Each charge related to fraudulent pet insurance claims that Mr Johnston had made for the treatment of animals when he was in practice in Banbridge, County Down, two of which were fictitious, and where he had arranged for the insurance claims to be diverted and paid into a personal bank account, rather than the practice’s bank account.
At an initial hearing, which concluded on April 2022, Mr Johnston had admitted all the charges against him as well as admitting that his conduct was dishonest and amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee was satisfied that his conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct, with Committee Chair Paul Morris saying: “The Committee has no hesitation in concluding that the respondent’s dishonest conduct will have severely undermined the confidence of the public in the veterinary profession and, further, that his conduct fell far short of the standards and conduct properly to be expected of a member of the veterinary profession.
"The Committee is satisfied that this conduct by the respondent brought the profession into disrepute.”
The proceedings were then adjourned to allow a psychiatric report and other mitigation to be prepared.
At its resumed hearing in November 2022 the Committee considered what sanction to impose in relation to Dr Johnston’s actions.
At this point, the Committee decided to postpone its decision on sanction for a period of two years on the condition that Dr Johnston enter into undertakings to the Committee including refraining from any form of gambling, subjecting himself to a close regime of support and supervision, and repaying some of the sums he had defrauded.
The hearing reconvened in October 2024 to decide on an appropriate sanction.
The Committee noted that Mr Johnston had complied with the undertakings and provided the Committee with the interim reports required of him.
He also continued with the therapeutic interventions and programmes specified, as well as implemented measures designed to minimise the risk of a relapse into gambling.
The Committee also noted that reports from the gambling support services, to which Mr Johnston had signed up, all spoke positively about his involvements and confirmed the progress he had achieved in managing his addiction.
The Committee also took into account a psychiatric report as well as evidence under oath from Mr Johnston’s wife who confirmed his compliance with the undertakings.
As a result, the Committee was satisfied that the prospects of a repeat of the conduct which led to the charges laid against Dr Johnston were now greatly reduced.
The Committee said it was less impressed with the evidence provided by Mr Johnston.
While he had largely complied with the letter of the undertakings he gave in 2022, it remained troubled by his apparent unwillingness or inability, on account of lack of effort, to fulfil the assurances previously given that he was in the process of changing his name to Johnston, from Fegan, on official documentation in order to be consistent with his legal name, when he had not done so.
The only formal name change in place was on the RCVS Register, and he had failed to alter his name on his driver’s licence, on his registration with the Veterinary Council of Ireland, his passport, bank accounts, and one of his email addresses.
As a result, the Committee did not find Dr Johnston to be an entirely satisfactory witness.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Having made the progress that he has over the period since the commission of the charges found proved in 2019, the Committee considers that the imposition of a sanction of suspension on top of the period of postponement would be excessive, in the particular circumstances of this case.
“For the same reasons, as stated above, it is considered that it would be excessive now to impose a sanction of removal from the register.
“That process of reasoning has driven the Committee to the conclusion that the sanction of a reprimand and warning as to future conduct is what the facts and circumstances of this case call for.
"That is because the respondent can be under no illusion about the outcome were he to appear again before this Committee.
"A failure to take advantage of the exceptional course adopted by this Committee on this occasion would be regarded as a serious aggravating factor were he to appear before the Committee at any time in the future.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vets.