The charge was that between June and October 2022, the vet imported or arranged for the importation of approximately 1950 to 2010 tablets of a medicine which purported to be norethisterone when there had been no Special Importation Certificate (SIC) issued by the VMD.
The vet was also charged with supplying or arranging the supply of the medicine to a number of greyhound trainers, with a view to the medicine being administered to greyhounds.
Finally, the vet was also charged that he knew there was no SIC, that the medicine contained substances other than norethisterone, that he had made no assessment of whether any or all of the other substances were appropriate for administration to the greyhounds, and that the Greyhound Board of Great Britain did not permit greyhounds to race with the other substances found in the medicine in their system.
The vet admitted all the charges against him at the start of the hearing.
The Committee said aggravating factors included risk of injury to an animal or human, recklessness, and break of client trust.
It also noted that despite his practice being rated 4 out of 5 in a 2025 Veterinary Practice Premises Inspection Report in relation to the VMD’s most recent inspection of his practice, the report raised four matters relating to the issuing and labelling of medication.
In mitigation, the Committee accepted that the vet had imported the norethisterone from India with good intentions, in that he believed he was assisting the greyhounds to keep them racing.
It also noted that while this was not an isolated incident, he only ordered the norethisterone twice and supplied it over a five-month period in 2022.
He had also practised without incident since importing and supplying the norethisterone.
The Committee decided that the conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct, and that he had breached sections 1.5, 6.4 and 6.5 of the Code of Practice for Veterinary Surgeons in 2022.
Deciding the sanction, the Committee also noted that the vet had a previous disciplinary finding against him relating to findings of dishonesty regarding his communications with the Animal and Plant Health Agency in the taking of blood samples for horses due to be exported to Serbia, which resulted in a six-month suspension from the Register.
Neil Slater, chairing the committee, said a six-month suspension would allow the vet time to “develop insight and understanding of the importance of regulatory compliance” and reflect on his practice, while also signalling to the profession and the public that such compliance is essential.
He said the committee had considered whether removal from the register was warranted, particularly given a previous similar disciplinary finding, but concluded that this could be “career ending”. A longer suspension was also ruled out on the same basis.
However, the committee expressed significant concern that the case, alongside the earlier finding, demonstrated a “persistent disregard for regulatory legislation”. It said the sanction imposed was necessary to protect animal welfare and maintain confidence in the profession.
The vet will be suspended for six months following the expiry of the appeal period.
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/veterinary-professionals/conduct-and-guidance/concerns-for-veterinary-professionals/disciplinary-committee-hearings
The nurse was suspended from the Register for three months after admitting dishonesty over a dog's bile acid stimulation test, falsely saying she had taken a second blood sample when she had not.
She also admitted removing blood from the first sample and presenting and/or labelling it as if it were a second sample, falsely telling colleagues that the second sample had been taken, and falsely saying a veterinary nurse colleague had assisted her.
She also admitted a second charge that she had been dishonest and misleading.
The Committee said the conduct breached the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses on honesty, integrity, trust and accountability.
It found aggravating factors including a risk of harm to the dog, breaches of employer and colleague trust, false implication of a colleague in the dishonesty, and repeated misconduct.
In mitigation, it said there had been no actual harm to the dog.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "All the charges found proved involved not only misleading statements or behaviour but also dishonesty.
"On three occasions the respondent lied to her colleague about having taken a second blood sample.... BAST is an important test of liver function.
"Such behaviour struck at the heart of the profession of an RVN where honesty is crucial in the undertaking of professional work and is a fundamental tenet of the profession.
"The respondent breached the trust of her colleague as well as her employer's trust, and had the potential to interfere in the care which was being given to the dog... thereby creating a clinical risk, because the correct procedure was not being carried out, and the veterinary surgeon did not know about this.
"The Respondent did not act in the dog's interests."
In deciding sanction, the Committee considered a medical report on the nurse's ill-health at the time, along with mitigating factors including no financial gain, limited opportunity for reflection, insight and remorse, positive testimonials, admissions, a previously unblemished career, and the fact the dishonesty was confined to a single day.
It also said the dishonesty was not premeditated, but arose after she had mistakenly fed the dog when she should not have, meaning the second blood sample should not then have been taken.
Paul added: "The respondent has insight into her conduct and as set out above, there is no real risk of repetition.
"There are no concerns about the respondent's competence or clinical practice in general, and there is no evidence that she would be unfit to return to practice after a period of suspension.
"This process has been a salutary lesson.
"The Committee, therefore, concluded that a period of suspension of three months would be proportionate in this case."
Miss Cook was charged that, while in practice at the BHA:
From the outset of the hearing Miss Cook admitted all parts of charges 1, 2 and 3, and that her conduct had been misleading.
Having heard Miss Cook’s position, the Committee noted the allegation of dishonesty as being denied and proceeded with the hearing on that basis.
The Committee decided it was sure that Miss Cook had created both documents in the knowledge that they represented themselves as having been prepared by her GP, when she knew that was not the case.
The Committee was satisfied that this conduct would be regarded as dishonest and therefore found charge the charge of dishonesty proved.
On deciding whether Miss Cook’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee found that her conduct fell far below the standards expected of a veterinary surgeon and breached the fundamental principles of honesty, integrity and professional accountability.
It therefore found the proved charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Aggravating factors included:
In mitigation, the Committee considered:
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Miss Cook had placed her own interests, in seeking to avoid or influence the employment disciplinary process, above the principles of honesty, integrity and professional accountability.
"The Committee concluded that, in all the circumstances, her misconduct in a professional respect was so serious that it was fundamentally incompatible with continued registration.
“The Committee decided that no lesser sanction than removal was sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession as a whole, or to uphold proper professional standards, and therefore directed that Miss Cook’s name be removed from the Register.”
Mr Makepeace was removed from the Register in 2024 after being convicted of assaulting his ex-partner in 2022.
He then submitted a character reference to the RCVS which purported to come from his partner, stating they were “still happily together”, and forged her signature.
It also found he sent offensive, insulting, abusive and threatening WhatsApp messages to his ex-partner between December 2022 and January 2023.
The committee said removal was the only proportionate sanction, citing the public interest, deterrence, and maintaining confidence in the profession and regulatory process.
During the restoration hearing, the committee was also told that since removal Mr Makepeace had continued to hold himself out as a vet, including emailing a practice seeking work experience with the opening line: “I’m a vet”.
The committee found the email used deliberate and careful wording and was a calculated attempt to mislead, omitting his removal from the Register and creating a distorted impression of no disciplinary concerns.
It concluded the email and lack of transparency with potential employers were further examples of dishonesty alongside the earlier forgery, and found the conduct misleading and dishonest.
The committee accepted Mr Makepeace understood he had assaulted his ex-partner, but was not convinced he understood the impact of previous manipulative and coercive behaviour.
It found nothing to suggest he would be of harm to animals, but concluded he was more likely to put his own interests first, including through recent communications stating he was a vet.
Kathryn Peaty, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “While the Committee recognises Mr Makepeace’s desire to advance his career and that his prospects would be enhanced by restoration of his name to the Register, that is not a factor relevant to his application.
"The Committee’s obligations and duties are to ensure that the interests of animal welfare are properly protected by ensuring that those whose names are on the Register are properly trained, knowledgeable and experienced in the treatment of animals and that public confidence in the standards of the profession is maintained.
“The Committee cannot restore someone to the Register who is not fit by virtue of their repeated dishonest and unacceptable conduct, without insight into the impact of the lack of probity by a vet."
Dr Herlea MRCVS was convicted on 15 January 2025 at the Cluj Court of Appeal.
He was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment suspended for two years and made subject to probation/supervision during the period of the suspended sentence.
The Committee heard he was stopped shortly after midnight on 5 February 2023 during a routine police stop and tested over the alcohol limit.
His licence had previously been suspended for three months following a speeding offence in December 2022, ending on 27 February 2023.
The Committee took account of his statement that he had been drinking at home when his father became unwell and he drove to a nearby pharmacy because his father did not have his medication.
The Committee found the conviction was incompatible with paragraph 6.5 of the profession’s governing code and found him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
Aggravating factors included disregarding the prohibition on driving, the extent his blood alcohol exceeded the limit, and the risk of injury to others.
Mitigation included early admissions and notification to the RCVS, a favourable probation report, remorse and insight, and positive colleague references, with no actual harm and an otherwise unblemished record.
Hilary Lloyd, chairing the Committee, said: “The misconduct of Dr Herlea is serious but, considering the mitigating factors present in this case, the Committee concluded that a period of suspension was neither necessary nor proportionate.
"The consequence of a period of suspension is that the Registrar removes the veterinary surgeon’s name from the Register during the period ordered. It is then automatically restored to the Register at the conclusion of the period of suspension.
"Dr Herlea would be obliged to inform the Home Office that he was no longer able to comply with the terms of his work permit, as would his sponsor practice.
"It is not therefore unreasonable to assume that under current Home Office guidance, even a short period of suspension would result in Dr Herlea being unable to practise in the UK, with permanent effect, which would be disproportionate.
“The Committee concluded that a reprimand and warning as to Dr Herlea’s future conduct was the appropriate sanction.”
Mr Ghinescu faced three charges:
Mr Ghinescu admitted the facts of charges 1 and 2 but denied that this rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon, although Dr Ghinescu has had the status of a non-practising Member of the RCVS since May 2021.
Regarding Charge 3, Mr Ghinescu said that the failure to declare the conviction had been a genuine misunderstanding about whether he needed to declare a driving conviction as part of his annual renewal.
The Committee found that while his position was ‘plainly unreasonable of him and wrong’, it could not be sure beyond all reasonable doubt that his mistaken beliefs were genuine or not – therefore it found it not proven that he had been dishonest.
Nevertheless, it found that Mr Ghinescu had been misleading by failing to declare his convictions, even if unintentionally.
Having found Charges 1, 2 and part of Charge 3 proven, the Committee considered Mr Ghinescu’s fitness to practise, taking into account the part of the Code of Professional Conduct that says veterinary surgeons ‘must not engage in any activity or behaviour that would be likely to bring the profession into disrepute or undermine public confidence in the profession.’
It found that the convictions outlined in Charges 1 and 2 rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon and that whilst Charge 3 demonstrated carelessness, it did not amount to serious professional misconduct.
Mitigating factors included having had no previous disciplinary history with the RCVS, admissions at both court and to the College and developing insight into his behaviour, with an acceptance he had acted shamefully and had no mitigation for his behaviour.
Hilary Lloyd, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was of the view that the nature and seriousness of Mr Ghinescu’s behaviour, which led to the convictions, particularly the assault on his wife, was fundamentally incompatible with being registered as a veterinary surgeon.
"They are clearly serious offences as reflected in the prison sentence Mr Ghinescu was required to serve.
“There were two separate assaults on [his wife], one in the car and then a prolonged attack in the house, involving repeated punches to the face and kicks to the body, followed by threats to kill.
"The Committee considered this to be disgraceful conduct of the most grievous and reprehensible kind.
“The conduct represented a serious departure from professional standards; it was inexplicable, abhorrent behaviour, resulting in injuries to his wife.
"In light of these conclusions, the Committee decided that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case was removal from the Register.”
Mr Ghinescu has 28 days from being informed of his removal from the Register to appeal the Committee’s decision.
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Miss Davies faced four charges:
Miss Davies made no admissions to any of the charges.
Miss Davies wrote to the College prior to the hearing stating that she would not be attending and she was not represented.
The Committee found all charges bar one proved.
Charge 1a, relating to the anaesthesia increase, was found not proved due to lack of evidence.
In deciding on whether the proven facts amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee took into account the aggravating factor that all charges caused risk of injury to an animal or human.
There were no mitigating factors.
The Committee found that Miss Davies’ conduct indicated an unwillingness and inability to act according to the veterinary surgeons’ instructions/directions.
It noted that Miss Davies acted on at least seven occasions contrary to the instructions given or without seeking direction or authorisation, despite her position within the surgical team.
It also found that Miss Davies had breached multiple areas of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses, including the Code obligations that veterinary nurses must make animal health and welfare their first consideration when attending to animals and that veterinary nurses must communicate with veterinary surgeons and each other to ensure the health and welfare of the animal or group of animals.
It therefore found that, with the exception of administering intermittent positive-pressure ventilation without direction or authorisation, the remaining proved facts amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee then went on to consider the most appropriate and proportionate sanction.
In doing so, it took into account aggravating and mitigating factors.
Aggravating factors included that the conduct was sustained over a period of approximately eight months and took place during four separate surgical procedures, and that Miss Davies posed a risk to animals on each occasion.
The Committee considered that there were a number of mitigating factors including the fact that Miss Davies had been on the Register of Veterinary Nurses since 17 January 2006 with no previous disciplinary findings against her, positive testimonials from a colleague working with Miss Davies at the time of the incidents, and the fact that Miss Davies had expressed some remorse in a letter regarding her conduct in relation to charges 3 and 4.
Colin Childs, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee found that the charges represented a serious departure from the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses and also that there was evidence that Miss Davies had put her own interests before the health and welfare of animals either by not following the instructions of veterinary surgeons or by acting unilaterally, in relation to the administration of medicines or the placement of a catheter or feeding tube during four surgical procedures.
“Since the Committee could not assess Miss Davies’ future risk or her insight in her absence, it therefore decided that removal was the only proportionate sanction because any other sanction would not protect animals or the public in the future without those matters having been adequately assessed.
Such a sanction also met the wider public interest.
“The Committee therefore directed that the Registrar remove Miss Davies from the Register of Veterinary Nurses.”
Dr Butterworth’s practice was a member of TBAS, a Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs-funded (Defra) project administered by Farmcare Solutions Ltd which provides advice to eligible farmers via its veterinary partners.
The farm to which the charges relate to was owned by Dr Bexon’s partner. It had no cattle on-site (though was still eligible for the TBAS).
Dr Butterworth was charged with signing a TBAS visit report, in which he was named as the TBAS advisor, relating to a visit to the farm in February 2023 which had, in fact, not taken place and then subsequently signed a report about a follow-up visit in July 2023 which also hadn’t taken place.
Dr Bexon was charged with signing the same two false reports as a representative of the farm in question.
Both faced a secondary charge that their actions were dishonest, misleading and risked undermining procedures relating to public health and animal welfare.
Dr Butterworth and Dr Bexon admitted all the charges against them and that these charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee also found that their actions amounted to serious professional misconduct in that they had breached three of the five key principles in the Code of Professional Conduct relating to: honesty and integrity; client confidentiality and trust; and professional accountability.
The Committee also found that the actions of both veterinary surgeons had breached the ’10 principles of certification’ outlined in the supporting guidance to the Code.
Considering Mr Butterworth’s conduct, the Committee found that there were a number of aggravating factors including: the premeditated nature of the conduct as he was the driving force behind the deceit, the fact there was financial gain as his practice would have been paid for the non-existent visits, breach of confidentiality for the farmer, breach of client trust for Farmcare Solutions Ltd, and abuse of professional position as a TBAS advisor.
For Dr Bexon the aggravating factors were breach of confidentiality for the farmer, breach of client trust for Farmcare Solutions Ltd, and the fact that, as a TBAS advisor, she should have known that physical visits to farms within the scheme were mandatory.
Paul Morris, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee considered both respondents’ conduct was liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession and undermined public confidence in the profession and the TBAS process.
"The Committee considered that members of the public would be deeply troubled that registered veterinary surgeons had behaved in this way.”
At the hearing the Committee received a large number of positive testimonials for Dr Butterworth, including three given directly to the Committee – one from a veterinary surgeon colleague and two from farmer clients.
The Committee also considered his lack of previous disciplinary history and otherwise unblemished career, open and frank admissions at an early stage, insight into his misconduct, genuine remorse and positive reflection, efforts to avoid a repetition of behaviours and evidence of a more mature approach to management, lapse of time since the incident.
Taking everything into account the Committee decided reprimanding Dr Butterworth and warning him with regard to future conduct was the most appropriate and proportionate response.
Paul added: “The Committee did give serious consideration to suspending Dr Butterworth’s registration with the College.
"Such a sanction would have sent out a clear message that this sort of behaviour is absolutely not to be tolerated.
"However, in light of the extensive mitigation, his honesty and significant insight throughout these proceedings and the unlikeliness of behaviour of this type ever being repeated, the Committee considered the public would not be best served by suspending an otherwise exemplary veterinary surgeon and that such a sanction would be disproportionate and punitive.”
"In such circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that a reprimand and warning not to behave in this way again, would provide adequate protection to animals and would satisfy the public interest.
"The Committee was persuaded that Dr Butterworth would be most unlikely to make such a flawed set of decisions again.
"Notwithstanding the serious nature of Dr Butterworth’s conduct, the Committee was satisfied that a fully informed member of the public would not be shocked if he were allowed to continue to practise.”
The Committee also received a significant number of positive testimonials for Dr Bexon, with three veterinary surgeon colleagues giving oral evidence to the Committee.
The Committee also considered her lack of disciplinary history and hitherto unblemished career, her open and frank admissions, her insight, remorse and positive reflections, her efforts to avoid repetition of the behaviours and the lapse of time since the event.
Taking everything into account, the Committee decided to reprimand Dr Bexon.
Paul said: “This was not a case where she had been motivated by any financial gain.
"Indeed, everything the Committee had read and heard about her indicated the opposite and furthermore, it was apparent that she had nothing to gain by her actions beyond satisfying Dr Butterworth.
"As already stated, the Committee acknowledged that the role played by Dr Bexon was less than that played by Dr Butterworth.
"Moreover, there was a power imbalance at play and Dr Butterworth was able to take advantage of, albeit unknowingly, Dr Bexon’s lack of self-confidence.”
"The Committee has already indicated that it believed the likelihood of her repeating such behaviour to be non-existent.
"Her significant insight, together with the reflection and remedial work she has undertaken are as much as any person could do.
"She had truly learnt her lesson in the harshest of ways.
"In the Committee’s view she did not represent any risk to animals or the public, indeed quite the contrary as she is a very able vet, in high demand by her clients.”
Ms Hickman was charged with leaving three dogs, two of which had undergone surgery the day before and one of which was in for monitoring, unattended for more than three hours on 8th November 2022, after falling asleep.
She was then charged with falsifying clinical records to suggest she had made the relevant clinical checks and offered them water when in fact, she'd been asleep.
The final charge was that her actions in falsifying the records were dishonest and misleading.
At the start of the hearing, Ms Hickman admitted all of the charges.
As the charges had been admitted, the Committee considered whether they amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In doing so it noted sections of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses that relate to making animal health and welfare a veterinary nurse’s primary concern, the need to provide veterinary nursing care that is appropriate and adequate, and the need to keep clear, accurate and detailed clinical and client records.
Dr Kathryn Peaty MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was in no doubt that the respondent’s failure to monitor properly three patients in an overnight ward in a hospital and the subsequent creation of false records to suggest that appropriate monitoring had taken place amounts to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
Having found serious professional misconduct, the Committee then went on to consider the most appropriate sanction, taking into account both aggravating and mitigating factors.
The Committee found that an adverse health condition had influenced the conduct that had led to the disciplinary hearing – including that she had unintentionally fallen asleep while she should have been monitoring the animals – and so considered this a mitigating factor.
Also, by way of mitigation, the Committee considered that Miss Hickman had fully appreciated the implications of her conduct and expressed remorse at the impact it could have on the public’s trust for the veterinary nursing profession.
It also took into account positive testimonials from current and previous employers, her hitherto unblemished career, and the fact that there was no longer any risk of repetition.
However, in terms of aggravating factors, the Committee took into account that it was a case involving dishonesty, and dishonesty which had not been admitted to the RCVS at an early stage.
In addition, it noted that the conduct involved a risk of injury to animals and a breach of trust towards the owners of those animals.
Dr Peaty added: “The Committee was satisfied that a significant period of suspension would properly reflect the gravity of the respondent’s disgraceful conduct, serve to maintain the reputation of the profession and promote and maintain proper standards of conduct.
"The Committee considered that a period of suspension of six months was sufficient to satisfy this public interest.”
Miss Hickman has 28 days from the sanction being announced to appeal the Committee’s decision.
The DC heard how, in December 2022, a labrador called Bella had been stolen from its owner.
That same month, someone who was involved in the theft presented Bella to Dr Kashiv, according to news reports telling him they'd taken the animal because it had been abused.
Dr Kashiv performed surgery to remove her microchip, so she could be re-homed without being traced.
Although there was no suggestion that Dr Khashiv had been involved in the theft, it was alleged that he knew the animal had been stolen.
In January 2024, after pleading guilty, Dr Kashiv was convicted of removing the microchip, contrary to section 5(3) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, at Stevenage Magistrates’ Court.
He was sentenced to a community order with an unpaid work requirement of 50 hours to be completed within 12 months, and ordered to pay a surcharge to fund victim services of £114 and costs of £85.
Dr Khashiv faced four charges at the RCVS disciplinary hearing, the first being that his conviction rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
The second charge was that in July 2024, at Stevenage Magistrates’ Court, Dr Kashiv had been made subject to a 5-year Criminal Behaviour Order (CBO) for failing to keep dogs he owned under control and failing to comply with previous orders.
The third charge was that Dr Kashiv’s conduct with regard to the microchip was dishonest, in that he removed it to conceal the labrador’s identity.
The final charge was that Dr Kashiv failed to keep adequate clinical records for the labrador and his conduct was thereby i) misleading and/or ii) dishonest.
From the outset, Dr Kashiv admitted charges one and two and some aspects of charge four.
However, he initially denied that his conduct was at any stage misleading or dishonest and did not accept that his conviction rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon or that the admitted charges amount to serious professional misconduct.
In a later submission, Dr Kashiv no longer disputed that his conviction rendered him unfit to practise, or that his behaviour in charges two, three and four amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee considered that in respect of his conviction, Dr Kashiv had breached paragraphs 1.1, 1.3, 6.1, 6.4 and 6.5 of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons.
It then took into account mitigating and aggravating factors.
The Committee found no mitigating factors but found the following aggravating factors:
The Committee was satisfied that this conduct fell far below the standard expected of a registered veterinary surgeon and that this rendered him unfit to practise.
In deciding on whether his conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee again took into account submissions made both by representatives for the College and for Dr Kashiv, as well as the fact that Dr Kashiv no longer disputed the assertion that his conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee found that Dr Kashiv had breached paragraphs 2.4, 2.5, 6.1, 6.4 and 6.5 of the Code in relation to charges two, three and four.
The Committee again did not find any mitigating factors but found the following aggravating factors:
With regards to charges three and four, Dr Kashiv performed a prohibited procedure on a labrador which was unjustified and resulted in a criminal conviction.
The Committee found that in carrying out the procedure he had acted dishonestly – he had removed the chip in order to conceal the identity of a pet that he knew had been taken from its home.
The dishonesty with regards to not completing any formal clinical records also related directly to his practice as a veterinary surgeon, as part of a cover-up so that nobody would know what had happened to the labrador at the practice.
The Committee was satisfied that Dr Kashiv’s conduct in relation to the labrador amounted to serious professional misconduct.
On deciding on a sanction, the Committee took into account all evidence and documents provided as well as testimonials together with submissions made on behalf of Dr Kashiv and matters of personal mitigation.
In terms of aggravating factors, it found all those already listed in findings for fitness to practise and serious professional misconduct, as well as previous convictions and adverse findings of the College and the fact that Dr Kashiv showed limited insight into his actions.
In terms of mitigating factors, it considered:
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was of the view that the nature and seriousness of Dr Kashiv’s behaviour, which led to the conviction, was fundamentally incompatible with being registered as a veterinary surgeon.”
He added: “In light of these conclusions, the Committee decided that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case was removal from the Register.
"This would not be the case if the Committee were considering the CBO matter alone, when a lesser sanction would have been appropriate.
"However, his actions with regard to the labrador, his limited insight and the fear that he could repeat such behaviour meant that removal was necessary in this case.
“In reaching this decision the Committee recognised the negative impact this would have on Dr Kashiv.
"The Committee had considered with great care all the mitigating factors and the positive statements made about him in the testimonials provided.
"However, the need to protect animal welfare, the reputation of the profession and thus the wider public interest, outweighed Dr Kashiv’s interests and the Committee concluded that removal was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15069309/Vegan-vet-Animal-Rebellion-activist-steal-pet-dog.html
Dr De Armas Jimenez faced four charges against him, that:
On or around 22 April 2022 or 23 April 2022, in relation to a cat, he a) failed to obtain informed consent to sedate/anaesthetise the cat and/or did so without the owner’s consent (admitted), b) failed to take adequate steps when the cat required emergency attention (admitted), and c) failed to provide adequate details to the owner following the cat’s death (admitted).
On or around 22 April 2022 or 23 April 2022, he a) failed to record adequate clinical record details of the cat’s sedation/anaesthetic (admitted), b) recorded when the cat became cyanotic, that i) a tube had been passed in order to intubate (proved not to have occured) and ii) chest compressions had been given when this was not the case (not proved that it did not happen), and c) failed to make adequate clinical records in relation to differential diagnoses and proposed treatment plan (not proved).
That his conduct in relation to charge 2(a) and/or 2(b) was a) dishonest and/or b) misleading. (Admitted his conduct was both dishonest and misleading in relation to 2(a), and the Committee found proved that his conduct was dishonest and/or misleading in relation to 2(b)(i)).
Between 22 April 2022 and 23 April 2022, he failed to have any professional indemnity insurance in place (admitted).
Dr De Armas Jimenez admitted most of the charges again him.
The Committee found that his actions had breached a number of sections of the RCVS Code of Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons and amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In deciding on a sanction, the Committee took into account the aggravating factor that Dr De Armas Jimenez had caused actual harm to the animal.
Mitigating factors included that he had no previous disciplinary history, that he had been working for eight years as a veterinary surgeon in the UK without complaint, that he admitted most of the charges, that he'd made subsequent efforts to avoid repetition by no longer working night shifts or locuming, and finally that the incident related to one animal.
The Committee also noted that he'd shown appreciable insight and remorse, and took into account positive character references.
Paul Morris, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Whilst the misconduct in this case involved breaches of the RCVS Code, caused serious harm to both the cat and the client, and involved dishonesty which was concealed, the Committee decided that a lengthy suspension could take account of the seriousness of these matters and meet the wider public interest.”
He added: “In deciding on this period of suspension, the Committee took into account both mitigating and aggravating factors and the mitigation Dr De Armas Jimenez had put before it.
"It was not persuaded that a shorter period of suspension would properly reflect the seriousness of the proven misconduct.
"It concluded that this period of suspension had a deterrent effect and sent a signal as to how serious the Committee had found the misconduct to be.
"It also took into account Dr De Armas Jimenez’s remorse and insight.
“However, in order that the wider public interest was upheld and to reflect the Committee’s view regarding the seriousness of the proven misconduct, the Committee determined that the proportionate sanction and period of suspension should be a suspension order of eight months.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/
Mr Seymour-Hamilton was originally struck off in 1994 after his Kent practice was found to be unhygienic and unsterile with poor record keeping.
However, he has always maintained that the reason his premises were unhygienic and unsterile was because they were closed.
As in previous applications, he said his reason for applying for restoration was to help him gain recognition for his alleged herbal and natural remedy discoveries and that he had no intention of going back into general practice.
As with previous applications, the Committee said that Mr Seymour-Hamilton has shown no real insight into the conduct underlying the original findings and nor has he shown insight into matters identified by previous restoration hearings.
The Committee also considered that Mr Seymour-Hamilton has been off the Register for some 31 years and would therefore need prolonged, intensive, formal retraining to ensure that he was now fit to practise, without which he might pose a risk to animal welfare.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton's case was not helped by the fact that he indicated that he had practised veterinary surgery while off the Register – including conducting two spay procedures in Calais, France, and treating two of his own dogs for cancer.
He also referred to having cultured faecal bacteria in a witness’ kitchen.
The Committee felt it was concerning that Mr Seymour-Hamilton thought these things were compatible with being on the Register and upholding the professional standards expected of a veterinary surgeon.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Mr Seymour-Hamilton still lacks an understanding as to why he has not been restored in the past.
"Apart from additional CPD, he has not set about effectively addressing any of his shortcomings.
"He relies passionately on his research, yet he does not support that research with any peer-reviewed publications, indeed all his attempts to gain recognition have been rebuffed.”
He added: “The Committee is firmly of the view that after such a prolonged period of failing to be reinstated as a veterinary surgeon, Mr Seymour-Hamilton has to face the reality that his continued applications, taking up time, resources and expense (which is ultimately borne by all those veterinary surgeons who are on the Register), are vexatious and ultimately unlikely to succeed.
“Whilst the College cannot prevent him from continuing to apply to be restored to the Register, Mr Seymour-Hamilton should by now realise that this is not a good use of the College’s finite resources.
"He is now 86 years old and has not practised for over thirty years and in fact has now been off the Register for longer than he was on it.
"This is now the twelfth time he has been found to be not fit to be restored to the Register.
"The Committee hopes Mr Seymour-Hamilton will now take time seriously to reflect and take into account the impact to all concerned of his continued applications, before deciding to submit any more.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
Mr Ng faced seven charges:
Mr Ng admitted some aspects of the charges against him, including that he had deleted two patient records and that this was dishonest and misleading.
The Committee then determined the facts of the rest of the charges after hearing evidence from witnesses and Mr Ng himself, as well as expert witnesses.
Having considered all the evidence, it determined which elements of the charges were proved, and which were not.
The Committee then considered whether the admitted and charges found proved amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In doing so it considered that the charges against Mr Ng fell into three broad categories – deficiencies in clinical care, deficiencies in record keeping, and dishonesty.
In respect of all three, it found the admitted and charges found proved amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee found that Mr Ng’s conduct had directly caused harm to animals and also created risk of further harm, and noted that there were three instances of dishonesty.
Paul Morris, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee noted that there were three instances of dishonest behaviour in relation to clinical records.
"The amendment of the clinical record in the labradoodle’s case was particularly serious.
"This alteration was made at a time when the respondent knew that the owner was dissatisfied with the treatment the dog had received and was complaining about the lack of therapeutic intervention.
"The alteration presented a false account of the owner’s attitude towards immediate therapeutic intervention.
"Conduct of this kind was liable to damage trust in the profession.”
In mitigation, the Committee took into account the sense of pressure Mr Ng felt following a financial dispute with his relative in respect of the veterinary practice, his long career as a veterinary surgeon and the high regard with which he was held by those who provided testimonials on his behalf.
The Committee acknowledged Mr Ng’s assertions that he now understood his failings and his expressions of remorse for the harm he had caused and that these indicated the beginnings of insight.
However, in respect of the clinical deficiencies, the Committee found that various aspects of Mr Ng’s approach to treating conditions such as diabetes and cherry eye were inadequate and out-of-date, and that there was little in his continuing professional development (CPD) record or his statements to suggest he had attempted to improve these deficiencies.
Ultimately, the Committee found that Mr Ng’s conduct was so serious that removal from the Register was the most appropriate sanction.
Paul Morris added: “The Committee has concluded that the respondent’s behaviour was fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon.
"In view of the nature and gravity of the Committee’s findings in this case, removal from the Register is necessary to ensure the protection of animals and the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.”
Mr Kane was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, suspended for 18 months in September 2024.
He was also disqualified from driving for two years until he had passed an extended driving test, and was ordered to undertake 200 hours of unpaid work within 12 months, and to pay a victim surcharge of £187.
It was alleged that the conviction rendered Mr Kane unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse.
From the outset, Mr Kane admitted the facts contained in the charge, but did not accept that this rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse.
After the criminal proceedings, Mr Kane wrote to express his deepest regret for his actions and the pain and guilt they had caused, stating that there was not a single day that had passed that he had not thought about the family that was affected by his actions, and the lifelong consequences that they now face.
He went on to express that he understood that as a member of a trusted profession, his conduct must reflect not only his clinical competence, but also his integrity and accountability.
He also noted that he had sought to recognise and address the consequences of his actions and that he is determined to make a positive contribution to society and to the profession.
The Committee found the charge proved on the basis of Mr Kane’s admission and the Certificate of Conviction.
The Committee found a number of factors relevant to the case:
The question for the Committee was whether Mr Kane’s conviction of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, when put into proper context, rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse.
This was not a conviction in any way linked to his practise and there was no suggestion that he represented any sort of a risk to animals in his care.
The Committee was not, therefore, concerned with any issues arising out of the need to protect animals, but rather with whether a finding of unfitness to practise was needed to uphold standards of conduct and behaviour in order to maintain public confidence in the profession.
Kathryn Peaty, Chair of the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee took into account the public interest which includes maintaining public confidence in the profession and the regulator and upholding proper standards in the profession.
"The public interest also includes allowing an otherwise competent veterinary nurse to continue in practice, where appropriate.
“Agreeing with the judge that this was indeed an exceptional case, the Committee did not consider that Mr Kane’s conduct was liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession and concluded that the public, in full knowledge of the circumstances of this particular case, would not expect a finding that the conviction renders him unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse.
"Rather, the public would recognise that whilst the consequences were appalling and tragic for the family involved, in terms of Mr Kane’s culpability this was a momentary piece of dangerous driving, categorised by the judge as a ‘mistake’ rather than anything more blameworthy.
“The Committee therefore concluded that Mr Kane’s conviction does not render him unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse.
"This is not to in any way detract from the catastrophic consequences for the family, but rather is to reflect the context, exceptional circumstances and level of culpability in this case.”
Mr Wood faced three charges, all relating to allegations of misconduct over a laboratory test for an alpaca while he was working at a practice in South Oxfordshire.
The charges alleged that in September 2023, Mr Wood told the alpaca’s owner that it had tested positive for Johne’s disease when in fact, the animal had not been tested.
He then allegedly sent a letter confirming a positive test result for the test that had not taken place, and then created a false test result report in the name of a veterinary surgeon colleague and sent it to another colleague by email.
He later told the alpaca's owner that he had given her the wrong result by mistake and that the test result was actually negative.
Then in October 2023, he emailed the laboratory saying that a member of his practice’s administrative staff had written the false report.
In November he told the managing partner of his then employer on three occasions that he was investigating the false report in order to find out who sent it.
Finally, he sent a misleading and dishonest email to a veterinary surgeon colleague falsely indicating that a member of the practice’s staff had manufactured the false report, when that was not the case.
At the outset of the hearing Mr Wood admitted the facts of all the allegations against him.
Having found the facts proven, the Committee found that the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, something which Mr Wood himself also admitted.
The Committee identified a number of aggravating factors in Mr Woods' conduct, including his lack of honesty, probity and integrity, the fact the conduct was premeditated, that it involved a breach of the client’s trust, the abuse of his professional position, the fact the conduct was sustained and repeated over a period of time, and that his conduct contravened advice given by the RCVS.
The mitigating factors included positive testimonials from professional former colleagues and client farmers, the fact that he had engaged in some remediation in order to avoid repeating the dishonest behaviour, and that he showed significant insight into his misconduct.
Dr Neil Slater MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee recognised that the serious repeated dishonesty, which was to conceal wrongdoing, made the respondent’s misconduct particularly serious.
“It therefore gave consideration as to whether his conduct was fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon and whether removal was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.
“The Committee considered that this was a particularly difficult case to reconcile, as, on the one hand the misconduct was so serious whereas on the other hand, the respondent had demonstrated significant insight; the risk of repetition was low; the evidence of his professional achievements was strong and the testimonials from client farmers and professional colleagues were impressive.”
He added: “The Committee considers that suspension is sufficient in the circumstances of this case to satisfy public confidence in the profession and to uphold proper professional standards of conduct and behaviour.
"The Committee therefore imposes a suspension of 18 months on the respondent.
"In determining this length, the Committee considered that this was the least period necessary in order to meet the significant public interest considerations in this case.”
Mr Georgescu faced three sets of charges:
The first was that in April 2024 at Newcastle Magistrates’ Court, he pleaded guilty to driving a car when the proportion of the controlled substance Benzoylecgonine (the main metabolite of cocaine) exceeded the specified limit contrary to the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Road Traffic Offenders Act.
He was disqualified from driving for 20 months, fined £634, ordered to pay £254 victim surcharge and £150 costs.
The second and third charges were that he was misleading and/or dishonest with the RCVS when he was asked to provide information about the circumstances leading to his conviction.
In correspondence with the College, he claimed that the incident happened on his day off, when he was in fact due to work that day.
He also submitted – or allowed to be submitted – a false staff rota for the day of his arrest.
The Disciplinary Committee found the charges against Mr Georgescu proven on the basis of the certificate of conviction and his admission, prior to the hearing, that he had given false information.
The Committee then considered whether the three charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee considered the fact that Mr Georgescu was driving, and intending to work, while he was seven times over the prescribed proportion of Benzoylecgonine allowed to be in in his bloodstream.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “With regard to the impact this conduct would have on right thinking members of the public, Dr Georgescu himself said, when cross examined, that were he standing in the shoes of an owner of an animal he was going to treat that day with the knowledge that he had in his blood more than 7 times the prescribed limit of a prohibited drug he “would not be comfortable for sure” and would cause such persons to “lose trust”.
“Having regard to the above facts and matters the Committee has no hesitation in concluding that the facts relevant to his commission of the offence in Charge 1 were so serious and presented such prospective risks to other road users that it renders the respondent unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.”
Charges 2 and 3 were considered together, with the Committee again finding serious professional misconduct on the basis that Mr Georgescu had set out to lie to the RCVS and had continued and repeated the lie for a period of six months.
The Committee identified a number of aggravating features in his conduct including the fact it was premeditated, entailed sustained and repeated dishonesty, involved wilful disregard for the role of the RCVS as the veterinary regulator and that admissions were only made when he realised he couldn’t sustain his falsehoods any longer.
Finally, having found that all charges were proven and amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee decided that suspending Mr Georgescu from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons would be adequate to protect the welfare of animals, maintain public confidence in the profession, and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct.
Paul Morris added: “The misconduct of the respondent is serious but his misconduct falls short of being fundamentally incompatible with remaining on the Register.
"He does have insight into the seriousness of his misconduct and there is, in the judgement of the Committee, no significant risk of repeat misleading behaviour.
"The Committee also considers that the respondent will be fit to return to practice after the period of suspension in question.
“The Committee did consider striking the respondent from the Register but determined that this sanction would be unduly punitive and deprive the public and the profession of an otherwise competent veterinary surgeon.
“The Committee has reflected carefully on the question of how long the period of suspension should be and has determined that it should be a period which is not so long that it will result in the loss of the respondent to the profession which he professes to love and in which his referees assert he is a capable and caring veterinary surgeon.”
Ms Bucur MRCVS faced three charges against her.
The first charge was that in April 2024, she wrote a prescription for 60 tablets of tramadol 50mg, indicating that it was for the treatment of an animal, when it was intended for the treatment of a human.
The second charge was that she allowed the prescription to be presented at a pharmacy and/or failed to stop that.
The third charge was that her conduct, in relation to the first two charges was dishonest, and misleading, and took place in circumstances where she was not professionally qualified to write a prescription for human use.
At the outset of the hearing, Ms Bucur admitted all the charges and the Committee accepted her admissions.
In relation to charge three, the Committee found that Ms Bucur had been aware that she should not have written the prescription, that she should not have indicated that it was for an animal, that she should not have deleted the prescription for the clinical record on the practice management system, and she should not have allowed or failed to prevent the prescription from being presented for dispensing.
The Committee therefore found all charges proved.
In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee considered that Ms Bucur’s conduct had given rise to a risk of injury because she was not professionally qualified or sufficiently informed to issue a prescription for tramadol, that she had acted recklessly with regard to the potential effects of a controlled, potentially addictive drug and that her conduct had been premeditated.
It also accepted the submission that there was an abuse of Ms Bucur’s professional position as a registered veterinary surgeon, because this had allowed her to issue a prescription.
The Committee also found that Ms Bucur’s conduct was aggravated by her having involved other persons in her misconduct, namely her partner, in an attempt to have the prescription dispensed.
The Committee noted that the charges involved findings of dishonesty, which is regarded at the higher end in terms of the spectrum of gravity of misconduct.
In mitigation, the Committee took into account that the facts proved related to a single incident of the issuing and attempted use of a prescription.
The Committee was of the view that the Ms Bucur’s conduct had failed to promote protection of public health and had breached the legislation around access to controlled drugs.
Even though this was a single incident, the Committee considered that members of the public, if aware of the facts, would be alarmed and concerned at Ms Bucur’s actions.
As a result, the profession could be brought into disrepute and public confidence in the profession undermined.
The Committee therefore found that Ms Bucur’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct in a professional respect.
The Committee then considered whether there were any relevant additional personal aggravating or mitigating factors.
The Committee did not find any further aggravating factors; in mitigation it noted that Ms Bucur had no previous complaints of adverse matters in her career.
The Committee accepted that Ms Bucur had made early, open and frank admissions to her conduct.
She had also offered a fulsome and genuine apology and remorse in her witness statement and in the hearing.
The Committee also accepted that she had since worked without further incident and concluded from her witness statement and evidence that she had developed full insight into her misconduct.
She was able to provide a notable number of references and testimonials which were uniform in speaking to her positive qualities as a veterinary surgeon.
The Committee was able to conclude that this has been a very serious but single lapse of judgement, and that there was a relevant context in that Ms Bucur had clearly acted out of concerns to help her father, however misguided.
There were no suggestions of harm, or risk of harm, to animals.
However, the Committee could not ignore that Ms Bucur’s misconduct had occurred in relation to a controlled drug and had contravened important protections designed to protect the public.
Neil Slater, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee balanced the effect that a suspension would have on Dr Bucur, by depriving her of the ability to practise for a period, with the public interest.
"However, it decided that, in the circumstances, the interests of protecting the public, including the wider public interest, outweighed Dr Bucur’s interests.
“The Committee decided that, in all the circumstances, a suspension was the appropriate and proportionate sanction.
“The Committee considered for how long the suspension should be imposed.
"It considered that the suspension was not required to allow for Dr Bucur to gain any further insight.
"It would purely be required to mark the Committee’s disapproval of Dr Bucur’s misconduct, as a signal to the public and to the profession.
"The Committee concluded that the least period required in all the circumstances is two months.
“The Committee therefore directed to the Registrar that Dr Bucur’s registration be suspended for a period of two months.”
Miss Johnson was convicted at North Somerset Magistrates’ Court following a guilty plea of the offence of theft by employee in December 2023, after she stole buprenorphine belonging to Yatton Vets earlier that year.
She was sentenced to a fine of £120, a surcharge of £48, and costs of £85.
There were four further charges against Miss Johnson.
Charge one related to Miss Johnson stealing 5ml of methadone in December 2022 from her employer, Vets4Pets in Bristol, and injecting herself with the methadone.
The police investigated the incident and Miss Johnson accepted a conditional caution for the theft, the condition being she should attend a drug awareness course.
Charge two related to Miss Johnson dishonestly taking a syringe of methadone in August 2023 from her employer, the Langford Small Animal Hospital, and injecting herself with it.
Charge three related to two dates in September 2023 when she dishonestly took methadone, gabapentin and buprenorphine from Yatton Vets, her then employer, injecting herself with the buprenorphine and then working when unfit to do so.
Miss Johnson was later convicted of theft in relation to the buprenorphine (charge five).
Charge four related to an incident in November 2023, when Miss Johnson dishonestly took a syringe of buprenorphine from Bristol PDSA, for the purposes of self-administration, and was dishonest both to other members of staff and in the clinical records about the circumstances of taking the buprenorphine.
Charge five was in relation to Miss Johnson’s criminal conviction.
At the outset of the hearing, Miss Johnson admitted all charges in their entirety.
Having reviewed all the evidence and taken Miss Johnson’s admissions into account, the Committee found each of the charges proved.
After the criminal proceedings had finished and had been reported to the College, Miss Johnson wrote a letter expressing her deepest apologies to both the RCVS and the profession.
Within this she also made it clear that she took full responsibility for her actions.
In a later statement, she added that she had tried to use the experience to learn and improve in every aspect of her career and life and did not want to defend her behaviour.
Within this statement she also retracted a previous request to resign from the register, stating that she would accept any outcome to the investigation.
In deciding whether the proved charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee took the following aggravating factors into account:
The Committee identified no mitigating factors and concluded that for each of the individual charges Miss Johnson’s conduct fell far short of the conduct expected of a member of the profession and that each of the charges one to four amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In relation to charge five, the criminal conviction, the Committee noted that the nature and the circumstances of the offence involved dishonesty, abuse of her professional position regarding access to controlled drugs, breach of her employer’s trust, and that the misconduct took place notwithstanding an investigation by the police for similar conduct in December 2022.
The Committee therefore concluded that charge five rendered Miss Johnson unfit to practise.
When deciding on a sanction, the Committee took into account mitigating factors, which included:
The Committee found no further aggravating factors at this stage.
Kathryn Peaty, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf said: “The Committee considered that the overall misconduct proved so serious and was incompatible with remaining on the register.”
She added: “The Committee accepted that Miss Johnson was currently likely to be drug-free on the basis of her evidence and that of her referee, but it noted that independent testing proving she had been drug free for any period of time was not available to it.
"Furthermore, Miss Johnson had been unable to demonstrate that she had worked without any incident recently as she had accepted she had been dismissed from her recent job.
“Having taken into account all of the aggravating and mitigating factors, and balancing the public interest and the need to uphold and maintain standards within the profession, and having decided that Miss Johnson’s insight was limited, the Committee concluded that the sanction of ‘removal’ was the only proportionate sanction it could impose in this case.
"It also decided that such a sanction maintained public confidence in the veterinary profession, safeguarded animal welfare and protected the public from any future risk of repetition of similar behaviour.
“The Committee therefore directed that the Registrar remove Miss Johnson’s name from the register of veterinary nurses forthwith.”
Ms Bowler faced four sets of charges, each of which contained sub-charges, summarised as follows:
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 mitigation:
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.”
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.
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.”
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.”
Miss Miles and her co-defendants mistakenly believed that the animals, which included a lamb, hens, piglets, goats, a calf, dogs and a pig, were in poor condition.
They went to steal the animals from their owners' property after dark, dressed in dark clothing; some in balaclavas.
Miss Miles was sentenced to a community order for a period of 18 months rehabilitation activity requirement and 100 hours unpaid work rehabilitation, to pay £250 compensation, an £85 victim surcharge, and £400 in costs.
The Committee found that the facts of the case were proved on admission by Miss Miles and on the basis that they accepted the copy of the Certificate of Conviction.
Deciding on Miss Miles’ fitness to practise, the Committee considered the evidence before it and the advice of the Legal Assessor.
It also considered the transcript of remarks of the sentencing judge, as well as the fact that the events which led to the convictions occurred while Miss Miles was a registered veterinary nurse with the RCVS.
In terms of mitigating factors, the Committee considered that there was no financial gain associated with Miss Miles’ actions.
In terms of aggravating factors, it noted the risk of injury to animals, that Miss Miles’ behaviour was pre-meditated, that individuals had been targeted in their own homes after dark, the stress and emotional harm to the owners, and that there had been repeated criminal offending.
The Committee also considered Miss Miles’ motivations in respect of animal welfare in coming to its decision.
However, it assessed the offences to be serious, taking into account their nature and circumstances.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was aware that breaches of the Code do not in themselves mean that the respondent is unfit to practise by reason of the conviction.
"However, the Committee took into account the nature and circumstances of the conviction and also considered the wider public interest.
"The Committee was satisfied that the respondent’s behaviour which led to the conviction created a real risk of harm to the animals in question, as was clear from the basis upon which the respondent was sentenced.
“Further, the behaviour which led to the conviction for the repeated offences in the circumstances in question brings the veterinary nursing profession into disrepute.
"To find otherwise would undermine public confidence in the profession and fail to uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.
“Accordingly, the Committee found that the conviction, set out in the charge, renders the respondent unfit to practise.”
When determining an appropriate sanction, the Committee considered the same aggravating factors it had evaluated when assessing fitness to practice. However, further mitigating factors, in addition to the fact that Miss Miles had no financial gain, included:
The Committee considered the testimonials and character references which attested to Miss Miles’ exemplary practice, integrity, professionalism, compassionate approach to animals, commitment to animal welfare, work in educating others in animal welfare, and commitment to campaigning for animal welfare.
However, it was noted that Miss Miles gave the impression to the Committee that while she accepted that it was wrong to commit the criminal offences, she also believed that her intention to protect the animals’ welfare was a justification.
Speaking on the sanction, Paul Morris said: “The Committee was of the view that the conviction was particularly serious, in that it involved offences of dishonesty on a repeated basis.
"The Committee also took into account that the respondent has invoked her beliefs to undermine an aspect of the sentencing judge’s remarks and has used those beliefs to justify her actions at the time before this Committee.
“However, the risk of re-offending is low and, as already stated, the Committee accepts the respondent’s assertion that she does not intend to break the law again, and the Committee is assured in this regard by the lack of repetition in the last six years.
"There was insight shown by the respondent into the effect of her conviction on public trust and confidence in the profession.
"The Committee weighed the demands of the public interest, as well as the previously stated mitigating and aggravating factors.
"In all the circumstances of this particular case, the Committee concluded that both a reprimand and a warning as to future conduct is sufficient and proportionate to meet the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards.”
The Committee went on to consider an order of suspension but decided that this would serve no useful purpose in light of the low risk of repetition of criminal offending, the nature of which was unconnected to her daily role as an RVN.
It could see no identifiable risk to animals now and in the future.
The Committee decided that to impose a suspension would be punitive and disproportionate.
The reprimand and warning sanction imposed on the respondent will remain on her RCVS record indefinitely and will be taken into consideration should there be any future misconduct.
George Philippus Hauptfleisch faced three charges in relation to allegations of clinical failings surrounding three patients:
The first charge surrounded the allegations that in 2018, Mr Hauptfleisch failed to provide appropriate and adequate care to Steel, a Cane Corso Mastiff, in that he performed surgery outside of his competence, failed to offer a reasonable range of treatment options as alternatives, failed to make adequate enquiries about the possibility of a referral to a specialist, failed to obtain informed consent to the surgery, and failed to maintain adequate clinical records.
The second charge, in relation to a German Shepherd, alleged that in 2019, Mr Hauptfleisch failed to provide appropriate and adequate care when he undertook surgery which was outside of his competence and failed to undertake the surgery to an adequate standard, failed to note sufficient details to show that informed consent for the surgery had been obtained, and failed to maintain adequate clinical records.
The third charge, in relation to a Retriever, alleged that Mr Hauptfleisch failed to provide appropriate and adequate care with regards to surgery he performed when it was outside of his competence, failed to undertake the surgery to an adequate standard, failed to note sufficient details that showed informed consent had been obtained, and failed to maintain adequate clinical records.
Prior to the hearing, Mr Hauptfleisch made an application to the Committee to dispose of the matter by way of adjournment for an indefinite period, against his undertakings to request the Registrar to remove him from the Register, and never to seek restoration to the Register.
In deciding whether to grant the application, the Committee took into account a number of factors.
These included the fact that Mr Hauptfliesch had, in December 2021, returned to South Africa, after a career of over 32 years in the UK, and now resides there permanently, the fact that he has no intention of moving back to the UK, and that he had not practised as a veterinary surgeon since the day he left.
He had also removed himself from the equivalent register in South Africa and the Committee noted that the RCVS would inform the South African Veterinary Council of the outcome of these proceedings.
The Committee also noted that there were no previous disciplinary findings against him, that Mr Hauptfleisch now spends the majority of his time undertaking charitable activities, including running a mentoring programme for young people, and, that he expressed deep regret for anything which he did or did not do which failed to protect the welfare of animals or caused upset to his clients and fellow members of the profession.
Mr Hauptfleisch also drew attention to the fact that the charges did not allege dishonesty and that the reputation of the profession would be upheld as Mr Hauptfleisch would no longer practise as a veterinary surgeon and would not return to practise.
Therefore, it would not be proportionate, nor in the public interest, for there to be a lengthy contested hearing resulting in substantial costs for both the RCVS and for Mr Hauptfleisch.
Hilary Lloyd, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Taking into account the removal from the Register and the respondent’s undertaking never to apply for restoration, in conjunction with all of the circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that allowing the application would be sufficient to uphold the public interest, confidence in the profession and the RCVS as a regulator, and protect the welfare of animals.
“As a result of all the factors set out, and taking into account the nature of the charges which relate to the alleged inadequate standard of clinical practice, the Committee decided that this is not a case in which there were wider issues relevant to the profession at large, such as those which had public policy implications and which required full consideration at a hearing.
“The Committee was satisfied that neither the public interest nor the welfare of animals demands that there be a full hearing in this case.
“Taking into account proportionality and weighing in the balance all the circumstances of the case, the interests of justice, the public interest, the need to uphold proper standards of conduct and performance, and the need to protect the welfare of animals, the Committee decided to grant the respondent’s application.”
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.”