The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded Dr Vanja Fures MRCVS for giving a false (and startlingly bad) excuse for his conviction for drink driving. 

Dr Fures was convicted of driving with excess alcohol in the Dublin Criminal Courts of Justice in December 2018. 

Later, when renewing his UK RCVS registration, Dr Fures told the RCVS Chief Investigator that on the day of his offence, he'd been on a flight from Frankfurt to Dublin which suffered engine failure, causing the pilot to perform a forced emergency landing in Amsterdam. There, he claimed, the passengers switched to an airworthy plane for the rest of the journey, during which he had several drinks to calm his nerves.

In a remarkably detailed and complex investigation, the RCVS Chief Investigator rang Lufthansa and discovered that the flight had not suffered engine failure and had flown direct from Frankfurt to Dublin without incident. 

In May and July 2020, the RCVS Chief Investigator wrote to Dr Fures setting out the result of his investigations and research. In his responses Dr Fures accepted that his memory of the incident was wrong.

At the outset of the hearing Dr Fures made an application to the Committee enter into undertakings to voluntarily remove himself from the UK Register and to not apply to re-join. However, the Committee did not accept these undertakings in part on the basis that he was not of retirement age and intended to continue to practise in Ireland.

The Committee considered that if it were to accept his undertakings, then there would be no judgement or findings that could be passed on to the Veterinary Council of Ireland for consideration via its own disciplinary procedures.

Ian Arundale, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee decided that this is a case in which the public interest, confidence in the profession, and, potentially, the welfare of animals, demands that there be a full hearing, with determinations made by the Disciplinary Committee."

The Committee then went on to consider the facts of the case.

Dr Fures admitted that he had supplied the RCVS with false information about his conviction for drink driving but denied that this was dishonest at the time that he supplied the information. He accepted that the information he provided was wrong, in that his flight between Frankfurt and Dublin, while delayed by just over an hour, did not have to land in Amsterdam as he had previously claimed.

He said that his false statement was based on misremembering the circumstances and that he had genuinely believed his statement was true at the time it was made to the RCVS. He said that, due to shame over his conviction and the negative impact it had on the life of him and his family, he had created a false memory of the circumstances.

However, the Committee was not persuaded that there was any other explanation in this case, other than that Dr Fures deliberately and dishonestly gave false information to the RCVS, to excuse his behaviour.

The Committee then considered if the admitted and proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.

Ian said: “The Committee was of the view that Dr Fures’ actions in dishonestly giving false details to his regulator was serious. While it was the case that there was no actual harm or risk to animals arising out of his conduct, the Committee took into account that the dishonest account was given deliberately.

“In addition, it was sustained, in that it was relied upon and expanded upon on several occasions when the College sought further clarity. Dr Fures had the opportunity to correct the situation, and give the truthful account, but he did not do so. The dishonesty was designed to achieve personal gain to Dr Fures, in that he wished to minimise the actions which the College may take against him, and, in consequence, safeguard his career.

“Dr Fures’ action in dishonestly giving false information to his regulator struck at the heart of his obligation, as a registered professional, to be open and honest with his regulator. This obligation is necessary to allow the College, as regulator, to carry out its crucial and statutory functions in ensuring that it investigates concerns properly.”

In considering the sanction for Dr Fures, the Committee took into account the mitigating factors, including the fact that there were no previous regulatory findings against Dr Fures or any previous conviction for dishonesty, that he had demonstrated remorse for his actions, that there was no actual harm or risk of harm to any animal, that no concerns raised about Dr Fures’ practice, that there was no repetition of the dishonest conduct and that he had demonstrated some insight.

However, in terms of aggravating factors it considered that there was deliberate and sustained dishonesty and that he had sought personal gain as a result of his actions.

After considering various options, the Committee decided that a reprimand and warning as to future conduct was the most appropriate sanction for Dr Fures.

The full findings for the case can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

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