Ms Wicksteed faced five charges.
The first charge concerned her conviction in May 2021, following a jury trial at Oxford Crown Court, for one count of theft and two counts of fraud for which she was sentenced to a two-year community order, including 150 hours of unpaid work, and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £2,800, £177.07 to Barclays Bank and £85 as a victims’ surcharge.
She admitted this charge at the outset of the RCVS Disciplinary Committee hearing.
The second charge concerned the allegation that, in October 2015, she was made subject to an ‘adult restorative disposal’ (‘ARD’) following thefts from Tesco Extra Stores.
This charge was found proven after Ms Wicksteed admitted in her evidence to the Committee that she had signed the ARD.
The third charge concerned the allegation that, in January 2018, she stole from a Debenhams department store and, in March that year, was given a formal police caution.
This charge was found proven by the Committee.
The fourth charge was that, in her annual renewal declarations made each year with the RCVS from 2016 through 2021, she had failed to declare the ARD and the caution.
However, under the Code of Professional Conduct, veterinary surgeons are not required to declare ARDs as they are not convictions, cautions or adverse findings.
Ms Wicksteed was therefore cleared of failing to declare her ARD.
Nevertheless, the Committee found that she had failed to declare her police caution in her annual renewal declarations.
The fifth charge was that in failing to make declarations upon renewing her registration, she was dishonest, misleading and had failed to take adequate steps to inform the College of the caution and the ARD.
The Committee found this charge proven in respect of the caution only and not the ARD.
The Committee then considered whether the first charge, which Ms Wicksteed admitted, rendered her unfit to practise, and whether the remaining charges that were found proven amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee noted that the conviction concerned three elements of dishonesty: theft and two counts of fraud.
"It involved stealing from a junior colleague at work, and the fraudulent activity – the use of the colleague’s card - was carefully planned in that, when it was used, it was in respect of items which did not cumulatively cost in excess of £30 and therefore did not require knowledge of the card holder’s PIN.
"It was used twice in the Tesco Store. Between those times, Ms Wicksteed changed her appearance by taking off her coat and waited some 20 minutes.”
She added: “The Committee accepted the College’s argument that members of the public would find it abhorrent for a member of the profession to have acted in this way – stealing from a junior colleague a card held under a Power of Attorney for her brother, and spending money using that card, deliberately keeping each transaction under the contactless limit to try to conceal the conduct.
"Honesty and integrity is one of the five key principles which must be maintained by members of the profession.”
The Committee found that this charge alone rendered Ms Wicksteed unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
The Committee also found that the proven elements of the remaining charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, both individually and cumulatively.
The Committee then considered the sanction for Ms Wicksteed.
In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee considered that there was actual harm to a vulnerable person in the case of the conviction for theft and fraud, the misconduct and dishonesty it entailed was repeated, there were elements of premeditation in the conduct, there was inadequate insight shown into her behaviour, and there was wilful disregard of the College and its processes.
In terms of mitigation, the Committee considered supportive statements and character references from professional colleagues and clients and accepted that there was no actual or potential harm to animals, that Ms Wicksteed had a hitherto unblemished career as demonstrated by the references, and that there had been a significant lapse of time since some of the elements of the charges, albeit she had not declared them.
The Committee also accepted that Ms Wicksteed had suffered from ill-health, although had not seen evidence that directly connected her health with the dishonest behaviour.
Taking into account all the factors, the Committee decided that removal from the Register was the appropriate and proportionate sanction, referencing Ms Wicksteed’s breaches in relation to: serious departure from and reckless disregard for the professional behaviours set out in the Code of Professional Conduct; causing serious harm to the public and breach of trust; persistent and concealed dishonesty; and persistent lack of insight into the seriousness of her conduct.
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vets.