case, the Committee did not consider that it was appropriate to postpone judgement, take no further action, or to administer a reprimand and warning as to future conduct. The Committee considered that the respondent’s conduct, involving significant and admitted dishonesty over a period of time, required a significant penalty, in order to protect the welfare of animals and to serve the public interest.
"Accordingly, the Committee has decided to direct that the respondent’s registration be suspended for a period of nine months."
Dr Bohnen has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.
Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vets.
Miss Herdman faced three charges.
The first was that she indicated to a friend that she would supply diazepam and/or tramadol for use by their husband.
The second was that she supplied diazepam and/or tramadol and/or gabapentin.
The third was that she gave advice on the dosages of diazepam and/or tramadol and/or gabapentin.
Miss Herdman was not present at the hearing and was unrepresented, but the Committee determined that it was appropriate to proceed in her absence as she had been notified, was aware that the hearing was taking place and her absence was voluntary.
However, Miss Herdman had been in contact to indicate her pleas to the charges.
She admitted the intention to supply diazepam and/or tramadol and that she had provided advice on the dosages.
She also admitted that she had supplied diazepam but strongly denied that she had supplied tramadol and/or gabapentin.
Taking all the evidence into account (including messages sent by Miss Herdman and her admissions), the Committee found proven the charges in relation to the intent to supply and the advice on dosages.
The Committee also found proven the charge in relation to the supply of diazepam, but found not proved the charge relating to the supply of tramadol and gabapentin for several reasons, including the fact that the messages sent by Miss Herdman did not point unequivocally to her actually suppling each of the drugs to which she referred.
There was no suggestion that the diazepam was stolen from her place of work.
The Committee found that Miss Herdman’s actions had breached paragraphs 1.5 and 6.5 of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses.
The committee judged that there were a number of aggravating features of Miss Herdman’s conduct, including that she was not qualified or authorised to prescribe medication to animals, let alone to human beings and that providing a controlled drug to a person who was already taking various painkilling medications was reckless.
The Committee also felt that a reasonable and informed member of the public would be very concerned to learn that a veterinary nurse had supplied a controlled drug to a friend for their personal use.
Regarding the sanction for Miss Herdman, Paul Morris, chairing the Veterinary Nursing Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Drawing all the material together, and considering the matter as a whole, the Committee had to impose a proportionate sanction for an isolated incident of serious professional misconduct which arose out of a misguided attempt to help a friend.
"The conduct in question was entirely out of keeping with Miss Herdman’s usual practice and there is no real risk that it will be repeated.
"However, this case was much too serious to take no further action and no useful purpose would be served by postponing a sanction.
“The Committee considered that a warning or reprimand would not be sufficient to satisfy the public interest as veterinary nurses are trusted by the public to deal with medication responsibly and failure to do constitutes a severe breach of trust.
“The Committee therefore considered a period of suspension sufficient to meet the public interest in maintaining the reputation of the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct for members of the profession.
“The Committee also considered whether a removal order would be appropriate but concluded it would be disproportionate and that such a step would remove from the profession an experienced, competent and valuable veterinary nurse for no discernible benefit.
“It was decided that Miss Herdman’s registration be suspended for a period of three months – a period which is sufficient to mark the gravity of the misconduct while taking into account the circumstances in which it arose.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/
The RCVS is to launch a consultation in the New Year on proposals to allow all RCVS-registered veterinary surgeons to use the courtesy title 'Dr'/'Doctor', and is seeking the views of all members of the veterinary and veterinary nursing professions, and the general public.
The proposals were raised by RCVS President Stuart Reid at RCVS Day in July 2014, with the aims of aligning the UK with international practice, providing greater clarity for the profession and offering reassurance to clients and the animal-owning public that all veterinary surgeons registered with the RCVS, regardless of where they qualified, have veterinary degrees of an appropriate standard.
In his speech in July, Stuart highlighted that most international veterinary surgeons use the title and that, in Australia and New Zealand, this is frequently tied to registration and professional standing, rather than necessarily academic attainment. He went on to outline that, of the three main clinical degrees in the UK, ie medicine, dentistry and veterinary medicine, only veterinary surgeons do not use the courtesy title 'Doctor'.
Stuart added: "given the fact that all continental EU graduates carry the title 'Doctor', there is now a greater chance of confusion for the lay public than previously.
"This is now an opportunity to provide, for those UK veterinary surgeons who wish it, the legitimate use of a title that offers a level of parity with fellow medical professionals."
The key objective of the consultation is to gauge whether the public and the profession are in favour of the proposal, not in favour of it, or don't mind either way. If agreed, the use of the title would be optional, although the College would regulate its use through the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct.
Background information and draft guidance on using the title is available to read on the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/doctortitle, from where respondents can follow a link to answer the consultation questions.
The consultation will open officially on Tuesday, 6 January for six weeks (deadline for responses is 5pm on Monday, 16 February) although it is already available to view via the RCVS website, to allow more time for responses over the Christmas and New Year break.
Do you think vets should be called 'Dr'? Discuss here.
The RCVS has opened a consultation on the future of veterinary specialisation, which includes a proposal that the use of postnominals and titles by veterinary surgeons should be rationalised in order to avoid confusion amongst the public.
The proposals are submitted for comment by the RCVS Specialisation Working Party, which is chaired by former Chief Medical Officer Professor Sir Kenneth Calman.
The Working Party's review was precipitated by a finding that the structure of veterinary specialisation is "confusing and opaque" to both animal owners and the profession (Unlocking Potential - a Report on Veterinary Expertise in Food Animal Production, by Professor Philip Lowe, 2009).
The Working Party has explored the routes to RCVS Recognised Specialist status. It has also looked at the use of 'specialist' more broadly, given the fact that it is not a protected term in the veterinary field, and has considered animal owners' expectations of a 'specialist'.
The Working Party also makes proposals for encouraging more veterinary surgeons to become specialists, given that there are currently only 319 on the RCVS List of Recognised Specialists, out of a UK practising arm of the profession of some 17,400 veterinary surgeons.
The proposals from the Working Party could have far-reaching impact. One suggestion is that all those meeting the criteria for specialist status would also become Fellows of the RCVS (FRCVS) - a status currently only held by those who complete a thesis or exam, or who qualify on the basis of 'meritorious contributions to learning'. There are also proposals that the term 'RCVS Recognised Specialist' be dropped and replaced with the much simpler term 'specialist' or 'veterinary specialist'.
Further proposals include the introduction of a 'middle tier' of veterinary surgeons - potentially to be called 'advanced practitioners' - who would be below full specialist status and subject to periodic revalidation.
There are also recommendations that veterinary surgeons should be obliged to explain referral options to their clients, including the level of expertise of those to whom they are referring cases.
The future of the RCVS subject boards, which currently manage the various Certificate and Diploma examinations, is also considered in the proposals.
The emphasis throughout is on simplification and improvement, according to Professor Sir Kenneth Calman, who said: "New legislation to introduce statutory registration for veterinary specialists would no doubt make things clearer, as it is for doctors and dentists, but, in the meantime, we believe there are a number of actions which the RCVS could take to improve matters."
The consultation paper can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk/consultations, and comments are welcomed from members of the public, veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses. The closing deadline for comments, which should be sent to RCVS Head of Education, Freda Andrews, on f.andrews@rcvs.org.uk, is Friday 9 December.
Comments received will be considered by the RCVS committees and Council in early 2012.
Mr Molnar had been convicted at Manchester and Salford Magistrates’ Court in March 2018 of five counts of importing puppies to the UK in contravention of the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and other Mammals) Order 1974.
At that court hearing he also pleaded guilty to one count of keeping premises as a pet shop without the authority of a licence granted by a local authority.
As a result of his conviction Mr Molnar was sentenced to 270 hours of unpaid supervised work and was ordered to pay compensation of £2,683.93 and costs of £250.
The Committee, which proceeded with the hearing in Mr Molnar’s absence, found that the RCVS charges against Mr Molnar were proven and went on to consider whether, individually and cumulatively, they resulted in Mr Molnar being unfit to practice being a veterinary surgeon.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee accepts the College’s submission that the fact that they [the puppies] were imported contrary to the law of the UK, because they were underage and had not been properly vaccinated, undermines the integrity of a system which is designed to ensure that effective vaccination and precautions against disease take place in every case.
"The Committee also notes that the convictions in this case were directly linked to the respondent’s veterinary practice, as they related to animals sold from his veterinary practice address. By operating an unlicensed pet shop, and by doing so through an email address that referred to his occupation as a veterinary surgeon, the respondent was abusing his position as a veterinary surgeon, and acting in a way that was liable to undermine the reputation of the profession."
The Committee therefore found that, because Mr Molnar’s conviction was directly linked to his veterinary practice and posed a substantial risk to animal welfare and public health, his conviction meant his conduct fell far short of what was expected of a professional.
In considering the sanction for Mr Molnar the Committee considered that, while he had no previous convictions or adverse professional findings against him, the case against him was very serious "because of the risk of serious harm both to animals and the public, as well as being for financial gain."
Ian Green said: "The Committee considered that the respondent, as a veterinary surgeon, must have known the serious implications and consequences of what he was doing by importing these puppies unlawfully. The public should expect to be able to trust a veterinary surgeon to ensure that his conduct does not put at risk the health of both animals and humans."
Mr Green added that the Committee felt that the only appropriate sanction was to direct the Registrar to remove Mr Molnar’s name from the Register.
During her two-day hearing, the RCVS Disciplinary Committee heard that Ms Vockert had been convicted under Animal Welfare Act 2006 at Bournemouth Magistrates Court in April for, by her own admission, failing to protect two dogs she owned from pain, suffering, injury and disease, by not adequately grooming them.
The prosecution had been brought by the RSPCA after one of her dogs, a Shih Tzu named Happy, was taken into care by the local Council in September 2014 as a stray.
The dog was examined by Chris Devlin MRCVS who reported at the time that the dog’s coat was in an "appalling state, with multiple mats of hair all over his body" and with "evidence of faecal and urinary soiling on the fur around the rear end", which constituted clear signs of neglect. The dog was anaesthetised and treated by Mr Devlin for an eye condition and was also given a full body shave. The dog made a full recovery after these operations.
Council employees discovered that Happy belonged to Ms Vockert and referred the matter to the RSPCA who started an investigation into his condition. When two RSPCA inspectors visited Ms Vockert’s home in September 2014 they observed a Cocker Spaniel named Millie which had severely matted fur. There were no concerns about any of the other dogs owned by Ms Vockert.
The two inspectors visited Ms Vockert’s home the next day by appointment and were told by Ms Vockert that Millie had been euthanased. Millie’s body was subsequently taken to Professor Kenneth Smith MRCVS and Claire Muir MRCVS for a post-mortem examination. In their report following the post-mortem, they observed Millie’s hair coat to be "extensively matted and given the growth of hair over the collar and claws, it is likely that the hair has not been clipped for an extremely long period... and is likely to have restricted the dog’s ability to walk. In addition, a large amount of faecal material has become matted within the hair coat and this finding strongly suggests that this dog was neglected."
As a result of her prosecution by the RSCPA, Ms Vockert was fined £620, ordered to pay costs of £300, a victim surcharge of £62 and a deprivation of animal ownership order was made under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
The Disciplinary Committee considered that the failure to groom extended over a period of months and that any conviction on the part of a veterinary surgeon relating to animal welfare was an extremely serious matter.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The College submitted that the conviction of a veterinary surgeon for an animal welfare offence, of necessity has the potential to undermine both the reputation of the profession and public confidence in the profession.
"In such circumstances, the respondent’s conviction fell far below the standard to be expected of a veterinary surgeon and therefore renders her unfit to practise veterinary surgery."
In considering Ms Vockert’s sanction, the Committee took into mitigation her long and otherwise unblemished career both in the UK and Germany, her guilty plea to the RSPCA conviction and the fact she made no attempt to challenge the College’s submissions in relation to her fitness to practise.
However, it also took into account a number of aggravating features, particularly the fact there was "actual neglect of the welfare of two animals, over a protracted period of time, which resulted in pain, suffering and discomfort. This aspect of the case is made more serious because the two animals in question belonged to the respondent, who is a practising veterinary surgeon with access to the drugs and equipment necessary to groom the dogs."
Ultimately, the Committee decided that the only appropriate sanction was to direct the Acting Registrar to remove Ms Vockert’s name from the Register.
Ian Green, summing up, said: "The Committee considers that the respondent’s conduct which led to the conviction, involved a departure from the most basic and pivotal principle of the Code [of Professional Conduct], which states that the first consideration when attending to animals is health and welfare.
"Accordingly, the Committee had decided that removal from the Register is appropriate and proportionate in this case."
Mr Seymour-Hamilton was originally removed from the Register following an inspection of his Kent practice in 1993 which found that his operating theatre “showed a total disregard of basic hygiene and care for animals and was such as to bring the profession into disrepute”.
Since being removed from the Register, Mr Seymour-Hamilton has made applications for restoration in 1995, 2010, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019. Each was rejected.
In his latest application, Mr Seymour-Hamilton said that he did not want to re-join the Register in order to practise but to facilitate his research in the area of herbal medicine.
The Committee found that while Mr Seymour-Hamilton had accepted some of the findings of the original case, he disagreed with important facts, such as whether or not his surgery was open at the time of the inspection, and showed ‘minimal insight’ into the seriousness of the findings.
The Committee also voiced concerns over public protection and animal welfare should he be restored, saying that he had demonstrated little or no understanding of the purpose of regulation. The Committee also noted that he had, by his own admission, spayed two cats at a practice in Calais in recent years despite his long absence from the Register and unregistered status as a veterinary surgeon in the UK or France.
In considering his conduct since leaving the Register, the Committee found that Mr Seymour-Hamilton had admitted to a number of instances of conduct which it found ‘reprehensible’. This included carrying out spays; not self-isolating after testing positively for coronavirus and, in fact, travelling through France and Spain in breach of the lockdown put in place due to the pandemic; deliberately trying to re-infect himself with coronavirus and then visiting a vulnerable person without maintaining social distancing; treating his own animals with untested herbal remedies; and using his own remedies to treat people, which, in one case, included a nine-year-old boy in Greece.
In summing up Judith Way, who was chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee has concluded that he has not satisfied it that he is fit to be restored to the Register. He has exhibited a disregard for regulation and compliance with the law. He lacks an understanding as to why he has not been restored in the past. He has not set about addressing any of his shortcomings. He relies wholeheartedly on his research, yet he does not support that research with any real peer-reviewed publications and he fails to acknowledge the consequences of being out-of-practice for so long. He has misplaced confidence in his own abilities and does not recognise that his approach and/or actions can represent a danger to animals and to the public. The Committee has therefore reached the conclusion that the applicant is not a fit person to be restored to the Register.”
The full findings of the restoration hearing for Mr Seymour-Hamilton can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Mr Wood pleaded guilty to three charges of making indecent images of children at Portsmouth Magistrate’s Court in December 2017. Following his conviction, Mr Wood was given a community sentence, fined and made subject to a sexual harm prevention order for five years.
Mr Wood’s application for restoration was based on the argument that he was professionally competent to be restored to the Register, that he had strong mitigation for his original conviction (for which he had demonstrated remorse), that he had a low chance of reoffending, had engaged proactively with the Probation Service and rehabilitative courses, and that had completed his community service.
In considering Mr Wood’s application, the Disciplinary Committee took into account a number of factors including Mr Wood’s acceptance of the Committee’s original findings, the seriousness of the original findings, protection of the public, the future welfare of animals in his care should he be restored, the length of time off the Register, his conduct since removal from the Register, efforts by Mr Wood to keep up-to-date with his continuing professional development (CPD), the impact of removal from the Register on Mr Wood and public support for his restoration.
However, on balance, the Committee decided that Mr Wood was not currently fit to be restored to the Register.
Ian Arundale, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "In essence, the Committee decided that the facts of the charge justifying removal from the Register and the underlying criminal behaviour were too serious for Mr Wood to be restored at this time. It concluded that because Mr Wood continued to be subject to a sexual harm prevention order, notification requirements for sexual offenders and because he remained on the Barring List by the Disclosure and Barring service until January 2023, he was not fit to be restored to the Register at this time.
"The Committee accepted that Mr Wood had made significant efforts to rehabilitate himself but it was not persuaded that he was fit to be restored to the Register because ancillary orders relating to the underlying criminal offences remained in force. The Committee noted that at the time those orders were made Mr Wood was described as having an addiction and although the Committee accepted that there was a low risk of future reoffending, it decided that because the orders were still in place for public protection reasons, Mr Wood was not fit to be restored to the Register."
The full report of Mr Wood’s restoration hearing can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Dr Russell, 64, who waived his right to attend the hearing, was convicted in 2023 of three offences: making indecent photographs of a child, possessing 2,280 prohibited images of a child and possessing 109 extreme pornographic images that included moving images that were grossly offensive.
After pleading guilty to making indecent photographs/pseudo-photographs of a child, possessing a prohibited image of a child, and possessing extreme pornographic image/images portraying sexual acts with an animal, Dr Russell was sentenced at Winchester Crown Court to a two-year community order, a 30-day Rehabilitation Activity Requirement, 150 hours of community service and a forfeiture and destruction order of Seagate Drive, Toshiba hard drive and Lenovo tablet.
In addition, he was required to register with the police for 5 years and made subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for five years.
He was also required to pay prosecution costs of £425 and £60 victim surcharge.
Counsel for the College submitted to the Disciplinary Committee that the nature and circumstances of the offences rendered Dr Russell unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
The Committee considered 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; sexual misconduct; premeditated conduct; and, that the offences involved vulnerable children and animals.
Neil Slater, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee has reached the conclusion that Dr Russell’s behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon, namely grave offences of a sexual nature.
"Dr Russell’s behaviour was so serious that removal of professional status and the rights and privileges accorded to that status is considered to be the only means of protecting the wider public interest and of maintaining confidence in the profession.
“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 judgment, the reputation of the profession has to be at the forefront of its thinking and ultimately this is more important than the interests of Dr Russell.
"The decision is not simply based on the fact that these offences were of a sexual nature but because they were repeated over a significant period of time and at a time when Dr Russell must have known, on his own plea of guilty, that what he was doing was wrong.
"Further, the Committee can discern no evidence that Dr Russell has insight into the gravity of the offence he has committed.
"The Committee has therefore directed the Registrar to remove his name from the Register forthwith.”
Dr Russell has 28 days from being notified of his removal from the Register to lodge an appeal with Privy Council.
The first charge related to his conviction on two counts of common assault by beating two individuals at an incident in December 2016, as a result of which he was made subject to a community order and a restraining order, as well as being fined and made to pay a victim surcharge and costs.
The second charge related to him undertaking, or attempting to undertake non-emergency surgery on the eyelid of one of the individuals referred to in the first charge, and administering, or attempting to administer, a Prescription-Only Veterinary Medicines to the same person.
The third charged related to an allegation that he had supplied the same individual with a Prescription-Only Medication other than in accordance with a valid prescription.
The second charge and third charges related to incidents which occurred some considerable time before the assault, not as a consequence of it.
At the outset of the hearing Mr Sutcliffe admitted the first and second charges against him and that these constituted serious professional misconduct. He denied the third charge. In relation to that charge the Committee found that, having considered the totality of the evidence, it was unable to be sure that the College had proved the allegation to the requisite standard of proof, namely so that the Committee was sure. Accordingly Charge 3 was dismissed.
The Committee decided that the convictions in the first charge rendered Mr Sutcliffe unfit to practise veterinary surgery and that his conduct in Charge 2 constituted serious professional misconduct.
The Committee then went on to consider sanction.
The Committee considered the aggravating features for both charges. For the first charge it considered the actual injury to one of his victims and risk of injury to the other, noting also that both of his victims were vulnerable people and one was a child, and that the overall incident during which the assaults occurred lasted over a seven hour period.
For the second charge, aggravating factors were that the non-emergency surgery performed by Mr Sutcliffe was wholly inappropriate, that there was a risk of injury to the individual on whom he performed the surgery and that his conduct was reckless.
The mitigating factors considered by the Committee were that Mr Sutcliffe recognised the gravity of the findings against him and demonstrated insight into the allegations, that the incident in charge 1, though prolonged, was an isolated one, that the incident in charge 2 was consensual and did not result in actual harm and that neither charge had any connection with Mr Sutcliffe’s veterinary practice, nor did they affect client care or animal welfare.
Professor Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "As recognised by the Committee, the respondent has displayed insight as to the seriousness of his behaviour. Having regard to the evidence of all the character witnesses and the written testimonials the Committee accepts that the respondent’s conduct as set out in charges 1 and 2 was wholly out of character and, therefore, there is no significant risk of repeat behaviour. The Committee considers that the respondent would be fit to return to practise, having regard to his excellent track record as a veterinary surgeon to date, after any period of suspension.
"Having regards to the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case, the Committee has decided that it is sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct to give a direction for suspension of the respondent’s name from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons.
"The Committee considers that the period of suspension must be sufficient to mark the seriousness of the charges but must be proportionate and fair in the circumstances of the case. The Committee has therefore concluded that the appropriate period of suspension is six months."
Mr Sutcliffe has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to appeal to the Privy Council.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has launched an online quiz to test its members' knowledge of the Guide to Professional Conduct.
The Guide outlines what is acceptable professional and ethical behaviour for veterinary surgeons. It is developed and maintained by the Advisory Committee of the RCVS, which, in addition to veterinary members of RCVS Council, also includes lay members, a member of the Veterinary Nurses Council, and independent (ie non-Council) veterinary surgeons. The Guide is the benchmark against which a veterinary surgeon is judged, by both the Preliminary Investigation and Disciplinary Committees.
The quiz, which was road-tested at the London Vet Show on 6-7 November, is anonymous, but the College will be collating data on results to help focus future communications activities and see where extra guidance may be required.
On completion of the quiz, it is possible to review answers and view the relevant section of the online Guide.
The quiz is aimed at veterinary surgeons: if it's a success, a version for Registered Veterinary Nurses will follow.
To try the quiz, visit www.rcvs.org.uk/guidequiz It will initially be online for three months and reviewed thereafter.
The joint submission points to evidence from recent surveys indicating a current workforce shortage of 11% in small animal practice and an overall deterioration in the ability of practices to hire suitably qualified staff.
Following the exit from the EU, existing shortages will likely worsen, whilst changes in trade could increase the demand for veterinary skills, producing a shortfall in the UK’s capacity to ensure animal health and welfare, food safety and public health.
Placing the veterinary profession on the Shortage Occupation List would reduce restrictions on recruiting veterinary surgeons from abroad, something the response says will become a necessity post Brexit.
Currently about half of vets registering each year in the UK are graduates from the EU. If there are no appropriate immigration measures in place when the UK leaves the EU, this EU contribution could decline, leaving a large gap in the veterinary workforce. Research among BVA members has indicated that since the EU referendum, about one fifth are reporting that recruitment has already become harder. Meanwhile, a study commissioned by the RCVS has shown that nearly a third of veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses whose nationality is non-UK European are considering a move back home.
The BVA / RCVS response highlights that although the veterinary profession is relatively small, it performs a range of roles that are vital to the UK’s economy and maintaining standards in society. Agriculture and food production would suffer from a lack of veterinary input, potentially reducing its livestock outputs worth £12.7bn in 2016, whilst the equine industry and aquaculture would also struggle. The companion animal veterinary market, that has a turnover of £3 billion, could experience significant losses due to workforce shortages.
Veterinary surgeons from the EU make a particularly significant contribution to critical roles in public health with estimates suggesting that 95% of Official Veterinarians working in abattoirs are from overseas and the large majority of these are from the EU. Reducing the veterinary presence in slaughterhouses would increase the risk of food fraud, provide the potential for animal welfare breaches and remove a level of public health reassurance.
While the number of UK veterinary graduates has increased year-on-year from the established veterinary schools, with potentially more schools in the pipeline, it is unlikely that UK universities can meet this increased demand in the short timeframe required. BVA, RCVS and Defra recently launched the Veterinary Capability and Capacity Project (VCCP) to help ensure the veterinary sector can continue to play its role in society.
BVA Senior Vice President Gudrun Ravetz said: "Our members have been reporting problems with recruitment and retention of vets for several years and this situation will only worsen under Brexit unless appropriate measures are in place. Vets are vital to our society. Across the UK vets are needed to certify imports and exports, conduct cutting-edge research, prevent disease outbreaks, ensure food safety in abattoirs and achieve our world leading standards in animal welfare.
"We are setting out a very strong case to add the profession to the Shortage Occupation List now to help us manage the immediate shortfall in critical veterinary roles, while the UK negotiates a longer term immigration policy that must meet the UK’s veterinary workforce needs post-Brexit without creating disproportionate administrative burdens for veterinary businesses."
Chris Tufnell, RCVS Senior Vice-President and Chair of the College’s Brexit Taskforce, said: "The first of our recently published Brexit Principles is that ‘vital veterinary work continues to get done’. In order to ensure this is met we want the Government to recognise that there are significant current and potential shortages in the profession that can only be mitigated by putting it on the Shortage Occupation List so that animal health and welfare and public health is safeguarded.
"Our ideal outcome is that EU veterinary surgeons currently living and working in the UK are allowed to stay indefinitely and that, in terms of any post-Brexit immigration system, graduates of European schools accredited by the European Association of Establishments for Veterinary Education (EAEVE) are allowed to work here with the minimum of restrictions."
More information is available in BVA/RCVS’s full response to the Migration Advisory Committee’s Call for Evidence:www.bva.co.uk/uploadedFiles/Content/News,_campaigns_and_policies/Get_involved/Consultation_archive/Migration%20Advisory%20Committee%20BVA%20RCVS%20Submission%20FINAL.PDF
Results for the 2010 RCVS Council elections have been released today and, following a slight increase in turnout for the second year running, four existing Council Members and one former Member have been returned for another four years. However, new to Council this year and securing the most votes was Preston-based veterinary practitioner David Catlow.
4,232 veterinary surgeons out of a possible 22,541 cast their votes this year, an increase of 0.6% from 18.2% in 2009. The results of the voting are as follows:
CATLOW, David Frederick. 2,383. Elected. TAPSFIELD-WRIGHT. Clare Joan. 2,352. Elected.SHIELD, Christine Fiona. 2,133. Elected.MOLYNEUX, Jacqueline Rosina. 2,111. Elected.SMITH, Neil Christopher. 2,089. Elected.PARTRIDGE, Robert Duncan. 1,971. Elected.NELL, Adi. 1,781. ANDERSON, Roy Paxton. 1,455. GODDARD, Philip Campbell. 1,385. LONSDALE, Thomas, 380.
Terms of office for the six successful candidates will (re)commence at RCVS Day on 2 July 2010.
Following a successful partnership last year, the RCVS again teamed up with this website to allow voters more opportunity to quiz the candidates directly and find out more about their views.
Once again, this seemed to prove popular with the electorate although it presented candidates with a large increase in their workload during the voting period. Page views in the election section rose 23% to 28,347 this year; 48 discussion threads were started (slightly down from 53) and total responses rose dramatically by 47% to 988.
A new incentive for members to vote this year was a pledge to donate 20p per voter to the DEC Haiti Earthquake Appeal. A donation of just over £845 will therefore be made shortly.
RCVS Registrar Jane Hern said: "An increase in turnout, if only a small one, is to be welcomed and I hope we can continue to increase members' interest in the composition and activities of RCVS Council. I'd like to thank all ten candidates who stood for election this year; my congratulations to those elected and my commiserations to those who weren't successful this time."
Note: there was no VN Council election this year as only two nominations were received for the two available places. These will be filled by Suzanne May RVN and Hilary Orpet RVN.
Dr Bremner was convicted in 2017 of harassing his ex-wife, and for perverting the course of justice by sending his daughter an e-mail, pressuring her to ask her mother to withdraw the charges against him. He pleaded guilty to both of the charges, saying he did not understand that it was a condition of his bail that he could not contact his ex-wife. He also expressed shame and remorse at his actions, explaining that his behaviour was triggered by extreme anger, grief and stress.
In relation to the charges, the Respondent was committed to prison for 12 months, suspended for 12 months, ordered to comply with a Rehabilitation Activity Requirement within 12 months, and ordered to pay £85 in costs and £115 as a surcharge to pay for victim services.
The Committee found the facts proved based on the certified copy of the certificate of conviction, as well as the Respondent’s admissions to the facts of the charges. It was satisfied that the Respondent brought the profession into disrepute by the seriousness of his convictions. In addition, the Committee regarded the Respondent as having deficient insight and a need to fully accept personal responsibility for his actions and their consequences.
The Committee was also satisfied that the nature of the communications sent by the Respondent which led to the convictions and the breach of bail conditions, coupled with deficient insight amounted to serious professional misconduct and rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
The Committee considered various mitigating factors including the fact that no actual harm occurred to any animal, there were no concerns raised about the respondent’s practice, that he has a long and unblemished career, and that he showed some insight into his offences which continues to develop.
The Committee also took into account that preventing the Respondent from practicing could mean the loss of jobs for 33 or so employees, which weighed heavily on their decision. The Committee also agreed with the RCVS’s submissions that there was a very low likelihood of repetition of the offending behaviour. Aggravating factors included the emotional harm caused to the Respondent’s ex-wife, and that the harassment was a course of conduct sustained over a period of five months.
Therefore, when taking into account the particulars of this case, the Committee decided to impose a reprimand and warning on the basis that it would be proportionate to maintain public confidence in the profession in light of the serious nature of these charges.
Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee was of the view that the conviction for intending to interfere with the course of justice was particularly serious, in light of the need to maintain public confidence in the profession, because it involved a disregard of proper criminal process.
"However, a particular feature of this case is the risk to the jobs of 33 or so employees if the Respondent were to be prevented from practising as a result of the Committee’s imposition of a sanction. It is this mitigating factor which weighed most heavily with the committee and they therefore concluded that both a Reprimand as to this conduct and a Warning as to any future conduct is sufficient and proportionate in this case to meet the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards."
Mr Bremner has 28 days in which to make an appeal about the Committee’s decision to the Privy Council.
Mr Rushton was convicted of sexual assault after pleading guilty at Wood Green Crown Court in December 2022.
He was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, made subject to a restraining order and a 10-year sexual harm prevention order as well as being placed on the Sex Offenders Register for 10 years.
He was also ordered to pay £3,000 costs and a £140 victims’ surcharge.
Mr Rushton did not attend the RCVS hearing, where the facts of the charge were proven by the certificate of conviction and the judge’s sentencing remarks.
In considering whether the conviction rendered Mr Rushton unfit to practise veterinary medicine, the Committee considered that the case involved the sexual assault of a vulnerable woman who was also a professional colleague, and was a serious abuse of trust, reflected in the custodial sentence.
Dr Neil Slater MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “It was evident from the judge’s sentencing remarks that [the victim] had been seriously affected by the knowledge of what had occurred on that evening.
"That knowledge was bound, in itself, to be very distressing and according to the victim’s impact statement had a long- lasting impact on the victim’s self-esteem, resilience and relationship with others.
"The victim’s level of distress can only have been increased by the knowledge that the respondent had filmed and/or photographed his activity while she was unconscious and that the images were included on a memory stick which contained a number of other voyeuristic images.”
"The Committee was satisfied that the respondent’s behaviour had caused [the victim] significant psychological injury and carried with it a risk of causing such injury.
“The Committee was also satisfied that [the victim] was especially vulnerable because of the significant quantity of alcohol that she had consumed.
"In the circumstances that evolved, she was in the respondent’s care.
"The respondent abused the position of trust and responsibility that he occupied.
"He was a senior colleague, at a professional conference.
"Instead of taking appropriate steps to secure the welfare of [the victim], he used the position in which he found himself to engage in predatory sexual misconduct.
"Furthermore, his behaviour was opportunistic and, as the judge said, “clearly driven by [his] sexual desires."
Taking into account these factors, the Committee found that Dr Rushton was unfit to practise and next considered the sanction.
The Committee found no mitigating factors regarding the conviction but did take into account the fact there had been no previous regulatory findings against him.
In deciding the sanction, the Committee also noted that there was little evidence before them that Dr Rushton had shown serious insight into the impact of his offending.
Neil added: “In this context the Committee also noted that the respondent maintained a plea of not guilty until three days before a rearranged trial was due to take place, and subsequently advanced an account of what he said was his relationship with [the victim] which the judge found to be false.
“Taking all of these factors into account, the Committee is satisfied that removal from the register is the only proportionate outcome to this case.
"This sanction is necessary to declare and uphold appropriate standards of conduct for members of the veterinary profession and to maintain public confidence in the profession.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
The charges related to the unexpected death of a cat called Hope during an operation to explore a growth in her mouth, and Dr Dantas-Holmes' subsequent communication with the animal's owners.
Dr Dantas-Holmes accepted that Hope’s death was most likely due to her failing to flush fluid through the giving set attached to an intravenous drip, leaving air in the tubing and causing some air to enter Hope’s bloodstream when the cannula was placed and the giving set’s control opened.
The first set of charges related to Dr Dantas-Holmes’ initial phone call to Hope’s owners ten minutes after Hope’s death, in which she said that Hope had died because of a reaction to anaesthetic drugs. Dr Dantas-Holmes failed to mention that the cause of death was still to be determined and failed to mention that a likely cause was in fact an air embolism and/or a complication relating to the intravenous drip.
Following her initial phone call to the owners Dr Dantas-Holmes viewed CCTV of her actions.
The owners then came into the practice later in the day, and the communications during that time constitute the second set of charges: that, during this meeting, Dr Dantas-Holmes didn’t correct her earlier statements about the cause of Hope’s death, and that she didn’t mention that there was an ongoing investigation or that a likely cause of death was an air embolism and/or complication.
The third set of charges related to Dr Dantas-Holmes’ subsequent clinical records, in which it was alleged that she failed to include references to the findings on review of the CCTV footage of Hope’s death, and the possibility of an air embolism and/or complication relating to the intravenous drip.
The fourth and final set of charges were that her conduct was misleading, and/or dishonest.
With regard to the first set of charges, the Committee found that Dr Dantas-Holmes did tell the owners that Hope died because of a reaction to the drugs, but that given the short nature of the phone call to the owners and the distressing circumstances there was no duty to discuss the investigation, or to mention the likely cause being an air embolism.
Concerning the communications with the owners when they came to the practice, the Committee found that Dr Dantas-Holmes did fail to mention that anaesthetic drugs might not have been the cause, and that she also failed to mention the investigation. Dr Dantas-Holmes had agreed with the Practice Manager, however, that she would not discuss the possibility of an air embolism or complication, and so that charge was not found proved.
On consideration of whether Dr Dantas-Holmes had failed to include relevant findings in the clinical reports, the Committee found both charges proved, and, in relation to the final set of charges, the Committee found that while Dr Dantas-Holmes had misled Hope’s owners, it was unintentional, and she had not been dishonest.
Ultimately, the Committee found Dr Dantas Holmes not guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The findings of this Committee demonstrate that there were errors and omissions in communications with the owners. When communicating with a client it is the professional’s responsibility to ensure that the client has heard and understood what has been said. The importance of good and effective communication is particularly important when an unforeseen and shocking event occurs such as it did in this case.
"The particular circumstances of this case demonstrate how important it is to communicate effectively and the need for the veterinary surgeon to ensure that their clinical records for which they are wholly responsible, are complete.
"The Committee concluded that its findings demonstrated a departure from professional standards but that the falling short was not so grave as to amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
Vet Futures, the joint initiative by the RCVS and BVA to stimulate debate about the future of the profession, has opened a new discussion about whether VAT on vet fees for pets should be dropped.
The discussion has been opened by this month's Vet Futures guest blogger, Stuart Winter, the Sunday Express small animal columnist and a campaigner to end VAT on pet fees.
Stuart argues that owning a pet is not a luxury to be taxed when they need medical intervention, because owning a companion improves the health and wellbeing of its owner.
He writes that removing VAT on veterinary fees for domestic animals, or at least reducing it to five pence in the pound, would improve the nation's animal welfare. It would allow low-income families to seek medical attention earlier, he argues, while allowing more owners to afford and take out pet insurance.
He says that shifting Government thinking on the subject might be a Herculean task, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't campaign for its removal. "No Chancellor delights in losing revenue. Treating, curing and caring for sick and injured animals is nothing more than a service and services are ripe to be harvested.
"It is time for a counter argument. Pet ownership is not a luxury. It is more than a privilege. Is it not a human right? Welcoming animals into our lives makes our lives more fulfilled and more civilised."
To tie in with the discussion, Vet Futures is inviting vets to take part in a poll which asks: "Would you agree that VAT should no longer be levelled on vet fees?"
The College is encouraging members of the veterinary team and the public to take part in the poll so that it can generate debate on the issue of VAT and better understand the full consequences if it was removed.
January's poll asked members of the profession if they could recognise the signs of mental ill-health in a colleague. Reassuringly, just over half (58%) of the 65 respondents said they would be able to recognise the signs, although that leaves 40% who would not feel comfortable in their ability to do so.
To read Stuart Winter's blog, contribute to the discussion and vote in the poll, visit www.vetfutures.org.uk
Lizzie joined the College as Head of Communications in February 2005, in which role she oversaw the launch of the Practice Standards Scheme in 2006, an overhaul of the College’s design and branding in 2011 and the joint British Veterinary Association Vet Futures project in 2014. More recently, she has been the driving force behind the Mind Matters mental health initiative.
Lizzie was appointed as Director of Strategic Communications in November 2015 and Deputy CEO in September 2016. She became Acting CEO when Nick Stace left the position of CEO at the end of September 2017.
The College advertised the position in the Sunday Times online for four weeks, and used a recruitment agency called Saxton Bampfylde. In all, 60 candidates applied.
RCVS President Professor Stephen May said: "This was a very rigorous recruitment process with a very strong field of candidates and so it is a testament to Lizzie’s abilities and achievements that she saw off all the opposition.
"For some time Lizzie has been involved in setting the direction of the College through the Strategic Plan and the initiatives and projects that she has managed, which really have had a very tangible impact on the profession.
"For example, the Vet Futures project has encouraged the profession to think more strategically about the issues that are facing it and how to achieve constructive solutions, while the Mind Matters Initiative has helped get veterinary mental health further up the agenda and reduced the stigma that many feel about it.
"Her drive and her passion has really pushed these projects forward and I believe she will bring this to the role of CEO.”
Lizzie said: "I am delighted and feel honoured to have been chosen to take the College forward into its next stage of development. I see the Council’s choice of an internal candidate, able to maintain momentum for change and help the College continue on our current strategic path, as an endorsement of the amazing work of the staff at Belgravia House.
"Under Nick Stace’s leadership, the College achieved some really excellent things for the profession, the public, and animal health and welfare, and I look forward to our next exciting chapter."
As of today, veterinary surgeons in the UK can call themselves 'Doctor', following a decision made by the RCVS Council.
The decision to allow the use of the courtesy title followed a consultation which received 11,202 responses, of which 81% were in favour of the change, 13% against, and 6% did not mind either way.
The College says the idea is to align the UK with international practice, provide greater clarity for the profession and offer reassurance to clients and the animal-owning public that all veterinary surgeons registered with the RCVS, regardless of where they qualified, have veterinary degrees of an appropriate standard. Most international veterinary surgeons use the title and, in Australia and New Zealand, this is frequently tied to registration and professional standing, rather than necessarily academic attainment.
RCVS President Professor Stuart Reid said: "I am very pleased that the response from the consultation gave Council such clear direction and has allowed us to bring UK vets in line with the majority of veterinarians worldwide. It was my privilege to pose the question, which has been well and truly answered by the profession and the public.
"Whether one regards the decision as correcting a historical anomaly or simply providing greater clarity at home and abroad, there is no doubt that the issue has generated huge interest. Yet regardless of whether individual vets choose to use the title, it will not change the profession's ongoing commitment to the very highest of standards."
Nearly 50% of respondents to the consultation were veterinary surgeons, 22% veterinary students, 21% animal-owning members of the public, and the rest were veterinary nurses, veterinary nurse students, practice managers and non-animal-owning members of the public.
RCVS CEO, Nick Stace said: "I am delighted that such a strong message came from both the public and the profession on this issue. We have a responsibility to maintain confidence in the veterinary profession and this move will help underline to the public in particular that veterinary surgeons work to very high standards, regardless of where they qualified."
Use of the title is optional, and guidance has been produced to support the change. It stresses that veterinary surgeons using the title should be careful not to mislead the public, and that it is important that the use of 'Doctor' or 'Dr' by a veterinary surgeon does not suggest or imply that they hold a medical qualification or a PhD. If the title is used, the veterinary surgeon should use it in conjunction with their name and either the descriptor 'veterinary surgeon' or the postnominal letters 'MRCVS'.
The guidance is available as part of supporting guidance chapter 23 to the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons, and can be read online at www.rcvs.org.uk/advertising (see paragraphs 23.6-23.8).
Veterinary surgeons may start using the title straight away; details about how their RCVS Register entry can be updated will be issued over the coming months.
The nurse, who admitted the charges against her, successfully applied for anonymity at the outset of the case, on the basis that the shock factor of the removal of the animals' heads could greatly upset members of the public and veterinary staff, leading to a backlash which would present a threat to her safety.
The Disciplinary Committee heard that the nurse, who was working as a locum, asked a permanent member of staff if she could take a couple of skulls from the strays, because she had a friend who 'cleaned up' dead strays and wildlife and displayed the skulls at home.
The College’s case was that the nurse’s actions amounted to serious professional misconduct because she failed to afford the dead animals with the respect and dignity they deserved, there was a risk to human health because she failed to comply with biosecurity measures, and her actions had the potential to undermine public confidence in the profession.
Although she admitted that her conduct fell short of what was expected, the nurse countered that her actions were not intended to be disrespectful to the animals, that she was an animal-lover who had three cats of her own, and that her actions were not malicious but misjudged.
Weighing up the case, the Committee found that the aggravating features of her conduct were around biosecurity and abuse of her professional position, while in mitigation it found that there was no financial gain in her actions and that it was a one-off incident.
Kathryn Peaty, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The respondent’s conduct represented a biosecurity risk.
"Any body part would be in some degree of decomposition.
"As the cats were strays, it was unclear as to whether or not they had been in good health.
"Although the respondent transferred the body parts to her home and kept them in the freezer in cadaver bags, there was a risk that they could leak.
"In short, her actions were not without risk to human or animal health.
“The respondent abused her professional position.
"She had an obligation to treat the cadavers with respect.
"Her professional position gave her access to the cadavers.
"She abused her professional position by severing the cats’ heads and, using a scalpel, body bags and other equipment she pursued an interest of her own, rather than performed the role she was employed to undertake.
"Although she may say that she obtained permission to remove the cats’ heads from a permanent member of staff, she was a Registered Veterinary Nurse and therefore an autonomous professional.
"Whatever permissions she received should not have made her believe she had a licence to act as she did.”
Considering the appropriate sanction, the Committee took into account her relative youth and inexperience, the fact she made open and frank admissions at an early stage, the fact she made efforts to avoid a repetition of the behaviours, the insight she had shown into why her conduct was wrong, and the amount of time that had passed since her conduct relative to the total length of her four-year veterinary nursing career.
The Committee also considered positive character references from fellow veterinary nurses with whom she worked and trained.
Kathryn added: “The Committee considered that a reprimand was the sanction it should impose.
"A reprimand marks the Committee’s view of the respondent’s behaviour, thereby satisfying the public interest.
“The Committee did consider issuing a warning as to future conduct, but it had no concerns that the respondent would fail to follow the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses in the future.
"It therefore rejected a warning as an appropriate alternative.”
The full findings of the Disciplinary Committee can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Allegations were reported both in The Times, and the Veterinary Record.
In its statement, the College said: "We know that the University of Edinburgh takes any such accusations extremely seriously and that its inquiry fully and robustly investigated the claims in 2019. This inquiry found no evidence of misconduct, a decision that was later upheld after an appeal.
The College recognised the massive impact that bullying can have on anyone who has been subject to it and acknowledged that the individual accounts published in the Veterinary Record were upsetting to read. However it also drew attention to the 'huge amount of stress that can be caused by ‘trial by media’, especially when an inquiry has concluded that there were no issues to be found'.
As to the role of the RCVS Junior Vice-President, the College pointed out that this is a matter for RCVS Council, as the postholder is elected by Council.
Professor Argyle will be making a statement to Council at its next meeting on 5th November, after which Councillors will be able to ask any questions they have, and then consider the matter.
Meanwhile, the College has asked the Vet Record whether any of the people who made the anonymous testimonials would like to supply any information directly.
Ms Buttler was charged with having been under the influence of alcohol whilst at work on two separate occasions. On both occasions, she was working as a locum veterinary nurse.
The first occasion was between 25th and 28th April 2016 in Frome, and the second from 3rd July to 4th July 2016 in Salisbury.
It was also alleged that a prior conviction of drunk driving on 19th November 2013 rendered her unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse.
The Committee decided to hear the case in Ms Buttler’s absence as it was satisfied that she had properly been served with the notice of hearing and because she had stated that she was aware of the proceedings but did not wish to engage with the process. The Committee also noted that she had not requested any adjournment.
The Committee heard from five witnesses for the first charge, including three veterinary nurses and one veterinary surgeon. They gave testimony that they had had cause to suspect that Ms Buttler was under the influence of alcohol whilst at work due to her demeanour, and recalled Ms Buttler repeatedly retreating upstairs to her accommodation during the working day. Further, an open wine bottle was found in Ms Buttler’s accommodation and was observed to have been drunk during the course of her shift. The Committee found the first charge proved.
The Committee heard from four witnesses in respect of the second charge. Two of the witnesses stated that they smelt alcohol on Ms Buttler’s breath while she was on duty, with one of them stating that Ms Buttler had slurred speech and a flushed face at the end of a fourteen-hour shift. The other two witnesses also presented evidence to support the assertion that Ms Buttler was under the influence of alcohol whilst at work, while the Committee found that Ms Buttler lacked credibility because she had denied having any alcohol on the premises when originally confronted, but later admitted in an email to the College that she had had an open bottle of wine in her bag. The Committee found the second charge proved.
The Committee then considered the third charge, namely the conviction in 2013. The Committee considered the certificate of conviction obtained from the North East Devon Magistrates Court and was satisfied that Ms Buttler had been convicted of driving with excess alcohol as set out within charge 3.
When considering whether these all amounted to a finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect, the Committee was concerned about Ms Buttler showing no insight into her drinking, and the repeated nature of the offences. The Committee also considered that being under the influence of alcohol when working as a veterinary nurse was conduct which fell far short of the standards to be expected of members of the veterinary nursing profession.
It therefore concluded that Ms Buttler was guilty of disgraceful conduct in respect of charges 1 and 2.
The Committee then considered whether Ms Buttler’s conviction (charge 3) rendered her unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse. The Committee concluded that Ms Buttler had not acknowledged the seriousness of her actions in 2013, or learnt any lessons from it. Accordingly, it felt that she continued to pose a risk to animals and the public in the future. The Committee also felt that the conviction undermined the reputation of the veterinary nursing profession because the offence inevitably involved a risk of injury to herself and other road users.
Having found Ms Buttler guilty of misconduct, the Committee went on to consider sanction.
The Committee took into account aggravating factors, including that there was a risk of injury to an animal, the fact that the first two charges involved an element of premeditation, the fact that Ms Buttler was under the influence on more than one shift in each practice, that there is no evidence of insight from Ms Buttler and there is a future risk to animals if she continued to practice unrestricted.
They also considered mitigating factors, including the fact that this is the first disciplinary hearing she has faced, that she did not cause any harm to any animal and that she did not gain financially from her conduct.
In reaching its decision Jane Downes, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee noted that Ms Buttler said she had worked for twenty years without any problem and that she was previously of good character. However because there was no evidence that Ms Buttler would not repeat the conduct with regards to working whilst under the influence of alcohol she could continue to pose a risk to animals or the public in the future. The Committee therefore was bound to consider her removal from the register.
"Although it noted from the brief email correspondence Ms Buttler had sent to the College that she said she did not intend to practice in the future, the Committee decided that until she had shown insight into her behaviour in 2016, she remained a risk to animals. It therefore decided that the proportionate action was to instruct the Registrar to remove her name from the register of veterinary nurses forthwith."
If Ms Buttler chose to re-engage with the College, she could apply for restoration to the register after ten months.
In next year's election, there are three places on Council for elected veterinary surgeons, with successful candidates serving four-year terms.
The nomination period runs until 5pm on Friday 31 January 2020. In order to stand, candidates need to complete a nomination form, submit a short biography and personal statement and supply a high resolution digital photo.
Each candidate also needs to have two nominators who need to be veterinary surgeons who are on the RCVS Register but are not current RCVS Council members.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar and Returning Officer said: "As always, we would encourage those who are interested in having their say in some of the key debates in the regulatory sphere, such as our under care review, our policies around the impact of Brexit and our vision for new veterinary legislation, to become a candidate.
"RCVS Council is at its best when it encompasses a broad range of perspectives, experiences and knowledge, and so we encourage people from all areas of veterinary life and all levels of experience to put themselves forward and share their expertise and insight."
Nomination forms, guidance notes and frequently asked questions for prospective RCVS Council candidates can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil20.
Prospective candidates for RCVS Council are welcome to contact the Registrar, Eleanor Ferguson (e.ferguson@rcvs.org.uk) and the RCVS CEO, Lizzie Lockett (l.lockett@rcvs.org.uk) for more information about the role of the College and/or RCVS Council.
RCVS Council will also be holding its next public meeting on Thursday 23 January 2020, prior to the closure date for Council candidate nominations. Prospective candidates are welcome to attend the Council meeting as an observer. Contact Dawn Wiggins, RCVS Council Secretary, on d.wiggins@rcvs.org.uk if you wish to attend.
The Disciplinary Committee heard that Mrs Garfield had told a representative of the Retired Greyhound Trust (RGT) that she had possession of a greyhound called Lola, that she proposed keeping Lola living with her as an adoptee, and that she would not relinquish possession of Lola except to the RGT. This was despite the fact that, at the time of signing the adoption agreement, she had already given Lola to another charity named Greyhound Gap and that, as a result, her conduct was misleading and dishonest.
In considering the facts of the case, the Committee found the charges and all constituent parts proven and went on to consider whether this amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The end result of the respondent’s decisions and conduct meant that RGT was persuaded to pass lawful possession and ownership of the dog Lola to the respondent when it would not have agreed to do so had it been told the truth by her.
"In truth, the respondent was not going to adopt and re-home Lola herself. Instead the respondent’s plan and intention was that Lola should be passed on to a third party who had been recommended by a rival dog rescue charity for rehome and adoption."
Judith added: "The consequence was that a social media dispute broke out when the rival dog charity decided to attempt to take advantage of the erroneous belief of the respondent that a decision had been taken by RGT to put Lola to sleep. The publicity generated by the respondent’s erroneous belief… was obviously adverse…. The gravamen [seriousness] of the respondent’s dishonest conduct was that she set one dog rescue charity against another, caused them to spend publicly raised funds on a legal dispute about who should be allowed to retain Lola when those precious funds ought, instead, to have been spent on their charitable objectives."
The Committee judged that the charge and its parts constituted serious professional misconduct and went on to consider the sanction against Mrs Garfield.
In considering the proportionate sanction the Committee took into account both mitigating and aggravating factors. In terms of aggravating factors the Committee considered that the dishonesty was pre-meditated, that she accused members of a rescue charity of lying and demonstrated no or only minimal insight into her wrongdoing. In mitigation the Committee considered that Mrs Garfield had cooperated with the College in its investigations, that she had acted in the genuine belief that she was acting in the best interests of Lola and that her conduct did not put Lola at risk or cause her to suffer any adverse consequences as a result. The Committee also accepted the testimonials and positive evidence from colleagues.
However, the Committee decided that removal from the Register would be the only appropriate sanction.
Summing up Judith Way said: "The reputational consequences for RGT were potentially significant bearing in mind that it is a rescue organisation with some 57 or so branches across the country. All of these consequences, actual and potential, stem from the respondent’s premeditated act of dishonesty in relation to which the Committee considers she showed very limited insight prior to this disciplinary hearing, as she did during the course of this hearing.
"In the result, it is 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.”
Mrs Garfield has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to appeal.