The Committee heard that Mr Dingemanse had one conviction relating to four separate offences committed in 2019 of making indecent photographs of a child Category A, B and C and possession of 22 extreme pornographic images that were grossly offensive.
He had been sentenced at Oxford Crown Court to eight months’ imprisonment, suspended for 24 months, directed to sign the sex offenders register for 10 years and fined £420 for prosecution costs and £140 victim surcharge.
The Committee were presented with evidence taken from the transcripts of Dr Dingemanse’s Crown Court sentencing hearing.
The transcript outlined that Dr Dingemanse used an online messaging service to engage in conversations about child sexual abuse under a pseudonym. According to Wales Online, the conversations related to children as young as four.
His IP address was traced and he was arrested on suspicion of possessing indecent images of children.
Counsel for the College submitted to the Disciplinary Committee that the nature of circumstances of the offences rendered Dr Dingemanse unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
In its decision relating to Dr Dingemanse’s fitness to practise, the Committee described Dr Dingemanse’s behaviour which led to the conviction as “inexplicable” and “abhorrent”, and that his possession of the images of children and animals was “disgraceful conduct of the most grievous and reprehensible kind.”
The Committee did not consider that there were any mitigating factors in the case, but did consider there to be several aggravating factors including: actual (albeit indirect) injury to an animal or child; the risk of harm to an animal or child; lack of integrity for a regulated professional to have behaved in such a way; premeditated conduct; and, that the offences involved vulnerable children and animals.
Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, added: “Dr Dingemanse’s conduct was [also] liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession and to undermine public confidence in the profession.
"The fact that he was a veterinary surgeon was made clear at the Crown Court hearing.
"The Committee considered that members of the public would rightly be appalled that a registered veterinary surgeon had committed offences of this nature.”
When deciding on the appropriate sanction, the Committee took into account all of the evidence, including Dr Dingemanse’s expression of remorse and steps towards rehabilitation.
Mr Dingemanse's solicitor invited the Committee to consider suspending Dr Dingemanse from the Register as his client’s sanction, but the Committee did not feel that this was appropriate.
Cerys Jones added: “The Committee considered that suspending Dr Dingemanse’s registration would not be sufficient to maintain confidence in the profession and that therefore, for public interest reasons, as well as animal protection, a suspension would not be sufficient.
"Committee was of the view that the nature and seriousness of Dr Dingemanse’s behaviour, which led to the conviction, was fundamentally incompatible with being registered as a veterinary surgeon and that all of the above matters listed were applicable in this case.
"The Committee decided that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case was removal from the Register.”
Dr Dingemanse has 28 days from being notified of his removal from the Register to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.
The Committee’s full findings can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vets.