The Disciplinary Committee made its decision last Friday, following an adjournment of the case, which was initially heard in May of this year.
There were three heads of charge against Mr Hough:
The Committee found the majority of the first head of charge not proven, with the exception of the charges that Mr Hough failed to provide and ensure adequate overnight care for Mya and that it was inappropriate and unreasonable for him to plan for the wound management to be undertaken by Mya’s owners following the second procedure on 21 May 2014.
Regarding the second head of charge, the Committee found it proven that Mr Hough did fail to provide information about post-operative care and out-of-hours cover details to Mya’s owners. However it found Mr Hough’s failure to communicate with the owners regarding treatment options and to provide them with adequate information as to Mya’s post-operative condition not proven.
The third head of charge in its entirety was admitted and found proven.
The Committee also found that those charges that were found proven amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect with the exception of Mr Hough’s failure to provide and/or ensure adequate overnight care and his failure to failure to provide out-of-hours details to Mya’s owners.
In deciding on an appropriate sanction, the Committee expressed significant concerns over Mr Hough’s treatment of Mya, in particular his "failure to devise and implement proper and sufficient procedures to ensure that this dog was not released to owners unless it was safe for her to be released and... that the owners were fully advised as to what was required of them."
The Committee felt that Mr Hough had given "insufficient attention" to Mya’s post-operative care but did accept that the conduct represented a single incident. During the course of the hearing the Committee also heard mitigating evidence given on behalf of Mr Hough, with a number of written testimonials as well as witness evidence in support of his clinical expertise and surgical skills.
The Committee accepted that Mr Hough had taken to heart the lessons to be learnt from the charges against him and had implemented a number of written protocols to prevent recurrence of the shortcomings in his treatment of Mya. Furthermore, the Committee also found that Mr Hough had demonstrated insight into the conduct found against him and that he had apologised for the disparaging remarks he made about other veterinary practitioners.
Alistair Barr, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "In short, the Committee is persuaded that Mr Hough has made a good start in putting in place systems to ensure that the interests and welfare of the animals treated at his practice surgeries are not discharged from care until they are fully ready to be discharged and that the owners of such animals will, in future, be fully informed of what might be asked and required of them when their animals are returned into their care after surgery."
He added: "There are no other areas of [Mr Hough’s] professional practices which appear to the Committee to call for improvements. Accordingly, the Committee is persuaded on this evidence that there is reason to believe that the lessons which Mr Hough needed to learn have been learnt and concludes, therefore, that the sanction of a formal and solemn reprimand adequately meets the needs of the public interest in, and requirements of, this particular case. Mya did make a full recovery from her extensive surgery but she and her owners deserved better post-surgery advice and support."
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.
RCVS Council agreed, in principle, to the sale of Belgravia House and for the College and its London-based staff to move to different premises at its November meeting.
The sale of the building and the move will be overseen by the College’s Estate Strategy Project Board headed by former RCVS President Barry Johnson and including current and former RCVS Council members and RCVS staff.
The RCVS has been based at its current premises in 62-64 Horseferry Road for 25 years, but says it now needs more up-to-date and modern facilities to accommodate a projected increase in the number of staff.
The College says it has considered a number of alternatives, including expanding the current premises by adding or expanding floors. However, due to the fact that the building is in a conservation area, it has become clear that any such expansions would be unlikely to get planning permission from Westminster Council.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS Chief Executive, said: "For a number of years it has become apparent that it is fast approaching the time at which our current premises will no longer be fit for purpose due to an increase in the number of RCVS staff – something that is projected to continue in the future – the ongoing need to use the building for Disciplinary Hearings, which take over the lion’s share of available meeting space, and the need for better and more modern facilities.
"Even putting our need for increased space on one side, Belgravia House requires major refurbishment in key areas such as air-conditioning and lifts, which would require staff to vacate the premises for up to 18 months, which would be costly and disruptive.
"We are therefore pleased that Council has recognised the need for the College to move somewhere that better reflects our needs and, over the coming months, we will be exploring a number of different options for new premises.
"In parallel to this we have put out an invitation to tender for agents to manage the sale of the building. The plan is for the arrangement to include lease-back so that we have time to find a suitable premises and enabling us to act quickly when we do."
Any organisations that are interested in putting forward a tender to manage the sale of the building should contact Corrie McCann, RCVS Director of Operations, on 020 7202 0724. Responses to tender are required by 30 November 2018.
Photo: Copyright Google 2018
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
The RCVS has announced the results of the 2013 Council and Veterinary Nurses Council elections.
4,661 veterinary surgeons voted, the highest turnout seen in ten years. 1,329 veterinary nurses voted, the highest ever number.
Veterinary surgeons voted incumbents Christopher Gray, Peter Jinman, Bradley Viner, Christopher Tufnell, and Jeremy Davies back onto the RCVS Council. However, the highest number of votes was given to Thomas Witte, who will be new to Council when he takes his seat in July. Veterinary nurses voted similarly by returning Andrea Jeffery to VN Council, whilst giving to Amy Robinson, another newcomer, the largest number of votes.
According to the College, turnout in both elections has increased markedly on last year in both absolute and proportional terms. Votes were cast by 4,661 veterinary surgeons (18.8%) and 1,329 veterinary nurses (12.5%), compared to 3,625 (15.1%) and 743 (7.5%), respectively, in 2012.
Gordon Hockey, RCVS Registrar said: "We're delighted with the increase in turnout. It's difficult to pinpoint the reasons for the increase, but hopefully, it's because increasing numbers of vets and nurses are feeling more engaged with the College. We have also undertaken extra communications activities this year, such as the 'hustings', which we hope have helped."
The Council election 'hustings' was a new venture this year, with RCVS Council candidates able to select three questions, submitted by voters, to answer in a live webinar run by The Webinar Vet.
Veterinary surgeons and VNs could cast their votes by post, online, or by text. The majority of vets voting chose to cast postal votes (3,247), as did the majority of VNs (1,055). Whilst voting online was used by 1,330 veterinary surgeons, only 227 VNs chose it as a means of voting. Voting by text was used by only 84 veterinary surgeons and 47 VNs.
The successful candidates will take up or resume their seats at RCVS Day on 5 July.
The full results of the two elections are as follows:
RCVS Council electionWITTE, Thomas Hermann - 2,251 (Elected)GRAY, Christopher John - 1,974 (Elected)JINMAN, Peter Charles - 1,949 (Elected)VINER, Bradley Phillip - 1,927 (Elected)TUFNELL, Christopher Wynne - 1,883 (Elected)DAVIES, Jeremy Vincent - 1,830 (Elected)STURGESS, Christopher Paul - 1,809 CONNELL, Niall Thomas - 1,596 ROBINSON, Peter Bayley - 1,366 ELLIS, Robert Nigel Ward - 1,302 GRANT, Lewis George - 832 TORGERSON, Paul Robert - 824 LONSDALE, Thomas - 337 Twenty-two votes in the RCVS Council election were found to be invalid.VN Council election
ROBINSON, Amy - 725 (Elected)JEFFERY, Andrea Karen - 607 (Elected)BADGER, Susan Frances - 459TOTTEY, Helen Wendy 332 One vote in the VN Council election was found to be invalid.The 2013 RCVS and VN Council elections were run on behalf of the RCVS by Electoral Reform Services.
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.
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.
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.
The case was brought by the College after a member of the public raised a 'concern' relating to Mrs Mullen's practice in December 2015. The concern was not pursued by the College.
However, during its initial investigation, the RCVS case manager ascertained that contrary to the requirements of the Code of Professional Conduct, Mrs Mullen did not have PII.
In January 2016 Mrs Mullen was advised by the College that, in order to comply with the Code, she needed to ensure her professional activities were covered by PII or equivalent arrangements.
The matter was considered by the Preliminary Investigation Committee which asked, in October 2016, that Mrs Mullen produce evidence that she was now compliant with the requirement to have PII or equivalent. Mrs Mullen responded in November 2016 confirming that she had not put in place such arrangements.
The case was then referred to the Disciplinary Committee in January 2017.
During the hearing it was determined that, during the relevant time period (from November 2015 to November 2016) Mrs Mullen was practising but did not have professional indemnity insurance in place and therefore was in breach of the Code.
Mrs Mullen, who represented herself, told the Committee that she admitted that she did not have PII. She explained that she was 'ethically and morally opposed to it' as she felt that it did not give fair compensation to claimants and did not know it was a requirement of the Code of Professional Conduct until she was informed by the College in January 2016.
When giving oral evidence as to equivalent arrangements she disclosed that she kept significant funds in a bank account; these were not however specifically earmarked for use in the event of any possible claims, and were also required to pay practice expenses.
In light of evidence produced by the College and her own admissions, the charges against Mrs Mullen were found proved and she was found guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
In coming to this decision Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The respondent failed to have PII in place for a period of about 12 months as specified in the charges. Moreover, she failed to remedy the situation when advised in January 2016 by the College that she was in breach of the Code and the supporting guidance. This remains a continuous course of conduct, which has still not been remedied. The respondent has chosen not to read the Code, or the supporting guidance, until very recently, in relation to her obligation to have PII or equivalent arrangements in place, and she failed to heed the advice of the College that she must rectify the position."
In considering the sanction the Committee took into account mitigating and aggravating factors. Aggravating factors included the fact that the misconduct was sustained over a significant period of time and that limited insight was shown by Mrs Mullen. While she did begin to display limited insight into the significance of her misconduct, the Committee said that this insight was "hampered by her ambivalence towards the College and the systems that regulate the veterinary profession."
In mitigation the Committee took into account Mrs Mullen’s long and unblemished career and the fact she was a sole practitioner who reported challenging personal circumstances and provided a unique service to a niche group of clients.
However, Chitra Karve said: "The Committee is unable to overlook the Respondent’s lack of commitment to obtaining PII or equivalent arrangements, even after being advised by the College that this was essential. The Committee is aware that a suspension could adversely affect her practice and her clients that she uniquely serves. However the Committee thinks it is necessary to send a clear message to the respondent and the public, that failure to obtain PII or equivalent arrangements is wholly unacceptable."
She added: "Accordingly, the Committee directs the Registrar to suspend the respondent’s registration for a period of two months. The Committee considers that this period of suspension will give the respondent an opportunity to rectify her breaches of the Code in relation to PII… and to reflect upon her attitude towards the College and the appropriate regulation of the veterinary profession."
The inquiry in regard to Karen Tracey Hancock took place in her absence in January, after she indicated that she was content not to appear or to be represented.
The charges against Mrs Hancock related to an injury she falsely claimed she sustained to her knee while moving a euthanased dog in August 2015 that was then exacerbated while moving another dog a couple of weeks later.
The charges also stated that she made entries in the practice’s accident book also stating that she had injured her knee at work and then aggravated it later.
The charges also stated that, in County Court civil proceedings against the practice in relation to the alleged injuries, she falsely:
The Committee noted that the County Court claim made by Mrs Hancock was listed for a trial and concluded with a consent order dated 21 June 2019 which stated that the claim was dismissed.
It also considered evidence from eyewitnesses regarding the two alleged events that led to and exacerbated her knee injury in August 2015. In doing so the Committee found that, though Mrs Hancock did have an injury to her right knee, this was due to a horse-riding incident a number of years earlier and that her account of the incidents on 13 and 29 August, and therefore her claims to have been caused injury by them, were false and that her conduct had been dishonest.
The Committee therefore found all charges against Mrs Hancock proven.
The Committee then considered whether the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct. In doing so it considered submissions made by Counsel for the RCVS that there were a number of aggravating factors in the case of Mrs Hancock’s conduct including that the misconduct was sustained over a long period of time, was premeditated and involved lying for financial gain.
In commenting on whether the conduct was serious professional misconduct Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee found all of the aggravating factors set out… in this case applied to its decision on whether or not the conduct amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
"Such conduct would bring the profession of veterinary nurses into disrepute and would undermine public confidence in the profession because the dishonesty was directly concerned with the respondent’s work as a veterinary nurse in the veterinary practice.
"The Committee concluded that the dishonest behaviour was serious misconduct, particularly so because it took place at the respondent’s workplace. It considered that honesty and trust between veterinary nurses and their employers is essential to the profession and that such conduct as set out in the charges would be considered deplorable by other members of the profession."
The Committee was therefore satisfied that all four charges individually and cumulatively amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Committee members then considered the appropriate sanction for Mrs Hancock, taking into account the aggravating factors, including a lack of insight in that, in correspondence before the hearing, she continued to deny the charges. In mitigation it noted that there had been a significant lapse of time and that she had a long and hitherto unblemished career.
On balance it decided that removal from the Register was the appropriate and proportionate sanction and requested Mrs Hancock be removed from the Register, particularly as dishonesty is considered ‘in the top spectrum of gravity’ for misconduct.
Judith Way added: “The Committee acknowledged that the respondent was physically unwell with her knee between 2015 and 2019. However there was no evidence that her health had caused her to commit the misconduct. It noted the representations that the respondent made regarding the need to support herself financially but the Committee determined that the public interest outweighed the respondent’s own interests in this case because the proven dishonesty in the circumstances in which it took place was fundamentally incompatible with continued professional registration.
“In the Committee’s judgment without any evidence of remorse or insight by the respondent a suspension order could not meet the public interest in this case. It therefore concluded that removal of the Respondent’s name from the register was the proportionate and appropriate sanction in this case.”
The survey was sent to all UK veterinary practices on the 25th November with a deadline to respond by the 1st December and received 186 responses, a response rate of 6%.
The survey found that during this period:
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, said: “Thank you once again to all the practice staff who took the time to complete this survey, it really is very useful for us to have a clear picture of how coronavirus and its restrictions are affecting day-to-day activities, as it has an impact both on our decision-making and policies, and what we can tell others about the impact on the professions, such as the UK and national governments.
"The overall picture from this survey is that, while for most it is not business as usual, veterinary practices and members of the professions are, to an extent, getting used to the disruption and have plans and policies in place to help mitigate the impact of the mosaic of different restrictions across the UK.
"While there is hope on the horizon with the start of the roll-out of coronavirus vaccines, we will continue to review and keep up-to-date our advice and guidance to ensure that you can practise to the best of your abilities, while keeping safe and within the rules.
“Of course, we also recognise the toll that the pandemic has taken on many people’s mental health and wellbeing, and this is reflected in some of the more concerning statistics around the impact that staff absences can have on the rest of the team.
"We also asked practices what might help them manage from a staff mental health and wellbeing point of view, and will take these suggestions into account when planning further support via our Mind Matters Initiative mental health project. In the meantime, we would like to remind those who are feeling stressed or are in distress that there are sources of help available during these difficult times – these can be found at www.vetmindmatters.org/help-links/help-during-covid-19/.”
The full report of the survey is available to view at www.rcvs.org.uk/publications
Jane (or John) Doe was charged with having stolen midazolam, butorphanol and promethazine hydrochloride from their practice for use other than for veterinary purposes, making false clinical records concerning the use of drugs on their own dogs to disguise the fact that the drugs were instead being used for non-veterinary uses, and drawing up medication taken from the practice into a syringe for the purpose of self-medicating.
In addition, they were charged that their conduct was dishonest.
The Committee found it proven that Jane/John Doe had taken approximately 150 vials of midazolam, 87 ampoules, 112 tablets and one elixir bottle of promethazine hydrocholoride, and 0.2mls of butorphanol together with Iml of midazolam for their dog at a time when their dog was, in fact, dead.
The Committee also found it proven that the defendant had drawn up medication for the purpose of self-medicating, and had created false clinical records.
In deciding the sanction, the Committee concluded that the respondent had abused their position of trust, that their actions were dishonest, prolonged and repeated in nature, and undermined the reputation of the profession as a whole.
Therefore the only appropriate action was removal from the Register.
Unusually, the RCVS did not issue a press release about this case, as it normally does.
There was also a protracted delay between the hearing and the report of the hearing being published on the College website.
Furthermore, when it was finally published, the report had been redacted to remove any reference to the name, gender or location of the respondent.
When asked why, the College said: "Matters of a highly confidential nature arose following the hearing which led to a delay in the decisions being published.
“The decisions have been redacted and we cannot provide the reasons for the redactions as that would necessarily involve disclosure of confidential and personal information.
"However, the circumstances are considered to be exceptional and the College’s decision to make the redactions was only made following very careful consideration of evidence provided to the RCVS.
"The decision has been published on the RCVS website in its redacted form and in view of the timeframe and the circumstances, it has not been considered appropriate to issue a press release.”
CommentThe College will for sure have had very good reasons for redacting the name of the respondent in this case.
One has to assume there must have been a very real threat to the respondent’s life, and under those circumstances, confidentiality is absolutely right and proper.
However, whatever the reason, secrecy is never a good look, especially when it comes in the form of a cape worn by a regulator.
So it is frustrating to hear that the College has again made a rod for its own back, when it could so easily have included a very general one-line explanation for why it felt redaction was necessary, without compromising the individual’s confidentiality.
It would have been enough, for example, just to say that the College felt there was a risk to life. People would accept that.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded and warned a Clwyd-based veterinary surgeon on charges relating to falsifying prescriptions to obtain drugs for her own use.
At the outset of the two-day hearing, Mrs Alina Grecko admitted that in 2009 she had written out three prescriptions for her own use whilst working as a veterinary surgeon at Greenfield Veterinary Surgery, Holywell, Clywd, and that this amounted to serious professional misconduct. The Committee found this to be the case, and said she was right to admit it. The Committee also said this was deliberate wrong-doing on three separate occasions and involved an obvious breach of Mrs Grecko's legal duties in relation to prescription which was bound to diminish the profession and public confidence in it. It was also a flagrant breach of the Guide to Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons.
In the Committee's opinion the charge was a serious one; it involved falsehoods and disregard of legal obligations and of the profession's standards, as well as compromising another professional - a pharmacist. In mitigation, however, the Committee accepted that the offence involved no harm to any animal or person, nor risk of harm except to herself; nor was there financial gain. Mrs Grecko was a young and relatively inexperienced veterinary surgeon, and the Committee's view was that the offence was the result of her not thinking straight at a time of great stress in her personal and professional life, rather than a clearly thought out course of deliberate conduct. It was in no doubt that Mrs Grecko was genuinely remorseful about her behaviour and had insight into its seriousness.
The Committee also considered evidence relating to the circumstances in which the prescription came to be written. It accepted the general case that the original idea of self-prescribing did not come from Mrs Grecko; however, the Committee did not find that she had been encouraged or persuaded; the most that could be said was that Mrs Grecko had taken up a casual suggestion that she might write the prescription herself.
When deciding on sanction, the Committee took into account both the facts of the particular case and the mitigating factors. It reiterated that the primary purpose of the sanction is not to punish the Respondent but to protect the welfare of animals, to maintain public confidence in the profession, and to uphold proper standards of conduct and said the sanction applied must be proportionate to the nature and extent of the Respondent's conduct, and weigh the public interest with the interests of the Respondent. The Committee also said that in a case involving the writing of false prescriptions the importance of public confidence in the profession and of upholding the standards of the profession mean that the Committee would normally feel that at least a suspension from the Register should be imposed.
Having given anxious consideration to the question whether that course could properly be avoided in this case, the Committee felt able to take an exceptional course and the sanctions it has imposed are that the Respondent will both be reprimanded and warned as to her future conduct. It directed that these sanctions will remain on her record indefinitely.
The company says it has made the test available in response to customer demand and growing evidence that in rare cases pets living with COVID-19-positive humans can be at risk of infection.
The test will be available to veterinary surgeons in North America this week and will roll out across most of the world in the coming weeks, via the company's worldwide network of laboratories.
Jay Mazelsky, President and Chief Executive Officer of Idexx Laboratories said: "We have continued to monitor the rapidly evolving public health crisis worldwide, paying special attention to the effects on pets.
"While there is currently no evidence that dogs or cats play a role in transmitting the disease to humans, it became clear offering the test was the right thing to do when we saw clinical evidence that pets—especially cats and ferrets—can in rare cases be at risk for infection. And, we heard from our customers around the globe that veterinarians needed a testing option."
Idexx recommends the test is used when three specific criteria are met:
Idexx says leading health authorities agree with the company that transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is primarily person-to-person and advise against testing asymptomatic pets. Since mid-February, the company has tested over 5,000 specimens for the virus, from cats, dogs, and horses with respiratory symptoms in 17 countries. To date, it has found no positive results, suggesting that dogs and cats living with infected people generally remain uninfected, except in rare and isolated cases.
For information about the Idexx SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) RealPCR Test for pets, visit idexx.com/covid19-pet-test.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has announced the results of the 2011 RCVS and VN Council elections.
Elected to the RCVS Council are:
Not elected are:
For the first time in eight years, all six successful RCVS Council candidates have served on Council before, although one - Sandy Trees - is currently an appointed, rather than an elected, member.
For VN Council, one existing member has been returned and two new members have been elected:
Not elected to VN Council was:
Following rises in previous turnouts, voting figures have dropped markedly this year in both RCVS and VN Councils elections, to 15.9% (3,887 voters) and 7.6% (723 voters) respectively. The previous turnouts were 18.8% (in 2010) and 11.2% (in 2009).
RCVS Registrar Jane Hern said: "It's certainly disappointing that the turnout has dropped so much this year. It's unclear whether this is due to lack of time, lack of awareness, or lack of interest, but perhaps anyone who didn't vote could let us know why, so we can see what we could do to increase participation.
"Nevertheless, my congratulations to all successful candidates, who I look forward to formally welcoming, or welcoming back, onto the Councils at RCVS Day in July, and my commiserations to those who were unsuccessful this time and who I hope won't be discouraged from standing again next year."
This year's chosen charity - the Veterinary Benevolent Fund - will receive a cheque for £922 arising from the College's pledge to donate 20p for each veterinary surgeon and veterinary nurse who cast a vote.
7,383 veterinary surgeons voted in this year's election, a turnout of 19.7%.
This compares to turnouts of 16.7% in 2023, 18.6% in 2022, 24.5% in 2021, and 26.2% in 2020.
Of the 14 candidates, Professor David Barratt, Sinead Bennett and Zara Kennedy were all elected to serve for a four year term, with 1,747 votes, 1,796 and 2,264 votes respectively.
Mark Bowen (1,404), Richard Brown (1,030), Paddy Gordon (1,612), Gerard Henry (1,157), Peter Higgins (496), Penelope Morgan (1,584), Kate Richards (1,264), Richard Sanderson (1,380), Sally Schroeder (1,630), Lara Wilson (1,399) and the inevitable Thomas Lonsdale (257) were all unsuccessful.
The winning candidates will take up their posts at Royal College Day, which is open to all vets to attend on Friday 5th July at the Royal Institute of British Architects.
www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote24
John Davies and Tom Lonsdale MsRCVS both objected to edits made by the College to their candidate statements.
Mr Davies explained in his statement how he'd been subject to "bewildering, unfounded and damaging allegations" from two veterinary nurses, one of which he says resulted in his dismissal from a practice at which he was a partner. He went on to explain how, in addition to taking the dismissal case to an employment tribunal and winning, he had also raised concerns with the College about the nurses who'd made the allegations against him. Mr Davies outlined the way he felt that the RCVS mismanaged his case and how that had driven him to stand for Council to try and address the grave concerns he now had about the governance of the profession. However, the Returning Officer redacted the details on the grounds that they were considered to be defamatory and/or factually misleading.
The main grounds for Mr Lonsdale’s challenge was that the election had been furthered by corrupt practices, namely undue influence (all in terms of the Misrepresentation of the People Act 1983). In addition, the Returning Officer edited Mr Lonsdale’s candidate statement before circulation to the electorate, refusing to include hypertext links and removing references that the Returning Officer believed to be defamatory. The Returning Officer also declined to publish his ‘Quiz the candidates’ video on the RCVS website and/or YouTube channel when requests to make minor amendments considered defamatory were refused.
Both challenges were lodged with the RCVS last July, after which the College set up a Challenge Committee in accordance with the election challenge procedure, approved by Privy Council. It comprised three members of Council nominated by RCVS President Stephen May.
Sitting with one of the RCVS Legal Assessors – Mr Richard Price OBE QC – the Challenge Committee was required to decide whether to declare the election void, based on whether the alleged irregularity in question rendered the election substantially not in accordance with the RCVS Council Election Scheme, or that the irregularity concerned significantly affected the result of the election (in which Mr Lonsdale and Mr Davies came 15th and 16th respectively out of 16 candidates).
Following written submissions from both the RCVS and Mr Davies, the Challenge Committee dismissed Mr Davies’s challenge, stating that there was no irregularity in the conduct of the election on the part of the Returning Officer, and that there was no valid basis for challenging the validity of the election.
The Challenge Committee (comprising the same members as for Mr Davies’s challenge) also dismissed Mr Lonsdale’s challenge, stating that it considered it to be 'totally devoid of merit'.
Prior to reaching this decisions, however, two preliminary challenges made by Mr Lonsdale were also considered and dismissed.
The first related to the members of the Challenge Committee, whom Mr Lonsdale argued should stand down on the basis of actual or apparent bias based on his allegations of connections with the pet food industry.
The Committee considered that a fair-minded and informed observer, having understood the facts, would conclude that the connection of committee members to the pet food industry were '….remote, indirect and, in the case of one panel member, virtually non-existent'.
Each committee member was satisfied that there was '…no real possibility of their judgement being distorted or influenced by any interest in, or links with, the pet food industry.'
The second challenge was to The Legal Assessor, who had been appointed to advise the Committee. Mr Lonsdale had alleged that Mr Price had displayed bias in the way that he had given advice to the Committee in relation to the challenge to the Committee membership. This was also dismissed.
The Privy Council has overturned an RCVS Disciplinary Committee to strike Leeds-based Dr Gary Samuel MRCVS from the Register following his conviction for theft, common assault and a public order offence at Cardiff Magistrates' Court in November 2011.
The Disciplinary Committee had agreed the sanction following a hearing in February 2013, at which it decided that Dr Samuel's conviction made him unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
Dr Samuel appealed the decision and the Privy Council heard the case on 26th March.
Dr Samuel had been sentenced by Cardiff Magistrates' Court to concurrent terms of 28 days' imprisonment for theft and common assault and 12 weeks' imprisonment for the public order offence, all suspended for 12 months. He had also been ordered to carry out 140 hours' unpaid work and to pay compensation of £75 and costs of £625. The charges related to an incident involving Dr Samuel and his neighbour, described by the Privy Council as "a spontaneous outburst in the course of an angry quarrel between neighbours", for which it felt that the Disciplinary Committee's sanction of removal from the Register was "disproportionately severe."
The Privy Council felt that, in making its decision, the Disciplinary Committee followed too closely the verdict reached by the Magistrates' Court, and did not take mitigating circumstances sufficiently into account, including whether the attack by Dr Samuel on his neighbour had been provoked by racial abuse.
Delivering the Privy Council's judgment, Lord Toulson said: "It is apparent from the reasons given by the Committee, both on the question of fitness to practise and on the question of sanction, that it was considerably influenced by the fact that the magistrates imposed a suspended prison sentence.
"Although Dr Samuel pleaded guilty to the theft of the camera and he was not in entitled to go behind his plea, it is nevertheless difficult to understand on the evidence how the prosecution would have proved that there was an intent permanently to deprive [the victim] of it. In all the circumstances, it is hard to conceive that the court would have considered that the offences truly passed the custodial threshold for a person of good character, if it had not had the power to suspend the sentence... Dr Samuel's conduct was thoroughly reprehensible, but the Board [Privy Council] does not consider that its gravity was such that it would be in the interests of the public now to remit the case to the Committee".
Dr Gary Samuel will not now be removed from the Register
The Privy Council's judgment can be read in full at http://jcpc.uk/decided-cases/index.html
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has agreed to adjourn multiple charges against a County Durham-based veterinary surgeon following her undertakings to request removal from the RCVS Register and never to apply to be restored to it.
At the hearing held yesterday, Silke Birgitt Lindridge was charged with disgraceful conduct in a professional respect in regard to four separate allegations, spanning the period of June 2011 to September 2012 whilst in practice at the Safe Hands Veterinary Group. Two of the allegations related to failures to euthanase or arrange the euthanasia of a cat and a dog and being dishonest and/or misleading about these failures, with their respective owners. The other two allegations related to administering a vaccine (Fevaxyn) which was more than two years past its expiry date to a cat, and failure to provide or take adequate steps to provide promptly all the relevant clinical information to a veterinary practice taking over the responsibility for the treatment of a Labrador Cross.
However, before the Disciplinary Committee had heard evidence in respect of these charges, Mrs Lindridge, who did not attend the hearing, had lodged her application for adjournment on the basis that she would request that the Registrar remove her name from the Register with immediate effect and undertake never to apply to be restored to it. The Disciplinary Committee made no enquiry into the facts of the four charges and emphasised that they had neither been proved against, nor admitted by, the respondent.
Removal from the RCVS Register removes a veterinary surgeon's right to practise in the UK. The respondent informed the RCVS that she had no wish to return to the practice of veterinary surgery in this country. Should she subsequently apply to be restored to the Register, the Disciplinary Committee would resume its consideration of the charges, along with the breach of her undertaking.
The Disciplinary Committee was advised that the views of the animal owners involved had been sought and that all had agreed with the proposed course of action.
Speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, its Chairman, Professor Peter Lees, said: "Having considered the information before it, the Committee has decided it would not be in the public interest to proceed to a full hearing. It is satisfied that the undertakings offered by the respondent [Mrs Lindridge] protect the welfare of animals and uphold the reputation of the profession."
Professor Lees added: "The undertakings offered by the respondent to request the Registrar to remove her name from the Register with immediate effect and never to make an application for restoration to the Register, go beyond any sanction that this Committee could impose at the conclusion of a contested hearing. It does not consider that it would be proportionate for either party to incur the substantial costs of a contested hearing."
The Prince's Trust 'creates life-changing opportunities' for those aged 11-30 and Nick has long-held a passion for making a difference to young lives. He has set up three charities for young people: with learning disabilities; who want to campaign to change the world; and who want to break down the barriers to enjoying nature and the outdoors.
Nick has led the RCVS since September 2012. During his tenure, developments at the College include a new Royal Charter, major governance reform, improved regulation of veterinary nurses, the instigation of Vet Futures, the introduction of the alternative dispute resolution service, significant evolution within the Practice Standards Scheme, the refocusing of RCVS Trust into RCVS Knowledge, the launch of Mind Matters, and the recognition of the College as a Great Place to Work.
Nick said: "It has been a great privilege to be CEO of the College and to work with such amazing staff, such a progressive Council and such a decent and caring profession. It is no surprise to me that vets and vet nurses are among the most trusted professionals in this country, and in my view this is due to their professionalism and to the excellence of the Royal College in maintaining and advancing standards. I hope I have played my part in helping the College and the profession navigate through a period of great change and preparation for significant change to come.
"At The Prince’s Trust I will be focused on the next generation, helping to give young people the confidence and purpose they need to make a success of their lives and the world around them. I know from my own personal experiences of school, and the various charities with which I have been involved, how many young people are not given the best chance in life. I cannot think of a better mission to take on."
RCVS President Chris Tufnell said: "I feel very fortunate to have worked closely with Nick over his five years with the RCVS; he has made a tremendous contribution to the College and our professions. With his energy and drive, he has infused the College with a culture of openness, engagement and dedication and has inspired the team through some impressive achievements.
"Nick’s leadership will enable vets and veterinary nurses to fulfil their potential and it's fitting that he's moving on to a role which benefits the lives of others. Meanwhile, there's a considerable amount of important work being done by the RCVS and I am confident that we have a strong team at Belgravia House to manage this until the new CEO is in post."
The RCVS says its Operational Board will be reflecting on Nick’s successes and the future needs of the College, before developing a specification for the new CEO and a recruitment process over the coming weeks.
The removal of names from the RCVS Register of Veterinary Surgeons for non-payment of retention fees is now complete, with 386 veterinary surgeons having been removed, compared with 616 last year.
The RCVS says that the administration involved with removing a name for non-payment is time-consuming and costly. Hence, to be restored to the Register, the veterinary surgeon must pay the appropriate annual retention fee, and the restoration fee, currently £294, which multiplies each time if fees are not paid in successive years.
The College writes to members' Register addresses to remind them when fees are due and, where an email address is maintained by the member as part of their formal record, also sends an email. It is, however, the responsibility of members to inform the RCVS Registration Department of any changes to their contact details and to ensure that payment is made. It is illegal for veterinary surgeons to practise or undertake any veterinary-related activities if their name does not appear on the RCVS Register as a home-practising member.
To help ensure that members removed for non-payment are aware that they have been removed from the Register, the full list of those removed for non-payment and not restored by 10 June can be downloaded from RCVSonline. The current status of individual veterinary surgeons can be checked online (www.rcvs.org.uk/checkregister).
A veterinary surgeon whose name has been removed from the Register and who wishes to restore him or herself should view the information on restoration to the Register.
Alternatively, please ring the RCVS Registration Department on 020 7202 0707. Restorations made since 10 June are not shown on this list.
Reporter Andy Davies spoke to Charlotte Debbaut MRCVS, a veterinary surgeon from Belgium working at the Tindale Veterinary Practice in Gloucestershire, where there are 13 vets with eight different nationalities. He also interviewed Matthew Pugh MRCVS and Ovidiu Oltean MRCVS from Belmont Veterinary Centre, a mixed practice in Hereford which employs five foreign nationals out of a team of 13 veterinary surgeons.
Finally, he talked to John Blackwell MRCVS at Brownlow Veterinary Group in Shropshire, where Brexit had already caused a Croatian member of his team to refuse a permanent position and return to Ireland.
Congratulations to the RCVS and BVA press offices, who will have been hard at work behind the scenes.
See: https://www.channel4.com/news/brexit-affecting-vet-recruitment
Dr Power faced a number of charges relating to alleged clinical and communications failings surrounding surgery carried out on two separate dogs on two separate occasions.
The first concerned laryngeal tieback surgery carried out on Harvey, a Tibetan Terrier in March 2018, and the second concerned oesophageal surgery carried out on a boxer dog, Boss, in October 2018.
The College withdrew a number of the charges at the start of the hearing, and more later after hearing from witnesses.
Of the remainder, Dr Power admitted that she had not undertaken pre-operative radiographs before proceeding with the laryngeal surgery, had failed to perform the surgery appropriately (she dissected excessive tissue and had inappropriately placed sutures), and had undertaken the surgery when it was outside her area of competence.
In relation to the oesophageal surgery, Dr Power admitted failing to provide a referral report and/or clinical records to the veterinary practice he was referred from, despite requests from the practice.
The Committee found that the majority of the charges which had not been withdrawn or admitted by Dr Power, not proven.
However, the Committee found that in addition to the admitted charges, Dr Power had subjected the dog undergoing oesophageal surgery to an excessive 9.5 hours of anaesthesia.
The Committee then went on to consider whether the proven charges amounted to serious professional conduct.
Counsel for the College submitted that Dr Power’s conduct breached the part of the Code of Professional Conduct relating to veterinary surgeons keeping within their area of competence and referring responsibly; and providing veterinary care that is appropriate and adequate.
In terms of aggravating factors, the College submitted that there was both actual injury to the animal, as well as actions that posed a risk of injury, that Dr Power financially benefitted from the alleged misconduct as she was paid to perform a procedure outside her competence, and that she occupied a position of increased trust and responsibility as she advertised herself as a practitioner who accepted referrals and was competent to perform soft tissue surgery.
Dr Power’s counsel submitted that the charges that had been found proven amounted to clinical and administrative failings and that this was not a case of a veterinary surgeon deliberately or recklessly acting outside of their capabilities, but rather a case where a diligent and responsible veterinary surgeon had fallen short in discrete areas of her clinical practice and had reasonably believed at the time that she was competent to perform the surgery.
The Committee found that although the conduct within the proven charges fell short of what would be reasonably expected of a veterinary surgeon, it did not fall so far short that her conduct constituted serious professional misconduct.
Paul Morris, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee understood that it had a responsibility to consider the wider public interest, taking into account the view of a reasonable member of the public in possession of all the relevant facts and information.
“The Committee considered that such a member of the public would understand that veterinary surgery is a challenging profession. It was of the view that such a member of the public would not expect perfection, but understand that any professional practitioner may make mistakes in the course of their practice.
“It is the judgement of this Committee that the respondent’s conduct does not constitute disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
Mr Seymour-Hamilton was removed from the Register after his Kent practice was found to have unhygienic and unsterile conditions as well as poor record keeping, although he has always disputed this, maintaining that he was not actually practising at the time of the inspection.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton made an application for restoration on the basis that he did not want to be restored to the Register in order to practise veterinary surgery, but so that he could more easily achieve recognition from academics and drug companies for his work on herbal and natural remedies.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton's dispute over the original findings of the 1994 case was ruled inadmissible.
In considering his application, the Committee took into account the fact that he had not accepted the original findings from 1994 nor had he, over the course of his various applications for restoration, shown any insight into his original conduct or the serious concerns about his fitness to practice raised in previous restoration hearings.
It also considered that Mr Seymour-Hamilton had been off the Register for 29 years and would need to have demonstrated prolonged, intensive and formal training to ensure he met the Day One Competences required of a veterinary surgeon.
The College submitted that he had made no such attempts and so would pose a significant risk to animal health and welfare if he were allowed to practice again.
The Committee also considered that Mr Seymour-Hamilton had indicated that he had practised veterinary surgery while off the Register – including conducting two spay procedures in Calais, France – and had used his own animals to try out new and untested ‘herbal remedies’.
The College submitted that this indicated someone who didn’t have due regard to the importance of the current level of skills, experience and qualifications required in order to undertake veterinary surgery competently, and therefore posed a risk to animal health and welfare.
Dr Kathryn Peaty MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The College invited the Committee to consider that where, as here, some 29 years have passed since this veterinary surgeon has practised, there has been no intensive, and prolonged re-training, no acceptance of the original findings and no insight into concerns about his fitness to practise, there will inevitably be a serious risk to the welfare of animals and the wider public interest if the applicant is restored to the Register.
The Committee agrees, and considers that the applicant has not shown the required insight as to the steps he needs to take to return to safe veterinary practice.”
Accordingly, the Committee decided that it would not be in the public interest to restore Mr Seymour-Hamilton to the Register.
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
In a statement given to the Veterinary Record earlier this year, the College said:
"In 2017, our commitment to equality for our LGBTQ+ employees, members of the professions and other stakeholders, was cemented when we became a Stonewall Diversity Champion, with the aim of ensuring that all people in the community are accepted, without exception, within the veterinary professions.
In subsequent years this commitment has been demonstrated by the establishment of our Diversity & Inclusion Group, for which LGBTQ+ representation is a key component and has been incorporated into both our internal and external diversity and inclusion strategies.
Focusing on our internal diversity and inclusion strategy, the insight from Stonewall and our internal LGBTQ+ group, has aimed to make the RCVS a safe space for people from the LGBTQ+ community by creating a fully inclusive workplace.
These insights have also fed into the profession-facing work of the Diversity & Inclusion Group and its strategy.
After six years as a Stonewall Diversity Champion, we have decided this year not to renew our contract with the organisation, on the basis that we feel we no longer need to work with an external organisation to continue to deliver on our commitment to equality, diversity and inclusion.
The RCVS will continue to demonstrate allyship and be a safe space for all groups within the LGBTQ+ community, as demonstrated by the fact we are creating a staff network representing RCVS colleagues from marginalised communities.
We may in future decide to work with another accredited organisation, but until the staff network is in place, no decisions have been made. For example, we have recently brought in a staff policy regarding how best to support RCVS employees who are going through the process of gender reassignment, reiterating the current legal position, how to report experiencing or witnessing transphobic discrimination, as well as advice for colleagues supporting those undergoing gender reassignment and those who have family members going through the process. We are grateful for Stonewall for working with us over the past six years and helping us, through its Workplace Equality Index, to finesse our policies and procedures in relation to LGBTQ+ rights and issues and drive forward our agenda to be a diverse and inclusive workplace and regulator."