Miss Herdman faced three charges.
The first was that she indicated to a friend that she would supply diazepam and/or tramadol for use by their husband.
The second was that she supplied diazepam and/or tramadol and/or gabapentin.
The third was that she gave advice on the dosages of diazepam and/or tramadol and/or gabapentin.
Miss Herdman was not present at the hearing and was unrepresented, but the Committee determined that it was appropriate to proceed in her absence as she had been notified, was aware that the hearing was taking place and her absence was voluntary.
However, Miss Herdman had been in contact to indicate her pleas to the charges.
She admitted the intention to supply diazepam and/or tramadol and that she had provided advice on the dosages.
She also admitted that she had supplied diazepam but strongly denied that she had supplied tramadol and/or gabapentin.
Taking all the evidence into account (including messages sent by Miss Herdman and her admissions), the Committee found proven the charges in relation to the intent to supply and the advice on dosages.
The Committee also found proven the charge in relation to the supply of diazepam, but found not proved the charge relating to the supply of tramadol and gabapentin for several reasons, including the fact that the messages sent by Miss Herdman did not point unequivocally to her actually suppling each of the drugs to which she referred.
There was no suggestion that the diazepam was stolen from her place of work.
The Committee found that Miss Herdman’s actions had breached paragraphs 1.5 and 6.5 of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses.
The committee judged that there were a number of aggravating features of Miss Herdman’s conduct, including that she was not qualified or authorised to prescribe medication to animals, let alone to human beings and that providing a controlled drug to a person who was already taking various painkilling medications was reckless.
The Committee also felt that a reasonable and informed member of the public would be very concerned to learn that a veterinary nurse had supplied a controlled drug to a friend for their personal use.
Regarding the sanction for Miss Herdman, Paul Morris, chairing the Veterinary Nursing Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Drawing all the material together, and considering the matter as a whole, the Committee had to impose a proportionate sanction for an isolated incident of serious professional misconduct which arose out of a misguided attempt to help a friend.
"The conduct in question was entirely out of keeping with Miss Herdman’s usual practice and there is no real risk that it will be repeated.
"However, this case was much too serious to take no further action and no useful purpose would be served by postponing a sanction.
“The Committee considered that a warning or reprimand would not be sufficient to satisfy the public interest as veterinary nurses are trusted by the public to deal with medication responsibly and failure to do constitutes a severe breach of trust.
“The Committee therefore considered a period of suspension sufficient to meet the public interest in maintaining the reputation of the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct for members of the profession.
“The Committee also considered whether a removal order would be appropriate but concluded it would be disproportionate and that such a step would remove from the profession an experienced, competent and valuable veterinary nurse for no discernible benefit.
“It was decided that Miss Herdman’s registration be suspended for a period of three months – a period which is sufficient to mark the gravity of the misconduct while taking into account the circumstances in which it arose.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/
Those who pay their fees after 30 April 2017 will be charged an extra £35 to renew their registration while those who have not paid by 31 May 2017 will be removed from the Register.
You will also need to confirm your registration details, confirm you've met the RCVS requirement for continuing professional development of 105 hours over a three-year rolling period and disclose any new or previously undisclosed convictions, cautions or adverse findings.
The annual renewal can be completed by logging into the ‘My Account’ area of the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/login). For those members who do not have a valid email address, or have requested a hard copy of the renewal form, a form has been sent by post.
Any veterinary surgeons who have not received their annual renewal form or security details for the ‘My Account’ area by 7 March should contact the RCVS Registration Department on 020 7202 0707 or registration@rcvs.org.uk as soon as possible.
Those with queries about paying the annual renewal fee should contact the RCVS Finance Team on 020 7202 0723 or finance@rcvs.org.uk
Two new Postgraduate Deans have been appointed by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons to advise and monitor new veterinary surgeons during their Professional Development Phase (PDP), the first stage in veterinary continuing professional development.
Jill Hubbard, a partner at Cibyn Veterinary Surgery, Caernarfon, and organiser of BVA North Wales' young graduate meetings, and Nicky Paull, a former BVA President with extensive experience of running veterinary practices and understanding of the needs of veterinary graduates, were selected from over 40 applicants. They join existing Deans, Professor Agnes Winter and Julian Wells, and replace Professor David Noakes and Stephen Ware, who are retiring from the role having served since 2007, when PDP first became a requirement for veterinary graduates.
Jill Hubbard said: "I have always had a particular interest in how we support and guide our new graduates. This seemed a way of being actively involved - a useful niche to try and fill."
Nicky Paull said: "The development of young veterinary graduates has been of special interest to me for some years. In employing young veterinary surgeons, meeting recent graduates through my political work and the time spent with undergraduates through extra-mural studies and the Society of Practising Veterinary Surgeons' final year student seminars, I'm aware of the need for help and guidance for development of the young vets who are joining our profession."
The PDP applies to every newly qualified veterinary surgeon. It consists of an online record which the vet completes, and which is signed off by a Postgraduate Dean. This helps new vets and their employers check that sufficient experience is being gained so that the vet can progress from the 'Day-One competencies' of a new graduate to those expected of a vet with about a year's in-practice experience.
Ceredigion veterinary surgeon Robert Alun Merfyn Evans has been suspended from the Register for six months by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after he admitted to misconduct relating to tuberculin testing for cattle he owned and failing to register the births and deaths of cattle.
Mr Evans appeared before the Committee on the 11th February, when he admitted the two heads of charge of misconduct against him.
The first head of charge related to the fact that, between 24 June and 29 June 2013, he deliberately failed to bring to attention of Wyn Lewis MRCVS, an Official Veterinarian (OV) and fellow director of Mr Evans’ practice in Cardigan, the cattle on his farm requiring intradermal comparative tuberculin tests; that he tested certain of the cattle himself despite not being the OV for those tests and having a conflict of interest; and that he provided inaccurate and incomplete information to his practice for the completion of a report on the testing to be sent to the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency (AHVLA). This misconduct was then repeated the following year between 19 June and 1 August 2014.
The second head of charge against Mr Evans related to breaches of the Cattle Identification (Wales) Regulations 2007 between 4 July 2005 and 20 June 2014, namely the fact that he failed to register the birth of five calves and the death of nine cows. These were accepted as being specimen charges reflecting a much larger total number of breaches over the whole nine year period.
Mr Evans’ misconduct first came to light when a late return was sent to the AHVLA in August 2014 regarding the TB testing of 51 live animals on his farm in June 2014. When the report was scrutinised the AHVLA noticed that 26 animals shown on the return as dead were still registered, while 20 animals that were tested were not registered. When the AHVLA investigated, Mr Evans immediately admitted that he had misled Mr Lewis on two occasions and carried out his own testing despite not being the OV.
The Committee heard that he did this because he did not want it to be found out that he had unregistered cattle on his farm. Regarding the unregistered cattle, the Committee heard that this stemmed from a mistake made by Mr Evans in 2005 or 2006 whereby he mislaid a batch of around nine bovine passport application forms sent to him to register the birth of calves on his farm, a legal requirement for the purposes of animal health, disease control and safeguarding the food chain.
As a result of poor IT skills and being profoundly deaf, Mr Evans felt unable to seek support online or by telephone, was too embarrassed to tell others and, furthermore, felt that it was impossible to correct his mistake without being in breach of the law. So, for a period of nine or 10 years, he failed to register the birth of calves on his farm. His failure to register the deaths of cattle, was also caused by administrative failings. His breaches of the cattle registration regulations were subject to criminal proceedings and on 14 October 2015 he plead guilty at Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire Magistrates Court to 14 offences for which he was given a conditional discharge for 18 months and ordered to pay costs of £1,000.
The Committee considered that a suspension from the Register would be in line with the seriousness of the charges against Mr Evans. Professor Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee agrees that the lengthy period over which these offences took place, his betrayal of his colleague, and the undermining of the reputation of the profession and of the system of disease control, taken together with his dishonesty, make it impossible to impose a lesser sanction than suspension.
"The Committee finds that the respondent, who is a man of good character, has fully accepted his guilt, and has real insight into the seriousness of his conduct. He cooperated fully with the investigations and with the County Council who prosecuted him in the Magistrates [Court], and with the College. He made an open and frank admission about his misconduct from the outset.
"The course of conduct on which he embarked and which has led to these charges was the result of a simple mistake at a time of considerable stress to him. He was not guilty of deliberate misconduct at the outset but… what started as an innocent mistake took on a life of its own and led him to deliberate and dishonest misconduct because he did not know how to get himself out of the predicament he was in."
Professor Barr also said that there was no financial gain in Mr Evans’ actions and that animal welfare had not been compromised as the cattle were well cared for and in good health and that Mr Evans’ actions in carrying out the tuberculin tests on the unregistered cattle himself demonstrated that he was concerned about identifying any disease in his herd.
He added: “In all the circumstances the Committee has decided a proportionate sanction is that the respondent’s registration should be suspended for a period of six months.”
The Committee’s full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
The RCVS is encouraging vets to nominate members of their nursing team for this year's VN Golden Jubilee Award, which recognises exceptional contribution to veterinary nursing.
The award was launched in 2011 to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the first RCVS veterinary nursing training course and recognises those who have made an outstanding contribution to the profession, animal welfare and/or patient care. Nominees can be registered veterinary nurses, veterinary surgeons or lay people.
Nomination forms need to be submitted by 5pm on Friday 24 April. The principal nominator must be a registered veterinary nurse or veterinary surgeon, although the two supporting proposers can be lay people.
Kathy Kissick, Chair of VN Council, said: "One of the main priorities of VN Council in the coming years is to raise levels of awareness of registered veterinary nurses, and awards which recognise the importance of VNs in the context of the veterinary team and animal welfare are crucial to enhancing the profession's profile.
"Therefore I would encourage veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons to think about those VNs who go above and beyond the call of duty for their cause and who would be excellent ambassadors for the profession and nominate them for the Golden Jubilee Award."
Last year's winner was Hayley Walters who was recognised for her contribution to animal welfare through her teaching, clinical and international outreach work. Previous recipients were Jean Turner in 2011 and Sue Badger in 2012. No award was made in 2013.
The nomination form for the VN Golden Jubilee Award can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk/goldenjubilee
The winner will be chosen by a panel of VN Council members and will receive the Award at RCVS Day - the College's Annual General Meeting and Awards Day - on Friday 10 July 2015.
For further information about making a nomination for the award contact Annette Amato, Deputy Head of Veterinary Nursing, on a.amato@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0713.
There were two charges against Dr Mulvey. The first was that, between May and October 2018, she failed to provide the clinical history for an English Cocker Spaniel named Henry to the Tremain Veterinary Group, despite numerous requests. Also, that between August 2018 and October 2018, she failed to respond adequately or at all to Henry’s owner's requests for information, particularly his clinical records and details of insurance claims made for Henry by her practice.
The second charge was that in January/February 2019, she failed to respond to reasonable requests from the RCVS, particularly in relation to her treatment of Henry, her continuing professional development (CPD) and the status of her Professional Indemnity Insurance.
At the beginning of the hearing, Dr Mulvey admitted the facts and conduct alleged in the charges and also admitted that when her conduct was considered cumulatively, she was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Committee, having considered the evidence provided by the College and Dr Mulvey’s admissions found all the facts and conduct to be proved.
The Committee also concluded that Dr Mulvey's failure to respond to Henry's owners and to the College amounted to disgraceful conduct both when considered individually and cumulatively.
In respect of the first charge, the Committee decided that Dr Mulvey had breached the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons by failing to provide clinical records or details of insurance claims.
This was an administrative part of the function of a veterinary surgeon’s role and that failure to provide clients with such information was unacceptable and fell far short of acceptable professional standards. The Committee noted that Dr Mulvey’s failure to provide details of insurance claims had occurred because she had not made those claims, despite offering to do so.
With regard to the second charge, the Committee concluded that Dr Mulvey’s failure to respond to five requests from the College for information about Henry was unacceptable.
The Committee also considered that the omissions took place in the context of Dr Mulvey’s previous Disciplinary Committee hearing in April 2018 during which she agreed to a number of undertakings including supervision on her professional practice by an appointed supervisor. It therefore decided that her failure to provide evidence of her CPD and Professional Indemnity Insurance to the College each individually amounted disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Committee then went on to consider the sanction for Dr Mulvey in relation to the both charges that it had found proved and also in respect of the charges it had found proved at its earlier hearing on 26 April 2018 for which sanction had been postponed for a period of 1 year to enable Dr Mulvey to comply with undertakings she gave to the Committee to ensure that her practice met RCVS Core Standards by May 2019.
The Committee heard from Mr Stuart King MRCVS who had been appointed to act as a Workplace Supervisor for Dr Mulvey during the period of her Undertakings. Mr King provided the Committee with a report upon the extent to which Dr Mulvey had complied with the terms of her undertakings including the extent which she had implemented Dr King’s numerous recommendations.
The Committee also heard from Dr Byrne MRCVS an inspector for the RCVS’s voluntary Practice Standards Scheme that Dr Mulvey’s practice, when inspected by him in early April 2019, had not met RCVS PSS Core standards in a number of areas.
The Committee heard from Dr Mulvey and her Counsel that she accepted that she had not met RCVS Core standards as she had undertaken to do.
In reaching its decision as to sanction for all the matters, the Committee took into account that Dr Mulvey’s misconduct overall was serious because it was repeated.
The Committee also considered aggravating and mitigating factors.
Aggravating factors included the fact that the misconduct was sustained or repeated over a period of time (in relation to charge 1 for a period of approximately 4 months and in relation to charge 2 for approximately 6 weeks).
Other aggravating factors include the fact that Dr Mulvey’s conduct contravened advice issued by the Professional Conduct Department in letters sent to her, and that she had wilfully disregarded the role of the RCVS and the systems that regulate the veterinary profession.
Mitigating factors included that: there was no harm to any animal; there was no financial gain for Dr Mulvey or any other party; there was no ulterior motive behind Dr Mulvey’s conduct; and that Dr Mulvey had in fact both completed her minimum CPD requirement and secured Professional Indemnity Insurance, demonstrating that she had not attempted to hide such information from the College.
It also took into account that Dr Mulvey, prior to the first Disciplinary Committee’s hearing in 2018, worked without any previous disciplinary findings against her from 1976 to 2018. The Committee also noted that she had made efforts to comply with some of the undertakings.
Mr Ian Green, Chair of the DC and speaking on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, said: "The Committee considered that a warning or reprimand was not an appropriate sanction that would meet the public interest. Instead, the Committee decided that a suspension order for a period of six months would allow Dr Mulvey sufficient time to focus on ensuring her practice met the Core Standards set out in the Practice Standards Scheme, without the daily demands of practising as a veterinary surgeon, and was a proportionate and sufficient sanction to meet the public interest.
"The Committee was satisfied that a period of six months met the public interest as it was sanctioning Dr Mulvey for two sets of similar misconduct which we had determined overall as serious. The Committee also believed that during these six months Dr Mulvey could reflect and reorganise her practice, and there would be little risk to animals and the public in her returning to practice."
Dr Mulvey has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.
The two surveys, for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses respectively, ask the professions a wide range of both quantitative and qualitative questions, covering everything from what they do in a typical working day, to career aspirations, to levels of mental and physical wellbeing.
The surveys are confidential and anonymous.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, said: “Our Surveys of the Professions are not just a useful and interesting snapshot of the veterinary professions at a particular moment in time, but are really consequential in terms of what we do with the results.
"For example, information from the previous surveys were used to inform our current Strategic Plan, including our mission to be a compassionate regulator, ongoing support for the Mind Matters Initiative, and a focus on workforce-related issues.
"In a similar spirit, this year’s results will inform the forthcoming RCVS Strategic Plan.
“Of course, the quality of the results of the surveys really depends on hearing from as many of you as possible – so we would like veterinary professionals from all parts of the UK as well as our overseas members, from all backgrounds, of all ages and working on all different disciplines to feed into all areas of the surveys and help us with our research.
"Please don’t miss out on having your say, and a huge thank you for taking the time to support this important work.”
The deadline for completing the survey is on or before Friday 16 February 2024.
Organisations including British Veterinary Association (BVA) and the Society of Practising Veterinary Surgeons (SPVS) also responded to the consultation on behalf of members.
The College’s Education Department is now in the process of analysing the consultation responses.
Christine Warman, Head of Education at the RCVS, said: "We are very pleased with the number of responses we have received to this consultation which demonstrates what an important issue CPD, and our approach to it going forward, is for the profession. I am also glad that there was a good split of responses between veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses as it is important we get as wide a range of views as possible from a wide range of individuals. I’d like to thank everyone who took the time to give us their views.
"Over the coming weeks we will be going through each response with a view to preparing proposals on the next steps for our CPD Working Party’s September meeting."
Proposals are expected to go to the Education Committee and to VN Council in October and then to the November meeting of RCVS Council.
However, when asked by VetSurgeon.org which audience - veterinary professionals, it's staff or the public - it was referring to, or what threats to safety and wellbeing were posed by X, the College refused point blank to answer.
So the real motivation remains unclear.
On the one hand, it could be a ridiculously over-sensitive move to protect its unknown audience from opinions that its staff find objectionable.
On the other hand, it could perfectly well be argued that short form social media reduces every discussion or debate to "I'm effing right and you're effing wrong", which is not appropriate for a scientific profession.
Equally, one could also argue that engaging in polarised debate online is not terribly good for one's wellbeing.
Or one could just argue that it's a terrible platform owned by a strangely meddlesome and interfering American.
However, given the College's strange refusal to expand on the reasons for its withdrawal, the first explanation seems more likely.
But who knows?
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/news/rcvs-statement-on-x-formerly-twitter/
Dr Russell, 64, who waived his right to attend the hearing, was convicted in 2023 of three offences: making indecent photographs of a child, possessing 2,280 prohibited images of a child and possessing 109 extreme pornographic images that included moving images that were grossly offensive.
After pleading guilty to making indecent photographs/pseudo-photographs of a child, possessing a prohibited image of a child, and possessing extreme pornographic image/images portraying sexual acts with an animal, Dr Russell was sentenced at Winchester Crown Court to a two-year community order, a 30-day Rehabilitation Activity Requirement, 150 hours of community service and a forfeiture and destruction order of Seagate Drive, Toshiba hard drive and Lenovo tablet.
In addition, he was required to register with the police for 5 years and made subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for five years.
He was also required to pay prosecution costs of £425 and £60 victim surcharge.
Counsel for the College submitted to the Disciplinary Committee that the nature and circumstances of the offences rendered Dr Russell unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
The Committee considered there to be several aggravating factors including, actual (albeit indirect) injury to an animal or child; the risk of harm to an animal or child; sexual misconduct; premeditated conduct; and, that the offences involved vulnerable children and animals.
Neil Slater, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee has reached the conclusion that Dr Russell’s behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon, namely grave offences of a sexual nature.
"Dr Russell’s behaviour was so serious that removal of professional status and the rights and privileges accorded to that status is considered to be the only means of protecting the wider public interest and of maintaining confidence in the profession.
“The Committee has not taken this decision lightly, and, lest it be misinterpreted, it has not taken it in order to satisfy any notional public demand for blame and punishment.
"It has taken the decision because, in its judgment, the reputation of the profession has to be at the forefront of its thinking and ultimately this is more important than the interests of Dr Russell.
"The decision is not simply based on the fact that these offences were of a sexual nature but because they were repeated over a significant period of time and at a time when Dr Russell must have known, on his own plea of guilty, that what he was doing was wrong.
"Further, the Committee can discern no evidence that Dr Russell has insight into the gravity of the offence he has committed.
"The Committee has therefore directed the Registrar to remove his name from the Register forthwith.”
Dr Russell has 28 days from being notified of his removal from the Register to lodge an appeal with Privy Council.
The nomination period closes at 5pm on Wednesday 31 January 2018 with the election period set to start in mid-March and close at 5pm on Friday 27 April 2018.
Candidates need to submit a nomination form, contact details, a short biography and candidate statement and supply a high-resolution digital photograph to use in print and online materials.
In order for a candidacy to be accepted they will also need two nominators who should be veterinary surgeons on the RCVS Register but who are not current members of RCVS Council.
Registered addresses and original (hard copy) signatures of both the nominee and the proposers are required on the form in order for it to be valid.
The RCVS is also reminding candidates that the College is currently preparing for a change in its governance arrangements, including a reduction in the size of Council, as outlined in a Legislative Reform Order (LRO) that was agreed by Council members in March 2016.
As it stands, members of the profession are still electing six candidates to RCVS Council in the 2018 elections. However, if the LRO completes the legislative process and is passed by both Houses of Parliament, then only the three candidates with the most votes will take up their places as members of RCVS Council.
There will be no elections to VN Council this year as a decision was made to reduce the number of elected members.
More information on how to stand as a candidate for RCVS Council, as well as nomination forms, guidance notes and frequently asked questions, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil18
The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has directed that the name of a veterinary surgeon who had been practising in Essex be removed from the RCVS Register, having found him guilty of attempting to obtain medicines dishonestly.
James Alexander Lockyear, a graduate from Pretoria University in South Africa, was charged with two offences. The case was heard in his absence, although the Committee did not draw any adverse inference from this. One charge concerned his attempted purchase of steroids from a pharmacy in Colchester by dishonestly representing that the medicine was for legitimate veterinary use. The second charge related to several instances of what the Committee referred to as "inappropriate and unprofessional behaviour", including showing an offensive image to another staff member on a mobile phone, placing the testicle of a castrated dog in his mouth and the misuse of an endotracheal tube.
All of the incidents had taken place between April 2008 and September 2009, while Mr Lockyear was practising as a locum veterinary surgeon at St Runwald's Veterinary Surgery, Colchester, Essex.
The Disciplinary Committee heard evidence from a pharmacist, Mr Noble, to whom Mr Lockyear had presented an incomplete veterinary prescription for 12 ampoules of Sustanon, a prescription-only anabolic steroid for humans, and a further pharmacist, Mr Foskett MRPharmS, who outlined his suspicions that the steroids were in fact for Mr Lockyear's personal use (Sustanon is a substance which can potentially be misused in relation to body-building). Mr Lockyear had originally claimed the drugs were for general stock at the practice; he later returned with a second prescription, for double the amount of Sustanon, claiming it was for his own dog; later again, he said the prescription was for a friend's dog.
The Committee also heard evidence from the veterinary owner of the practice, a veterinary nurse and a student veterinary nurse working in the practice team, and from Dr Maddison MRCVS, an expert on small animal clinical pharmacology. Dr Maddison informed the Committee that there was a veterinary alternative to Sustanon, so it was not necessary for that drug to have been sought by Mr Lockyear. She was also of the view that Sustanon would not have been suitable to treat the ailments for which Mr Lockyear claimed it was to be used.
The Committee found Mr Lockyear guilty of the first charge - that is attempting to obtain medicines dishonestly. Chairing the Disciplinary Committee, Mrs Alison Bruce, said: "Whilst it was a one-off incident, it is conduct which falls far short of that which is expected of a member of the profession. It involves serious dishonesty; it represents an abuse of a veterinary surgeon's authority to prescribe drugs; it is conduct which tends to undermine public trust in the profession, and the honesty of its members; it is conduct which compromised other professionals, the pharmacists involved, and undermined the trust which ought to exist between pharmacists and veterinary surgeons generally, in the important area of drug prescription." The Committee therefore directed that Mr Lockyear's name be removed from the Register.
Regarding the second charge, the Committee was most concerned about the incident relating to the dog's testicles, which it felt offended against Mr Lockyear's duty to treat with respect all animals which were his patients. Taking the three incidents as a whole, the Committee felt that Mr Lockyear should be seriously criticised for behaviour that was "unprofessional... juvenile, inappropriate, disgusting and offensive". However, they felt that the conduct was not malicious, and did not occur in the presence of a member of the public, so concluded that this did not amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The RCVS has removed 563 veterinary surgeons from the Register from 1 June for non-payment of retention fees.
A list of those who remained off the Register as of 31 July 2012 is available here: www.rcvs.org.uk/removals2012.
The College says it is publicising the list to help make sure that those who have been removed, and their employers, are aware; it includes only those not restored prior to 31 July.
Christine Fraser, RCVS Head of Registration said: “If you know anyone who appears on this list and who is still working in the UK, you may wish to advise them they need to contact the RCVS as a matter of urgency to restore their name to the Register."
The RCVS is asking veterinary surgeons who have not yet confirmed their registration details, which is now part of the annual renewal process, to please make sure this is done by 30 September. A form was enclosed with the annual fee-reminder, or this can be done online at www.rcvs.org.uk/registration.
Information about how veterinary surgeons removed after non-payment can restore themselves to the Register is available at www.rcvs.org.uk/registration, or by contacting the RCVS Registration Department (membership@rcvs.org.uk or 0207 202 0707).
A man who worked as a veterinary surgeon in Wiltshire, despite being neither qualified nor registered with RCVS, has received a 20-month sentence at Swindon Crown Court.
Peter Keniry (also known as Patrick Keniry), from Great Yarmouth, had been practising under the name of a properly qualified and legitimately registered veterinary surgeon, and was arrested on 23 August. At his initial hearing in Swindon Magistrates' Court, Mr Keniry pleaded guilty to charges of fraud by misrepresentation and unlawfully practising as a veterinary surgeon, and was released on bail.
At the Crown Court on Friday, Mr Keniry also pleaded guilty to additional charges before being sentenced. It is understood he will serve a number of months in prison, before being released on licence for the remaining period.
The RCVS assisted Wiltshire police in their apprehension of Keniry in August, having been alerted the previous day to his fraudulent activities. Mr Keniry is no stranger to the College or the police, having already been dealt with in 1998, 2001 and 2005 for similar offences. On each occasion, Mr Keniry has impersonated a member of the College whose name is legitimately on the Register, which makes it difficult even for practices that do check the credentials of prospective employees to pick up a problem.
Commenting on the recent sentencing, Gordon Hockey, RCVS Head of Professional Conduct said: "We are satisfied that the Court has clearly recognised the risk posed to both animal welfare and public safety by bogus veterinary surgeons. Anyone working as a veterinary surgeon when not qualified to do so, risks a custodial sentence.
"Mr Keniry's continued pattern of re-offending shows him to be a very convincing fraudster. By publicising his photograph, we hope to help any potential employer or locum agency reduce the chances of this happening again," he added.
Chris will also be donating any money he raises throughout the course of his Presidency to those same charities.
His chosen charities are: Vetlife, Riding for the Disabled Association (RDA), the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals (PDSA), Hearing Dogs, and The Gambia Horse and Donkey Trust (GHDT).
Chris said: "I chose the charities because I'm dedicated to charities that have a wide effect. The GHDT and the PDSA, by improving the health and welfare of animals, directly benefit the health and wellbeing of the communities in which they work. The GHDT dramatically improves peoples’ lives economically by increasing the working lives of their animals, almost all of which are transport animals, while the PDSA enhances the lives of the less well off by allowing them to keep animals and afford their veterinary care.
"Riding for the Disabled Association and Hearing Dogs for the Deaf then both use animals to help people, strengthening this vital human animal bond that runs through all of these charities. You have to witness the interaction between deaf or disabled people with the dogs and ponies respectively to fully appreciate how much this means to them. Unlike single interventions, these charities provide assistance that keeps on giving.
"Finally, none of this is possible without a healthy veterinary community and Vetlife plays a significant part in ensuring this. Good mental health and wellbeing is essential to the delivery of a good service, and it's important that we do everything we can to ensure that any veterinary professionals that suffer get the assistance they need.”
The charities have already been in touch to thank Chris and the College, and to detail how it will help their activities.
Graham Dick, Vetlife’s Honorary Treasurer, said: “Vetlife is currently expanding its vital support services to meet the changing needs of the veterinary community so we are sincerely grateful that Chris Tufnell has chosen our charity to benefit from his fundraising activities during his year as President. It is heartening that all the major veterinary organisations are so supportive of Vetlife and eager to work together to address the issues that many people in the veterinary community are struggling with."
Heather Armstrong, the Director of the GHDT, said: "We would like to give our very sincere thanks to Chris Tufnell, President of the RCVS for choosing us as one of his charities. Over the years we have relied on volunteer vets from UK to provide training to our staff and to Gambian livestock workers. This is helping to increase Gambian veterinary capacity and we hope is also giving British vets a small insight into global veterinary problems. The British veterinary profession should be very proud, it has enabled us to achieve so much in the last 14 years and we are immensely grateful to each and every vet who has been out to help including Chris, who has kindly helped us in the past with training."
Rosie Gibbons, Challenge & Community Events Fundraiser UK at the PDSA, said: "The donations received through the RCVS’ President’s Fund to PDSA will ensure that someone’s much loved pet will receive the treatment and healthy life they deserve. It will also ensure that our veterinary teams can continue to educate people about responsible pet ownership and issue preventative treatments, making the lives of so many animals much more bearable in the future."
Sal Atkinson, Fundraising Manager for the RDA, said: "We are thrilled that Chris has chosen RDA as one of this year’s RCVS President’s Fund charities. RDA relies on voluntary donations such as this to enable us to provide life changing therapy through horses to disabled adults and children in the UK. We currently have over 3,000 horses and ponies who work with our riders, carriage drivers, volunteers and equine advisors and this support will really help us to offer more opportunities to disabled people in the community."
The President’s Christmas Box donation is made every year in lieu of sending out RCVS Christmas cards. Previous recipients have included Worldwide Veterinary Service, Mind, Canine Partners, Hounds for Heroes, and the Veterinary Benevolent Fund.
The dispensation was originally introduced during the spring 2020 lockdown to safeguard animal health and welfare, the health and safety of the veterinary team, and public health, by allowing prescriptions to be made by veterinary surgeons without their having first physically examined the animal, subject to conditions and safeguards.
The RCVS says the Committee considered the ongoing challenges posed by Covid-19 and recognised that staff absences due to isolation requirements were still causing issues.
However, given the relaxation of the requirement to work from home in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland and relaxation of restrictions generally across the UK, the Committee felt it was time to end the dispensation.
Chair of the Standards Committee, Dr Melissa Donald MRCVS, said: “The safety and wellbeing of veterinary professionals, as well as the health and welfare of the animals they care for, have remained uppermost in our minds when considering this temporary position on remote prescribing.
“We are pleased to have been able to support the professions through a very difficult time by introducing this dispensation, however, it was only ever a temporary measure and, given the relaxation of restrictions across the UK, we feel the time has come to revert to our usual guidance.
“We will continue to keep the position under review in light of any changes, including governments’ advice and regulations, as we have throughout the pandemic.”
Currently Principal of the Royal Veterinary College, University of London, and previously Dean of the University of Glasgow’s School Of Veterinary Medicine, Stuart has been a member of RCVS Council since 2005, and served as RCVS President in 2014-15.
As chair of the Education Policy and Specialisation Committee in 2011, Stuart oversaw the College’s review of veterinary specialisation, which also led to the new Advanced Practitioner status.
He has also been a driving force behind the joint RCVS and BVA Vet Futures project since its inception in 2015.
As Chair of the RCVS Governance Panel, he recently saw through reform of the College’s governance arrangements to improve the efficiency and accountability of its decision-making processes.
Stuart has also chaired the RCVS Science Advisory Panel.
He continues to chair the College’s Mind Matters Initiative, which aims to improve the mental health and wellbeing of all those in the veterinary team.
A particularly notable achievement during his Presidential year was to allow UK veterinary surgeons to use the courtesy title ‘Doctor’ if they so wished.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS Chief Executive said: "We have been incredibly fortunate to have someone of Stuart’s calibre, character and international renown on our Council for so many years. His contributions and commitment to the RCVS, as well as to the wider veterinary professions, are as significant as they are often understated.
"On behalf of RCVS Council and all the staff, I should like to say how delighted we are that he has been honoured in this way. Such recognition is very much deserved and we send him our warmest congratulations."
The RCVS has announced a total of £1 million funding to address mental health and wellbeing within the veterinary profession over the next five years.
The RCVS Operational Board has agreed £100K of funding for the first year of the Mind Matters initiative, with a view to a similar amount per year for the subsequent four years.
Additionally, the College says it intends to contribute approximately £500K over the next five years to the Veterinary Surgeons' Health Support Programme (VSHSP). This is a continuation of previous funding, effectively doubling the College's contribution. The VSHSP, independently run by the Veterinary Benevolent Fund, offers a confidential service that aims to combat problems with alcohol, drugs, eating disorders and other addictive and mental health issues. Neil Smith, Mind Matters' Chair said: "I am delighted that we have £500K of new funding over the next five years to dedicate to improving the mental health and wellbeing of the veterinary team, together with the increase to our support for the VSHSP. It shows the College's commitment in this vital area, and is a substantial amount that will really help change lives."
The funding will be reviewed annually as part of the RCVS budgeting process.
Mind Matters activities will fall into five streams:
Mind Matters is supported by a taskforce comprising the Veterinary Benevolent Fund, the British Veterinary Association, the British Veterinary Nursing Association, the Veterinary Practice Management Association, the Veterinary Schools Council, the Veterinary Defence Society, the Society of Practising Veterinary Surgeons and the Association of Veterinary Students.
Stephen was recognised for his services to veterinary education and animals in science.
He served as RCVS President from 2017 to 2018 and has been actively involved in the work of the College for many years, serving a total of 19 years as a Council member, both as a vet school-appointee and an elected member, before retiring in 2024.
During his time on Council, he led the Legislative Reform Working Group which developed the Legislative Reform Proposals, as well as the Graduate Outcomes Project, out of which the Veterinary Graduate Development Programme was developed.
Kulin was recognised for his services to animal health and international trade.
RCVS President, Linda Belton MRCVS, said: “Huge congratulations to both Professor May and Dr Patel on this outstanding achievement.
"Thank you both for your extraordinary contributions to the veterinary profession during your careers, for which I would like to extend my appreciation on behalf of everyone at the RCVS.
“I would also like to extend congratulations to all those mentioned in the King’s Birthday Honours List for contributions to the veterinary world, animal health and welfare, and to the One Health concept more generally.
"We could not do the work we do without vital stakeholder collaboration, and it is fantastic to see outstanding individuals in the field being recognised for all they have contributed to our society.”
Mr Adams was convicted at Gorey District Court, County Wexford, Republic of Ireland in March 2015 for:
Nine offences of prescribing animal remedies to animals not under his care;
Five offences of forging entries in official animal remedies records owned by farmers to suggest he had made visits to farms when he had not;
Seven offences of dispensing a prescription-only animal remedy but not preparing a veterinary prescription containing the details of the animals;
Two offences of failing to affix labels in the required form to prescription-only items when selling or supplying animal remedies;
Six offences of failing to annotate the dispensed prescriptions with the word ‘dispensed’ and failing to sign and date them;
Three offences of failing to keep a record or purchases and sales (including quantities administered) in respect of each incoming and outgoing transaction; and
Two offences of selling animal remedies on a wholesale basis without an animal wholesaler’s licence.
The charges related to treatment of animals not under his care throughout 2012 and 2013 which were investigated by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Marine in the Republic of Ireland.
In relation to these convictions Mr Adams received a 12-month prison sentence, suspended for two years, was fined a total of €40,000 and ordered to pay costs of €16,400.
Following his conviction his conduct was considered by the Veterinary Council of Ireland’s (VCI) Fitness to Practice Committee and, in September 2017, the VCI a sanction of 12 months’ suspension from its Register. This sanction was upheld by the High Court in the Republic of Ireland in November 2017.
As well as being a registered veterinary surgeon in the Republic of Ireland, Mr Adams was also on the UK-practising Register with the RCVS, so his convictions were considered under the College’s own complaints and disciplinary process.
At the outset of the hearing, Mr Adams admitted the charges and accepted his convictions rendered him unfit to practise. The College also asserted that Mr Adams' convictions rendered him unfit to practise, noting a number of aggravating factors including the risk of injury to animals, dishonesty, premeditation, financial gain and misconduct sustained and repeated over time.
In considering the College’s case and Mr Adams’ own admissions, the Disciplinary Committee agreed that his conduct rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
Professor Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee found the conduct to be at the serious end of the spectrum for such misconduct, it being systematic, prolonged and illegal conduct relating to the supply of animal remedies which posed a significant risk to human and animal health.
"Accordingly, the Committee found that the convictions which led to these charges cumulatively render Mr Adams unfit to practise."
In considering the sanction, the Disciplinary Committee took into account a number of mitigating factors including that he had been practising since 1993 and had no previous disciplinary findings, had made open and frank admissions at all stages to the College and had practised between April 2013, when the matters first came to light, and February 2018, when he was suspended by the Veterinary Council of Ireland, without incident.
It also considered the conditions that were imposed upon Mr Adams by the VCI in terms of notification that he was intending to return to practice, auditing of his practice, his continuing professional development (CPD) and having to undertake personal and professional support programmes and arrangements for professional mentorship for one year after his return to practice.
In view of the sanctions already imposed by the court in Ireland, and his suspension by the VCI, the Disciplinary Committee decided that a period of two years’ suspension from the UK Register of Veterinary Surgeons was the appropriate sanction.
Professor Barr said: "Whilst Mr Adams would be able to practise in the Republic of Ireland before he was able to practise in the United Kingdom again, the Committee considered that the conditions attached to his supervision in Ireland meant that he would be subject to close supervision before he was allowed to practise again in the United Kingdom and that only a longer period of suspension would allow this to happen.
"The Committee therefore decided that only a suspension of two years would maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct for the serious nature of these charges."
Mr Adams has 28 days from being informed about the Disciplinary Committee’s decision to make an appeal to the Privy Council.
The RCVS has announced the appointment of Gordon Hockey as its Head of Legal Services/Registrar.
Gordon, who was previously Head of Professional Conduct and Assistant Registrar, has latterly been Acting Registrar, following the departure of Jane Hern in November 2011 and the arrival of Nick Stace as Chief Executive on 3 September.
A qualified barrister and pharmacist, Gordon has been at the RCVS for the last 14 years.
His is a new role created when the old post of Registrar and Secretary was effectively split into two: Chief Executive and Secretary, and Head of Legal Services/Registrar.
Nick Stace said: "I am delighted that Gordon's is my first appointment as Chief Executive, and I am grateful that he held the fort so well for the last nine months. I look forward to working with him to ensure that the RCVS is in the best shape possible to meet the needs of the public and the veterinary team."
Jacqui Molyneux, RCVS President said: "We have a very strong team to take the RCVS forward. Nick has joined us with leadership experience, consumer expertise and new ideas and impetus; Gordon consolidates this with his legal expertise and experience of the veterinary profession and the RCVS. I look forward to working with them both."
The appointment is subject to formal ratification at the November meeting of Council.
Ms Mulvey faced a number of charges relating to the treatment of a cat called Spooky: that she failed to provide Spooky’s owner, Mrs Parsons, with either Spooky’s lab results or an adequate explanation as to why they could not be provided; that she failed to respond adequately or at all to communications from Mrs Parsons; that she failed to respond to requests from the College for information relating to Continuing Professional Development (CPD), her professional indemnity insurance (PII), and her correspondence with Mrs Parsons.
At the beginning of the hearing Dr Mulvey admitted the facts to all the charges, and accepted that they constituted disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. The Committee had been provided with written evidence from Mrs Parsons, her husband, and four College staff, namely Gemma Crossley, Maria Fearon, Robert Girling and Michael Hepper.
Mrs Parsons provided a statement in which she spoke of how, in August 2016, she had taken Spooky to CornYard Veterinary Centre for a skin irritation where she was seen by Dr Mulvey.
Dr Mulvey decided to take blood tests and send them to the laboratory, but they agreed to defer them actually being tested until Mrs Parsons gave permission. Mrs Parsons then returned to the practice with Spooky to take said samples, after which followed a series of attempts to contact Dr Mulvey for the test results. Finally, in October, she demanded a refund, after which she began a small claim in County Court.
Mr Parsons went to the practice at the beginning of December 2016 and obtained the refund. At this point Mrs Parsons made a complaint to the College. The Committee received information from Mr Parsons, who corroborated the facts of the complaint, and from College staff who confirmed the many attempts to contact Dr Mulvey, starting with requests for documents by Ms Crossley and Ms Fearon, repeated requests for CPD and PII information from Mr Girling, and finally a hand-delivered letter by Mr Hepper, during which he learnt that her PII had lapsed at the beginning of 2017.
The College submitted that Dr Mulvey’s conduct fell far below the standard expected of a veterinary surgeon. It submitted that failing to provide the test results and communicate with the Parsons could have had a negative impact on animal welfare and damaged the reputation of the profession, while having PII is a fundamental obligation of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct. Finally, not responding to the College about the concern raised, CPD or PII compromised the College’s ability to maintain public confidence in its regulatory processes.
The Committee considered that no harm had actually come to Spooky and that there were problems with the testing laboratory which slowed down the process. In addition, some of the lack of communication was due to a receptionist not following protocol, and Dr Mulvey was going through a particularly difficult part of her life and was clinically understaffed. The Committee heard from four different character witnesses, and were given 16 more written testimonials.
The Committee heard that in 2013 there had been complaints from three separate clients, all of which concerned Dr Mulvey’s failure to communicate and to process insurance claim forms, after which she agreed to participate in the Performance Protocol and entered into undertakings with the College.
The Committee having considered all the facts and background circumstances found that Dr Mulvey’s conduct was disgraceful in a professional respect.
The Committee went on to consider what sanction was appropriate. In reaching its decision the Committee took into account a number of aggravating factors, namely that there was a slight risk to the health of Spooky and that the disgraceful conduct occurred over a prolonged period of time. The Committee also considered that there was blatant disregard of the role of the RCVS and the systems regulating the profession.
In determining the sanction the Committee also considered mitigating factors, including that Dr Mulvey, apart from those previous concerns, had a long and unblemished career and that she’s made a huge difference to the health of the animals within her care. She also admitted her shortcomings, and had very impressive references.
The Committee therefore determined to postpone its decision on sanction for a period of one year on condition that Dr Mulvey enter into the following undertakings:
To agree to the appointment of a veterinary surgeon as a work place supervisor by the College and meet with them at least once every month
Allow the supervisor access to all aspects of running of the practice and to implement any recommendations made by the supervisor relating to the administration of the practice and the provision of out of hours’ cover.
To allow the supervisor to provide a report in relation to the matters set out in 2 above to the RCVS at least one month before the resumed hearing of this case.
To appoint within two months an experienced Practice Manager (who does not need to be full time).
To enrol in the voluntary Practices Standards Scheme and to achieve the Core standards of the Scheme within the next 12 months.
To submit a plan to the supervisor of CPD for the next twelve months within one month of agreeing to these undertakings. The plan should then be implemented and shall include aspects of practice management.
To pay all of the costs of complying with the undertakings, with the exception of the costs associated with the appointment and performance of the supervisor.
Ian Green, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee recognised that Dr Mulvey has been subject to undertakings before and yet committed the disgraceful conduct the subject of this inquiry. But it bore in mind the context of that conduct and it observes that the undertakings previously imposed in reality address a particular aspect of her practice.
"This Committee hopes that when the matter is relisted before it, the Respondent will be able to demonstrate that she has finally been able to address her administrative shortcomings. If she cannot do so, she will know that the Committee that sits on her case at the resumed hearing is likely to have more restricted options for disposal of her case."
The sessions are:
https://www.bsavacongress.com/programme
The inquiry in regard to Karen Tracey Hancock took place in her absence in January, after she indicated that she was content not to appear or to be represented.
The charges against Mrs Hancock related to an injury she falsely claimed she sustained to her knee while moving a euthanased dog in August 2015 that was then exacerbated while moving another dog a couple of weeks later.
The charges also stated that she made entries in the practice’s accident book also stating that she had injured her knee at work and then aggravated it later.
The charges also stated that, in County Court civil proceedings against the practice in relation to the alleged injuries, she falsely:
The Committee noted that the County Court claim made by Mrs Hancock was listed for a trial and concluded with a consent order dated 21 June 2019 which stated that the claim was dismissed.
It also considered evidence from eyewitnesses regarding the two alleged events that led to and exacerbated her knee injury in August 2015. In doing so the Committee found that, though Mrs Hancock did have an injury to her right knee, this was due to a horse-riding incident a number of years earlier and that her account of the incidents on 13 and 29 August, and therefore her claims to have been caused injury by them, were false and that her conduct had been dishonest.
The Committee therefore found all charges against Mrs Hancock proven.
The Committee then considered whether the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct. In doing so it considered submissions made by Counsel for the RCVS that there were a number of aggravating factors in the case of Mrs Hancock’s conduct including that the misconduct was sustained over a long period of time, was premeditated and involved lying for financial gain.
In commenting on whether the conduct was serious professional misconduct Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee found all of the aggravating factors set out… in this case applied to its decision on whether or not the conduct amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
"Such conduct would bring the profession of veterinary nurses into disrepute and would undermine public confidence in the profession because the dishonesty was directly concerned with the respondent’s work as a veterinary nurse in the veterinary practice.
"The Committee concluded that the dishonest behaviour was serious misconduct, particularly so because it took place at the respondent’s workplace. It considered that honesty and trust between veterinary nurses and their employers is essential to the profession and that such conduct as set out in the charges would be considered deplorable by other members of the profession."
The Committee was therefore satisfied that all four charges individually and cumulatively amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Committee members then considered the appropriate sanction for Mrs Hancock, taking into account the aggravating factors, including a lack of insight in that, in correspondence before the hearing, she continued to deny the charges. In mitigation it noted that there had been a significant lapse of time and that she had a long and hitherto unblemished career.
On balance it decided that removal from the Register was the appropriate and proportionate sanction and requested Mrs Hancock be removed from the Register, particularly as dishonesty is considered ‘in the top spectrum of gravity’ for misconduct.
Judith Way added: “The Committee acknowledged that the respondent was physically unwell with her knee between 2015 and 2019. However there was no evidence that her health had caused her to commit the misconduct. It noted the representations that the respondent made regarding the need to support herself financially but the Committee determined that the public interest outweighed the respondent’s own interests in this case because the proven dishonesty in the circumstances in which it took place was fundamentally incompatible with continued professional registration.
“In the Committee’s judgment without any evidence of remorse or insight by the respondent a suspension order could not meet the public interest in this case. It therefore concluded that removal of the Respondent’s name from the register was the proportionate and appropriate sanction in this case.”