Ms Emma Bowler has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after multiple clinical failings.

Ms Bowler faced four sets of charges, each of which contained sub-charges, summarised as follows: 

• that between August 2018 and March 2022, she failed to provide adequate care to 18 animals on which she had performed surgery.
• that she failed to provide adequate care to a German Shepherd Cross Belgian Malinois in relation to surgery she had performed early in 2020.
• that in May 2021, when speaking to a client about surgery performed on their Jack Russell, Ms Bowler told the client that everything that had been written in the clinical records up to the point of the surgery referred to the right hind being the problem, when this was not the case and/or the veterinary surgeon who had seen the client about the x-rays prior to the surgery had not placed any notes on the file at the time the Jack Russell came in for surgery, when this was not the case.
• that Ms Bowler’s conduct in relation to the third charge was dishonest, and/or misleading.

Despite being served with the Notice of Inquiry, Ms Bowler decided not to attend the hearing due to ill-health but was represented by a counsel and solicitors.

The Committee did not find that Ms Bowler was medically unfit to attend on the basis of the medical evidence before it.

The Committee also concluded that it was in the public interest and interests of Ms Bowler to proceed with the hearing in her absence so that it could be concluded in a timely manner.  

Ms Bowler’s counsel applied for parts of the hearing to be heard in private on health grounds, which was approved by the Committee.

It was also determined that any parts in the Committee’s decision or hearing that referred to Ms Bowler’s health would be redacted. 

At the outset of the hearing, Ms Bowler’s counsel made admissions to five of the sub-charges which the Committee therefore found proven.

She also made some partial admissions in relations to a further 11 sub-charges.

After hearing a wide range of evidence, both written and oral, from Ms Bowler, the College, from clients and from an expert witness, the Committee found all charges proved except for four sub-charges.

On deciding whether the proved charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee took the following aggravating factors into account.

• In respect of charges 1 and 2, several animals suffered unnecessary injury (these charges encompassed 18 animals).
• In respect of charge 2, Ms Bowler had acted recklessly in performing revision surgery and should have recognised that she was significantly beyond her surgical ability.
• In respect of charges 3 and 4, Ms Bowler’s conduct was aggravated by her lack of integrity.
• That, overall, the misconduct spanned approximately three years and eight months and involved repetition of egregious failings.
• It was also noted that the charges encompassed multiple animals that were either caused injury or were at risk of injury.

In mitigation: 

• Ms Bowler had been working in an atmosphere that generated a highly pressurised working environment, which was somewhat unsupportive to her.
• Regarding clinical record keeping, Ms Bowler had less time available due to her heavy workload.
• Personal circumstances which exacerbated the pressures she faced at work.
• Ms Bowler had no previous disciplinary findings against her.
• She received positive character references.'
• She had made partial admissions in her statement and response to the charges and had apologised to the owners in respect of charge 2 and acknowledged that she was inexperienced in performing total hip replacements.
• Ms Bowler has subsequently made substantial efforts to avoid repetition of some of the matters encompassed in the charges.

In all, the Committee decided that the seriousness of the misconduct meant that a sanction was necessary to meet the public interest.

When deciding on whether to issue a reprimand with or without a warning, the Committee once again decided that the misconduct was too serious to allow for this.

It also decided that a reprimand and/or warning was not sufficient to protect animals and the wider public interest.

It then went onto consider whether a sanction of ‘suspension’ was sufficient but noted that it did not have enough evidence to show that Ms Bowler had shown significant insight to continue to practise unrestricted in the future.

The Committee eventually concluded that Ms Bowler’s conduct was incompatible with remaining on the Register.

Neil Slater, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee decided that the broad range of Ms Bowler’s misconduct which had spanned three years and eight months and involving injury or risk of injury to 18 animals, was incompatible with remaining on the Register and the public interest required removal from the Register even when all of Ms Bowler’s mitigation was taken into account.

“The Committee decided that it did not have sufficient evidence overall on Ms Bowler’s insight, current competence and future risk to persuade it that the lesser sanction of suspension was appropriate in this case.

“Although Ms Bowler had shown some insight, the Committee decided that she would need to have provided detailed evidence about her current practice before it could decide that she no longer represented a risk to animals in the future.

“The Committee therefore concluded that ‘removal from the Register’ was the appropriate and proportionate sanction because there had been a serious departure from professional standards, a reckless disregard for professional standards, multiple cases involving harm or risk of harm to animals and because, in Ms Bowler’s absence, it had been difficult to unravel whether she had an attitudinal problem.

“These were all factors in the Disciplinary Committee Sanctions Guidance that indicated that a sanction of removal was the appropriate sanction and, in the Committee’s decision, removal from the Register was the only sanction which would meet the public interest.

"It concluded that a lesser sanction would undermine public confidence in the profession and in the regulatory process.”

https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings 

Gemma Louise Cole has been struck off by the RCVS Veterinary Nurse Disciplinary Committee following her conviction for pet insurance fraud in 2024.

Mrs Cole pleaded guilty to fraud in July 2024 at Crawley Magistrates’ Court and was sentenced to eight months in prison suspended for 12 months, 20 days rehabilitation activity and a £187 victim surcharge.

The College opened its own disciplinary investigation against Mrs Cole after receiving the certificate of conviction, which related to more than £13,000 of pet insurance fraud.

It then proceeded with the hearing in Mrs Cole’s absence as she had not responded to any of the communications sent to her by the College on the matter.

Having found the charge against her proven by the certificate of conviction, the Committee then determined that the conviction amounted to serious professional misconduct.

Dr Kathryn Peaty MRCVS, chairing the committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The respondent’s conduct… was plainly dishonest and contravened a fundamental tenet of the profession.

"She abused her professional position in order to commit the offence.

"The dishonest conduct in this case related directly to the respondent’s professional life, as she was working as a veterinary nurse when she completed and submitted the fraudulent claims.

“Her conduct also constituted a breach of the trust owed to her employer and to the insurance company to which her dishonest claims were submitted.

"She put her professional colleagues at risk as their names were used on the clinical records which purportedly supported her dishonest claims.

“Her misconduct was repeated and sustained over a period of many years.

"Her modus operandi was sophisticated and premeditated.

“The respondent’s conduct clearly had the potential to bring the profession into disrepute and to undermine public trust in the profession.

"A member of the public would be rightly appalled to learn that a veterinary nurse had abused her position by submitting false claims in this way.”

The Committee found that there were no mitigating factors, and that aggravating factors included the premeditated nature of Mrs Cole’s fraud, the clear breaches of trust in respect of her colleagues, her clients and the insurance companies, the significant financial gain made from her fraud and the fact that the fraudulent activities were sustained and repeated over a period of four and a half years.

Kathryn added: “Taking into account the gravity of her misconduct, the need to maintain standards of probity in the profession, especially in relation to practice records and the submission of insurance claim documents, as well as the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, the Committee has resolved to direct the Registrar to remove the respondent’s name from the Register.

www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

The RCVS has announced that renewal fees will increase by 4%.

The 4% increase was approved by the Privy Council and the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. 

Dr Tshidi Gardiner, RCVS Treasurer, said: “As with last year, RCVS Council recognises that we are living in difficult economic times, and have tried to keep the fee increase to a minimum.

"However, it is important that we increase fees in line with inflation, as well as take into account additional related costs, to ensure we are fulfilling our regulatory remit to the best of our abilities and meet our strategic priorities.”

Veterinary surgeons need to pay their annual renewal by 1st April and will be sent their fee notices within the first two weeks of March.

Anyone who has not paid their fee by 1st May will incur a higher fee charge of £36, with non-payment by 1st June risking removal from the Register and ineligibility to practise.

As part of the annual renewal process, all individual vets will also need to log into their online MyAccount to confirm their registration and contact details and declare any convictions. 

Anyone who expects to encounter any difficulties in paying their fees should contact the RCVS Finance Team on finance@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0722.

The RCVS Academy has launched ‘Communicating cost’, a free course designed to help vets discuss treatment costs with clients.

The course offers practical tips and is also designed to help vets understand their obligations under the Code of Professional Conduct when discussing costs with clients.

RCVS CEO Lizzie Lockett said: “Discussions around the costs of veterinary treatment are not always easy and can sometimes give rise to misunderstandings or lack of clarity between clients and veterinary teams.

"We recognise the challenges these conversations present and the pressures veterinary professionals face.

“Meanwhile, the ongoing Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) investigation has highlighted that animal owners are not always satisfied with the level of information they receive in order to make an informed choice about treatment options.

This course supports the development of veterinary surgeons’ and veterinary nurses’ communication skills so that they can discuss treatment costs more transparently with their clients, helping to reduce potential misunderstandings and build trust.”

The course takes 45 minutes to complete and features an interactive scenario as well as expert video advice from experienced veterinary surgeons.

https://academy.rcvs.org.uk

Shropshire-based Emma Jane Evans MRCVS has been reprimanded and warned about her future conduct by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after allowing a colleague to order a veterinary drug for human use and falsifying test results and clinical records.

Ms Evans was charged with causing or allowing a veterinary nurse colleague to order a prescription-only medicine from a practice supplier knowing that it was intended for human use, and made a false entry prescribing the medication on the clinical records of a cat belonging to her nurse colleague.

She was also charged with falsely recording details purporting to be the results of the blood tests on cat and then entering notes on the animal's clinical history which falsely indicated that there had been a meaningful result, and then indicating to the animal's owner that there had been a meaningful result, when in fact the tests had failed to produce any meaningful results. 

The final charge was that her conduct in making the false entry for the prescription-only medication, and all elements of the second charge was dishonest and misleading.

Ms Evans admitted the first charge on the basis that she had allowed rather than caused the order to be made, all the other facts of this charge were admitted.

She admitted the second charge on the basis that she had failed to inform the cat’s owner of the test results, all the other facts of this charge were admitted.

She also admitted that elements of her conduct had been dishonest and misleading.

Having found the charges proven by Ms Evans’ admissions, the Committee considered whether her admitted actions and conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.

Ms Evans, through her legal counsel, accepted that the admitted charges passed the threshold for serious professional misconduct, though that question still needed to be determined independently by the Committee.

The Committee found that Dr Evans’ conduct had breached several key parts of the Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance, particularly around honesty and integrity.

It also found aggravating factors in this case, including the risk to human health by allowing the prescription-only medication to be ordered knowing it was for human use, the abuse of her professional position, the breach of client trust, the potential adverse impact on the welfare of the cat for whom she falsified the blood test records, and the potential adverse impact on the welfare of the cat for whom she had falsely recorded the prescription-only medicine.

The Committee found no mitigating factors relating to the facts.

Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said in relation to the first charge: “In the Committee’s view, this irresponsible approach to a prescription-only medicine risked human health, potentially compromised an animal’s welfare, since the clinical record suggested the cat had been given Fluconazole when it had not, constituted an abuse of the trust placed in her as a registered veterinary surgeon and was in breach of legal provisions designed to safeguard human health.

“Such behaviour falls far below the standard expected of a registered veterinary surgeon, undermines public confidence in the profession and would be considered deplorable by colleagues and the public alike.

"The Committee was thus satisfied that charge 1 on its own amounts to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”

He added: “Acting dishonestly runs contrary to one of the most fundamental principles of the profession.

"The public need to know that they can rely on the honesty and integrity of the people to whom they entrust the care and welfare of their animals.

“Further, Dr Evans’ conduct in both incidents had the potential to undermine public confidence in the profession of veterinary surgery and bring the profession into disrepute.

"In all the circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that Dr Evans’ behaviour as reflected in charge 2 fell far short of the standard expected of a veterinary surgeon and amounted to disgraceful conduct.

“Accordingly, the Committee found proved the allegation that Dr Evans was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”

Having found serious professional misconduct in relation to all charges, the Committee considered what the most appropriate and proportionate sanction would be for Ms Evans’ actions and conduct.

In doing so, it considered 137 positive references and testimonials from Dr Evans’ professional colleagues and clients, poor staff morale at the practice at the time as well as compelling, exceptional evidence relating to Dr Evans’s health at the time of the two incidents.

In mitigation, the Committee considered the fact that Dr Evans had no previous disciplinary history and had a hitherto unblemished career as a veterinary surgeon; her open and frank admissions; the circumstances of pressures at work exacerbated by Dr Evans’ desire to please everyone and not let anyone down; the fact that Dr Evans was feeling very isolated; the significant insight into her conduct and its impact; effective and targeted remediation to ensure there would be no likelihood of the conduct being repeated; genuine expressions or remorse and apology; support from her employers; and the very significant number of positive testimonials.

Summing up the Committee’s decision on sanction, Mr Morris said “In all the, somewhat exceptional, circumstances of this case, the Committee was satisfied that a reprimand and a warning not to behave in this way again, would provide adequate protection to animals, as it was satisfied Dr Evans was most unlikely to ever make such a flawed set of decisions again.

“The Committee was satisfied that Dr Evans does not represent a risk to animals going forward, indeed from the character evidence it is clear that she always puts the welfare of animals first.

"She has also shown, since this episode, that she can work under pressure and not resort to making bad decisions and thus the Committee considered the wider public interest would best be served in this case by a reprimand and a warning.

“Notwithstanding the serious nature of Dr Evans' conduct, the Committee was satisfied that a fully informed member of the public would not be shocked if Dr Evans were allowed to continue to practise.

“The decision of this Committee is, therefore, that Dr Evans be reprimanded and warned about her behaviour.

"Dr Evans should, however, be under no illusion of how serious it is to have a finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect made against her and she should not take lightly the decision of this Committee to reprimand and warn her.”

www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

The RCVS has launched a consultation on its Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Nursing (CertAVN) framework and is asking vets, employers and vet nurse educators to take part.

The CertAVN was launched in May 2019 as a modular, advanced professional qualification allowing veterinary nurses at all stages of their careers to develop their professional skills and knowledge.

The CertAVN framework sets out the professional values, skills and behaviours required of the higher education institutions responsible for providing the training and support for CertAVN students.

There are currently five accredited course providers in the UK:

• Harper Adams University
• University of Glasgow
• Royal Veterinary College
• Hartpury University and Hartpury College
• University of Central Lancashire

The proposed standards for accreditation are set under three areas: curricula and assessment, educators and assessors, and learning culture.

Julie Dugmore, RCVS Director of Veterinary Nursing, said: “In order to make sure that the CertAVN remains up to date and fit for purpose, it is important that we consult on the accreditation standards at regular intervals.

"We welcome constructive and specific feedback from veterinary nurses at all stages of their careers – whether you have already undertaken the CertAVN or are perhaps considering doing so in the future – as well as the wider veterinary team, educators, and employers of current and potential CertAVN holders.

“Your insights will help us ensure that the standards continue to enable veterinary nurse educators to deliver the best training and support possible for CertAVN students."

The consultation runs until 5pm on Monday 3 March 2025.

https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/our-consultations/review-of-the-certavn-framework 

The RCVS Privy Council has approved changes to the Statutory Exam which has to be taken by veterinary surgeons who hold a veterinary degree that is not recognised by the RCVS.

The changes are designed to make the process more accessible and the College says most were proposed as a result of candidate feedback. They are:

• Candidates will now be able to take re-sits of the written exam papers for each of the 3 clinical subjects in the same year, meaning that they no longer have to wait a whole year until the next Stat Exam process.
• Candidates will now be able to pay for the written exam stage and the objective structured clinical exam (OSCE) stage separately, reducing the costs that candidates have to pay in one go.
• Candidates who pass the written exam but fail one or more clinical domains of the OSCE will be allowed to proceed directly to the individual failed clinical domains of the OSCE the following year, rather than having to sit all the written papers and all the clinical domains of the OSCE again.
• The RCVS will be able to keep the cost of the exam updated in-line with inflation.

The changes will come into effect from 1 January 2025, in time for the 2025 Stat Exam cohort.

Dr Linda Prescott-Clements, RCVS Director of Education, said: “We have been listening to the concerns of various stakeholders, including those who have undertaken the Stat Exam previously and veterinary employers, and we used this feedback to work with the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) to come up with a set of practical, deliverable changes that improve the experience of Stat Exam for all candidates, and hopefully alleviate some of the stress involved around timescales, opportunity and finance.

“These changes will make the exam more accessible, as it will allow candidates to have two attempts at the written papers within the same diet, which need to be passed before being allowed to proceed to the practical exam and it will also help improve accessibility to the exam from the perspective of candidate finances.

www.rcvs.org.uk/statutory-membership-exam

The RCVS Education Committee has given the University of Cambridge’s Department of Veterinary Medicine 10 months to make improvements to its veterinary degree programme, after an RCVS accreditation visit earlier this year identified wide-ranging 'concerns'.

Meantime, the school was given a “conditional accreditation” for its degree, as it had met only 27 of the 77 RCVS accreditation standards.

The visitation was conducted by an accreditation panel comprising representatives from veterinary academia and clinical practice, as well as student and international representatives.

As part of the accreditation process, the panel considered documents and records, discussions and interviews with students and faculty members, a tour of the teaching facilities, and meetings with other stakeholders.

Based on the evidence, the panel agreed 55 recommendations for improvement which were then discussed, alongside the formal response from the Department, by the RCVS Primary Qualifications Subcommittee (PQSC), the body responsible for considering accreditation reports and making recommendations to Education Committee. 

By contrast, the accreditation visit to the University of Bristol this year generated just one recommendation, likewise the visit to the University of Surrey last year.

Due to the unusually high number of recommendations and concerns about the delivery of the Cambridge degree, PQSC recommended that the programme receive conditional accreditation for 10 months, which was then agreed by Education Committee.

An RCVS spokesperson said: “Following careful review of the evidence, during the Committee’s detailed discussions, it was unanimously agreed that the number of standards not currently being met, which extended across all domains, meant that the Committee made the difficult decision to grant conditional accreditation.

“In reaching a decision and timeframe, given the problems identified, and the impact these will have on student learning and experience, Education Committee members firmly agreed on the need to help the vet school support both existing students on, and future applicants to, the Cambridge veterinary programme.”

“At the next visitation in September 2025, a panel will consider the evidence submitted and then a decision will be made on the future status of the degree.”

"In the meantime, we recognise that both students and staff might have concerns about this outcome, so we remain able and very willing to work closely with the Department in the coming weeks to ensure it has appropriate support plans in place.”

The full list of recommendations, suggestions and commendations for Cambridge can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/visitations.

Donal Johnston MRCVS has been reprimanded and warned as to his future conduct by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after admitting four separate charges related to fraudulent insurance claims.

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 

RCVS Council has voted on the changes to its governance structure proposed in its ‘Good Governance’ public consultation held earlier this year. 

Council members voted in favour of becoming a fully-appointed governing Council and to explore retaining elected representation on a future council or committee focussed on 'upstream regulation' and development of the profession

Council also voted to move towards greater parity between professional and lay RCVS Council members, but delayed a decision on the precise balance until it has the opportunity to consider the matter in more detail.

Council voted to remove veterinary school appointees from Council, agreeing to discuss the future composition of the RCVS Education Committee at a later date.

Council then voted to further investigate a number of alternative governance arrangement suggestions, including independent oversight of the College, and to review term limits across all appointed positions.

RCVS President Linda Belton said: “Thank you to all who took part in the consultation and made suggestions on alternative and additional arrangements that might be made regarding our governance. 

"Thank you also to Council members for a robust discussion of these proposals.

“We still have a number of important governance issues to discuss at a future date and the proposals that Council members have voted to approve today will not be brought into immediate effect, but will be included in our proposals to government for new veterinary legislation.

“As we seek reform of veterinary regulation via new primary legislation, it is important that our governance arrangements not only inspire public confidence and trust but also allow us, as a Royal College that regulates, to work with the professions on our upstream regulatory activities, not only to ensure that individuals are fit for practice, but also that we maintain a profession fit for purpose.

“The decision to explore retaining an elected element on a future veterinary council or committee, responsible for work dedicated to the development of the professions, gives a clear indication of the value of our ‘Royal College that regulates’ model.

"We have also made a further commitment to public assurance by agreeing to explore independent oversight of the RCVS.

“Any future appointments process developed by the RCVS will be committed to adhering to the Public Standards Authority’s principles on appointments; these are merit; fairness; transparency and openness; and inspiring confidence.”

www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil-nov24

Brian Cullen Bowles has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after he was found to have put public health at risk by dishonestly certifying cattle test results.

Mr Bowles faced four charges, but did not respond to the College's notification about the hearing, so the Committee decided to proceed in his absence.

The first charge was that in 2020, while attending a farm in Lincolnshire in his capacity as an Official Veterinarian (OV), Mr Bowles carried out Intradermal Comparative Tuberculin (ICT) tests on a herd of cattle but failed to measure the skin thickness of all the cattle using callipers and failed to take and record measurements for the cattle.

The Committee was provided with evidence that Mr Bowles had, in earlier correspondence with the College, admitted that he had failed to follow Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) standard operating procedures for ICT testing at the farm and so the charge was found proven.

The second charge was that he then certified the results of the inaccurate ICT test he'd performed earlier.

The Committee found this charge proven on the basis that, without using callipers to measure skin thickness, he was not entitled to certify the test.

The third charge was that his conduct in relation to the first two charges was dishonest, misleading and risked undermining government testing procedures designed to promote public health and animal welfare.

The Committee found all elements of the charges proven.

The final charge was that Mr Bowles's conduct took place despite warnings, advice and re-training being given by the APHA.

These included: a letter sent to Mr Bowles’s by APHA in 2014 about the suspension of his OV status after he failed to comply with APHA rules; a letter sent by the APHA to Mr Bowles’s employer in October 2016 regarding issues of non-compliance it had found during a September 2016 audit; and the suspension of Mr Bowles’s OV duties by his employer, pending further training, following issues of non-compliance.

Given Mr Bowles’s history of non-compliance with APHA standard operating procedures and standards, the Committee found the charge proven.

The Committee found that charges 1 to 3 amounted to serious professional misconduct but that charge 4, while making the conduct in the other charges more serious, did not in and of itself constitute serious professional misconduct.

In determining the most appropriate sanction for Mr Bowles, the Committee found that he had paid ‘scant regard’ to the testing procedures set out by APHA and breached the RCVS certification requirements set out in the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons in ‘numerous and serious’ ways.

Hilary Lloyd, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee’s view is that the respondent’s conduct in refusing to follow the OV Instructions when testing cattle in May 2020 constituted conduct of an egregious kind.

"In addition, there are several aggravating elements which can be applied to his misconduct, including a risk to animal or human health; his lack of probity and integrity in certifying test results which he knew were non-compliant and unreliable; recklessness in reaching a conscious decision to ignore the OV Instructions; his failure to comply with the requirements of the position of trust and responsibility which attached to his APHA authorisation; and against a backdrop of sustained pattern of behaviour that displayed blatant disregard of the system that regulated TB testing by OVs.

"It follows that the respondent manifested no insight into the seriousness of his misconduct when acting as an OV.”

The Committee considered whether there were any mitigating factors regarding Mr Bowles’ conduct.

It took into account that Mr Bowles had not secured any financial advantage, that there was no actual harm to animals, and that he had a long career as a veterinary surgeon, although with a history of non-compliance.

It noted that there had been some late admissions of misconduct by Mr Bowles when he tendered an apology, but found this mitigation was undermined by the fact his explanations lacked consistency and that he had also initially asserted that he had used callipers during the testing.

Due to the seriousness of the non-compliance, the dishonesty and the potential risk to public health, the Committee considered that removing Mr Bowles from the Register was the only proportionate and appropriate response to the scale of misconduct.

Hilary added: “Given the amount of advice received and re-training which the respondent was required to undertake, he has already had ample opportunity to remediate his practice but has not done so.

"The Committee is therefore concerned that there is a very real risk of further repetition of this conduct in the future were he to be permitted to remain on the Register.

“The Committee’s concern in this regard stems from the fact that the dishonesty of which the respondent has been found guilty, was not dishonesty committed on the spur of the moment.

"The respondent had ample opportunities for reflection before resolving to act as he did.

"This places his acts of dishonesty in the most serious category.

“The public is entitled to expect that it can have confidence in the certifications of a veterinary surgeon who is carrying out a public duty on behalf of that public body.

"Indeed, that is the whole purpose behind the requirement that OVs undertake additional and specialised training before being permitted to undertake OV duties.”

www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

Janine Susan Parody MRCVS has been reprimanded by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for dishonesty in relation to her treatment of a cat.

Ms Parody faced two charges, the first of which related to her treatment of a cat named Shadow and had multiple elements: 

1. She failed to euthanise Shadow;
2. She failed to inform Shadow’s owner, who had presented the cat for euthanasia, that the procedure had not been carried out;
3. She undertook a treatment plan for Shadow, including sedation and castration, without informing or obtaining consent from his owner;
4. She was later involved in and/or directed the removal of a microchip from Shadow (i) when this was not clinically justified and (ii) in doing so intended to mislead others in relation to Shadow’s identity;
5. She then took Shadow home without informing or obtaining consent from his owner;
6. She failed to make any or any adequate records regarding Shadow.

The second charge was that her conduct in relation to all parts of the first charge was dishonest.

At the outset of the hearing Ms Parody’s counsel admitted to the majority of the elements of the first charge, although denied she had removed the microchip in order to mislead others about Shadow’s identity.

Ms Parody also admitted that her failures to inform the owner that euthanasia had not been carried out, of the treatment plan, of the removal of the microchip and that she had taken Shadow home was dishonest.

However, she denied dishonesty in relation to failing to make adequate records.

The Committee went on to consider the facts of the remaining, contested charges.

After hearing evidence from a number of witnesses, the Committee concluded that it was not proven that Dr Parody removed the microchip in order to mislead others about his identity, and that, in this respect, she had therefore not acted dishonestly.

In relation to whether Ms Parody was acting dishonestly in relation to failure to make adequate clinical records, the Committee also found this not proven.

Having determined the facts of the case, the Committee went on to consider if the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In terms of aggravating factors, it considered that there was actual injury to an animal – albeit small and while the cat was under sedation - and that Ms Parody had engaged in conduct that was in breach of a client’s trust.

In mitigation, the Committee considered the immense pressure that Ms Parody and her colleagues in the practice were under at that time due to the coronavirus pandemic and the fact that she had acted in a way which she thought was best for Shadow’s welfare and which clouded the rest of her decision making.

Furthermore, the Committee considered this was a single isolated incident, that she took the decision without the opportunity for full reflection and the length of time since the original incident.

However, it found Ms Parody guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to all the proven charges.

Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “However well-intentioned, Dr Parody made some serious errors of judgment with regard to her approach to Shadow and embarked upon a course of dishonest conduct, which started with her failure to inform the owner about her decision not to euthanase Shadow, was followed by her treatment of Shadow, including his castration and microchip removal, all without the consent of the owner, and ended with her taking Shadow home over Christmas, again without the owner’s consent.

"In addition, she failed to make adequate clinical records with regards to Shadow.”

The Committee then went on to consider the most appropriate sanction for Ms Parody.

It heard a large number of positive testimonials as to her character and professionalism from both clients and former and current work colleagues.

The Committee also considered further mitigating factors such as the fact she had no previous disciplinary issues, had a long and unblemished career both before and since this isolated incident, her open and frank admissions regarding some of the charges, the significant impact she displayed regarding her misconduct, and her genuine expressions of remorse and apology.

Paul Morris added: “The Committee recognises that there is a scale of seriousness of dishonesty and therefore gave careful consideration as to where Dr Parody’s dishonest conduct fell to be judged.

"The Committee was concerned with her conduct between 20 December and 31 December 2021, as found proved.

"What led to what she has admitted as dishonest behaviour, was her acting to protect the welfare of the cat.

“The Committee was confident that she most certainly did not set out to act dishonestly.

"She made an initial error of judgement and everything that followed flowed from that.

"What she went on to do was something of a panicky attempt to cover up what she had done initially, so that she could decide on how to rectify it but, the Committee was satisfied, all done with the best of intentions and in the best interests of the cat and its owner.

"She had not acted out of any personal or financial gain or malicious intent.

"She had created a mess and she was trying to sort that mess out.”

After deciding that a reprimand was the most appropriate and proportionate sanction to impose, Paul Morris concluded: “In all the, somewhat exceptional, circumstances of this case, the Committee was satisfied that a reprimand would provide adequate protection to animals, as it was satisfied Dr Parody was most unlikely to ever make such a flawed set of decisions again.

"The Committee was satisfied that Dr Parody does not represent a risk to animals going forward, indeed from the character evidence it is clear that she always puts the welfare of animals first.

"She has also shown, since this episode, that she can work under pressure and not resort to making bad decisions and thus the Committee considered the wider public interest would be served in this case by a reprimand.”

www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

The RCVS is inviting nominations for its 2025 Honours & Awards, to recognise veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and laypeople, both in the UK and overseas, who are doing their utmost for animal health and welfare, the professions and society at large.

The awards fall into two categories, those which you need to be nominated for by other people and those which are also open to self-nomination: 

Requiring nomination by another person:

• The Queen’s Medal – an award for a veterinary surgeon who has achieved a highly distinguished career with sustained and outstanding achievements throughout.
• The Veterinary Nursing Golden Jubilee Award - awarded to a veterinary nurse who has had a sustained and distinguished career, who can demonstrate a leadership role within the profession and who can act as an ambassador for the value of veterinary nurses and their work.
• Honorary Associateship - awarded to laypeople who have made a special contribution to the veterinary sphere and could include, for example, scientists, lecturers, journalists, charity-workers, farriers, farmers and those involved in the commercial field.

Self-nominations allowed:

• The RCVS International Award - awarded to vets, vet nurses or laypeople who have made an outstanding contribution on issues that are in line with the RCVS mission. 
• The RCVS Impact Award - awarded to vets or vet nurses who have recently, or are currently undertaking a project or initiative that has a significant impact on the profession at large, animal health or welfare, or public health.
• The RCVS Inspiration Award - awarded to vets or vet nurses who have demonstrated the ability to inspire and enthuse others consistently throughout their careers.
• The RCVS Compassion Award - awarded to a vet or vet nurse who has demonstrated compassion towards fellow professionals and/or members of the animal-owning public.
• The RCVS Student Community Award – awarded to a vet or vet nursing student who has made a real effort to support their fellow students and the wider veterinary/veterinary nursing school community.

The deadline for the 2025 awards is Friday, 13 December 2024.

https://www.rcvs.org.uk/how-we-work/rcvs-honours-awards