Over 1,200 members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, including around 800 UK-practising veterinary surgeons, have not yet paid their retention fees, and face being removed from the Register if they do not pay before 29 May 2010.
Veterinary surgeons must be registered with the College in order to practise legally in the UK. Retention fees are due by the end of March each year, and the College allows a further two-month period before removing veterinary surgeons from the Register, during which time reminders are issued.
There is still just time for payment to be made by credit card, bank transfer or cheque. Payments cannot be made over the telephone.
Those who have recently changed address, practice address or bank details are urged to check that payments have been properly processed. It is the responsibility of individual members to ensure payment has been made, even if an employer pays the fee. Those whose names are removed for non-payment after 29 May will no longer be able to practise legally in the UK, and would need to pay an additional fee if they wished to be restored to the Register.
Bill Mavir, VDS Chairman said: "Registration with the RCVS is a prerequisite for membership of the Veterinary Defence Society and the provision of professional indemnity insurance."
The RCVS played a proactive role in Mr Keniry’s arrest and trial after its Chief Investigator, Michael Hepper, was alerted to the fact that he was working at a veterinary practice in Taunton, Somerset.
Within 24 hours Mr Hepper reported this to Avon & Somerset Police and attended the practice with officers to assist in Mr Keniry’s identification and arrest. Mr Hepper continued to assist with police investigations and gave a witness statement.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: "We are grateful to the veterinary professional who voiced her suspicions to us, to our Chief Investigator who reacted quickly to confirm his identity and report the matter to the police and to Avon & Somerset Police for taking matters forward so quickly.
"Mr Keniry was known to the RCVS as we have assisted in previous police investigations into him for similar offences. As with recent cases Mr Keniry impersonated a legitimate member of the veterinary profession using fraudulent documentation and this is why we have previously published photographs of him to raise awareness with veterinary practices and to try and stop him being employed in the future.
"We believe that Mr Keniry is a threat to animal health and welfare. He is a repeat offender and so we are glad that he has been handed a significant custodial sentence.
"While sophisticated and convincing fraudsters like Mr Keniry can be very difficult to prevent, we would urge veterinary practices to be vigilant. For example, we recommend that potential employers contact our Registration Department to make checks, always interview a potential employee face-to-face, ask to see supporting identity documents, prepare questions which confirm where and when they studied, obtain references and, if they are employed, mentor the new member of staff to oversee their performance.
"For members of the public we recommend that, if they have concerns about the legitimacy of their veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurses, they talk to someone else in the practice about their concerns or contact us so that we can make further enquiries. Members of the public can also check on the status of veterinary professionals using our Find a Vet search tool: www.findavet.org.uk.
"We would like to emphasise that cases such as that of Peter Keniry are, in our experience, extremely rare. There are around 23,000 veterinary surgeons registered to practise in the UK who are fully trained professionals dedicated to upholding and improving the health and welfare of animals under their care. We don’t believe that the unprecedented actions of this one fraudulent individual should in any way undermine the confidence and trust that animal owners place in their veterinary team."
Dr Briggs faced four charges and admitted to her conduct in the first three at the outset.
They related to three official Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) clinical investigation report forms she submitted following three official avian flu surveillance visits she'd undertaken as an Official Veterinarian (OV).
The three surveillance visits all took place during an outbreak of avian influenza in North Yorkshire and were on behalf of the APHA.
Dr Briggs admitted that she'd certified on each of the three forms that she had inspected specific poultry, that she had seen no clinical signs of avian influenza in the poultry and that in her opinion avian influenza did not exist and had not existed in the previous 56 days.
Dr Briggs also admitted that that she had subsequently submitted the three forms to the APHA.
The fourth charge alleged Dr Briggs conduct in certifying the three forms had been dishonest and that her actions risked undermining procedures, regulations and rules designed to protect animal welfare and public health.
Dr Briggs denied that she had been dishonest in any of her actions but admitted that her conduct had risked undermining procedures designed to protect animal welfare and public health.
Dr Briggs explained that in two cases she had relied on information given to her by the keepers of the poultry and in the remaining case it was possible that she had not visited the correct location of the poultry, had posted a letter through the wrong door and had then accidentally submitted a pre-populated inspection form to APHA.
Having heard evidence from the relevant poultry keepers, fellow Official Veterinarians, officials from the APHA and Dr Briggs herself, the Committee gave its determinations on dishonesty.
In relation to the first two charges, which concerned the visits that did take place, the Committee found Dr Briggs had been dishonest both in submitting the inspection forms to the APHA and also in certifying that she had seen no clinical signs or history of avian influenza in both cases.
The Committee concluded that an ordinary decent person would regard the submission of a signed form which contained false information as dishonest.
It also concluded that Dr Briggs had deliberately signed an official form which contained information which she knew to be untrue.
However, the Committee found that Dr Briggs was not dishonest in asserting on these forms that she was of the opinion that disease did not exist based upon the information provided to her by the poultry keepers.
In relation to the third charge, where Dr Briggs did not visit the property concerned, the Committee did not find it proven that she had been dishonest, having heard her evidence that, in this case, she had accidentally submitted a pre-populated inspection form.
The Committee next considered whether the admitted and proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf said: “In considering the seriousness of the misconduct, the Committee took into account the fact that the misconduct had involved dishonesty, that there had been a risk of injury to animals and humans (though this risk had not materialised), and that the misconduct had occurred when the respondent, as an Official Veterinarian, occupied a position of increased trust and responsibility.”
He added: “The Committee considered that honest, accurate and careful veterinary certification was a fundamental component of the responsibilities of a veterinary surgeon.
"The matters which the Committee had found to be proved fell far short of the standards expected of a registered veterinary surgeon and amounted, in the Committee’s judgment, to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
In considering the sanction for Dr Briggs the Committee heard positive character testimonials from former employers and clients, as well as a representative from the APHA who said that Dr Briggs had shown contrition for the breaches while recognising that there was unlikely to be a repetition of the conduct and that Dr Briggs was a relatively new and inexperienced vet at the time of her actions.
Mr Morris said: “In the Committee’s judgement the circumstances of the incident were a mitigating factor in the sense that the respondent was working in a pressurised environment, and in a field of practice which was unfamiliar to her.
"The Committee had heard a considerable amount of evidence from various witnesses that the surveillance system created, to monitor the prevalence of avian influenza was one which placed considerable pressure on OVs and, perhaps inevitably, had some shortcomings.
"The respondent had not worked with poultry before so her inexperience in this area fed into this situation.
“The Committee took into account the fact that no actual harm had occurred and there was no financial gain to the respondent.
"The matters with which the Committee was concerned formed a highly unusual, and short-lived, episode in the respondent’s career.”
The Committee also considered that Dr Briggs had made open and frank admissions regarding most of the charges against her and had also shown genuine contrition over her failings.
In light of this, the Committee considered that a reprimand and warning as to future conduct was the most appropriate sanction.
Mr Morris added: “False certification can never be acceptable.
"Veterinary surgeons should never certify any matter which they know, or ought to know, not to be true.
"However, the Committee considered that this case was at the lower end of the spectrum of gravity of false certification cases, that there is no future risk to animals and that the respondent has demonstrated insight.
"In relation to the public interest, the Committee considered that a reasonable and fully informed member of the public would recognise that, in all the circumstances of this particular case, a reprimand and warning as to future conduct would be sufficient to satisfy the public interest.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
The Clinical Supervisor course is designed to help veterinary surgeons to guide their students in developing the professional behaviours and Day One Skills they need to join the Register.
The course is also designed to complement any existing training that a vet who is a Clinical Supervisor has received from the college or university for which they are supervising the SVN.
RCVS Director of Veterinary Nursing Julie Dugmore said: “This course will help you undertake your role as a coach and assessor, ensuring your student has achieved the RCVS requirements by the time they have completed the practical elements of their training.
“It comprises modules that include the role and functions of a Clinical Supervisor, the types of professional behaviours SVNs need to develop and understanding of the Day One Skills in which they need to become competent.
"In addition, it will enhance the training Clinical Supervisors will receive from the relevant educational institution by promoting understanding of the RCVS requirements.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/vndayonecompetences
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS CEO, said: “It’s clear that there are a number of workforce issues affecting the professions, such as high vacancy rates that employers are struggling to fill and a resultant increase in pressure on the professions in terms of caseload and hours worked, together with an increase in the number of people choosing to leave the professions.
“While many of these issues are long-standing, and due to complex and multifactorial reasons, the scale of the problem has been exacerbated by three things: the UK’s exit from the EU and the impact this has had on overseas registrants; the ongoing impact of the pandemic in areas such as staff absence and burnout; and an increase in demand for veterinary services.
The reports were published in advance of the College's Workforce Summit, held at the end of November to discuss potential solutions to the problems.
They can be downloaded here: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/events/workforce-summit-2021/
A further report of the Workforce Summit is expected in due course, which the College says will include an action plan with commitments from a range of stakeholders.
Ms Benson faced six charges.
The first was that between January 2018 and November 2019 she took a number of bags of dog food and two horse wormer syringes from the practice without paying for them.
Charge 2 alleged that between November 2018 and November 2019 she took a number of items of animal food and one or more boxes of horse wormer and paid less than the correct amount for them.
Charge 3 was that between October 2018 and November 2019 she arranged for or allowed a friend to receive a discount on items from the practice, without consent from the practice.
Charge 4 alleged that in December 2019 she asked a veterinary surgeon colleague to input details of treatment and/or medicine for her cat into the clinical records of another of her animals that was also registered to the practice.
Charge 5 was that in relation to charges 1, 2 and 3, her conduct was dishonest.
Charge 6 alleged that in relation to charge 4, her conduct was dishonest, potentially compromised the integrity of a professional colleague and was potentially detrimental to animal welfare.
At the outset of the hearing, Ms Benson admitted to charges 1,2,3,4 and 6 of the allegations and the Committee accepted these admissions. The Committee considered evidence from Ms Benson’s colleagues including witness statements, written testimonial and clinical records for her animals.
When asked about taking items from the practice, Ms Benson explained that she did not intend to take items without paying for them and that she had not realised how much she had taken. She also explained that she had paid back in full what she owed to the practice. The Committee considered that Ms Benson’s conduct had involved a degree of premeditation as she had repeatedly taken items over an extended period. They also considered that there had been a potential risk of injury to animals resulting from Ms Benson’s request to incorrectly write up her animal’s veterinary records.
The defence attested that no actual harm had come to any animal because of Ms Benson’s actions and that she previously had an unblemished career in veterinary nursing. She had also admitted most of the charges against her and paid for the items she had taken in full.
Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee considered that in the case of Ms Benson, there had been a potential risk to animals had her pet’s records been incorrectly completed, although no harm resulted. The request to alter the records had been a short, single event, but the taking of items had been repeated over a period.
"The Committee also considered that Ms Benson had abused the trust placed in her as a senior nurse with managerial responsibility. We took into account that there was some evidence of Ms Benson being overloaded by work, but there was no evidence of any health condition during the time of the misconduct which might explain her actions.”
The Committee therefore found Ms Benson guilty of serious professional misconduct and decided that a nine-month suspension from the Register was the most appropriate sanction.
Cerys Jones said: “The Committee accepted that Ms Benson had developing insight in making her admissions and we give her credit for her long unblemished career. She admitted to a large part of the allegation, expressed remorse for her actions and has repaid the practice. We have also heard a number of positive testimonials which spoke positively of Ms Benson’s recent conduct.
“However, dishonesty is a serious matter in relation to professional practice and taking no action in response to the serious nature of Ms Benson’s disgraceful conduct would not be proportionate or serve to protect animals and maintain public confidence in the profession.
“Having carefully considered matters, the Committee decided that the appropriate and proportionate sanction, was to suspend Ms Benson’s registration for nine months.”
Ms Benson has 28 days from being informed of the outcome of the hearing to appeal the Committee’s decision.
As part of the programme, the College aims to form a network of UK-wide rural Mental Health First Aiders in the vet profession starting with rural geographies.
The network will bolster the understanding of common mental health conditions, help individuals identify signs of mental ill-health both in themselves and others, promote self-care and provide the tools for how to effectively support people experiencing poor mental health.
Angharad Belcher, Director of the RCVS Mind Matters Initiative (MMI), said: “Veterinary surgeons working in rural and ambulatory services are often integral members of their local communities with a deep connection with farmers, animal owners and the wider rural community.
"However, as MMI-funded research conducted by Scotland’s Rural College with vets has demonstrated, veterinary work in such areas can often be very challenging which is compounded by working alone or having relatively limited contact with professional colleagues.
“Effective early intervention in cases of mental ill-health and distress can have significant impacts, and so this course will arm participants with the relevant knowledge of how to identify mental health issues and will allow them to signpost people to the most effective and relevant sources of help.”
The free training, fully funded by MMI, will be delivered online in four sessions which are each two-and-a-half hours long.
The dates of the training sessions are Monday 11th, Tuesday 12th, Wednesday 20th and Thursday 21st July.
To register for the course, visit: www.vetmindmatters.org/training/
The closing date for registrations is 5pm Friday 10th June.
For those who are unsure about joining the course, MHFA England has organised an online question and answers session ahead of the application date at 7pm on Tuesday 7 June.
To attend the Q & A contact Lacey Pitcher, Mind Matters Outreach and Engagement Senior Officer on l.pitcher@rcvs.org.uk.
Peter Keniry has convictions dating back to 1986 in his native South Africa for fraud and impersonating a veterinary surgeon. The College says that in the UK, he has been known to steal the identities of legitimately registered members in order to support fraudulent applications for employment or practise fraudulently.
The College says that in the past, Mr Keniry has been able to gain employment in large and small animal practice and greyhound racing. He is known to have ties in Norfolk, Swindon, Somerset and possibly Cornwall.
Michael Hepper, Chief Investigator at the RCVS, has worked with several police forces in order to bring Mr Keniry to justice. He said: "Peter Keniry’s modus operandi is to steal the identity of properly registered members to obtain work as a veterinary surgeon. As he impersonates members of the College whose names are legitimately on the Register, this can make it extremely difficult, even for practices that do check prospective employees’ credentials, to identify him.
"He is well known to the College and to the police having been convicted in 1998, 2001, 2005 and 2011 and has served custodial sentences for practising as a veterinary surgeon and fraud.
"Peter Keniry is a repeat offender and we suspect that he will continue to re-offend. We hope that by publishing his photograph it will help practices recognise him and contact the RCVS Professional Conduct Department should he apply for employment as a veterinary surgeon."
The RCVS Professional Conduct Department can be contacted on profcon@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0789.
At the hearing, the Disciplinary Committee considered whether she had accepted the findings of the Committee at the original inquiry hearing, the seriousness of those findings, whether she had demonstrated insight into her past conduct, and the protection of the public and the public interest.
In her restoration application, Dr Burrows included continuing professional development (CPD) certificates for the courses she had completed since her removal from the Register, letters/informal witness statements from the veterinary surgeons and nurses she had worked who had expressed a willingness to employ her again, together with character references and reflection statements.
She also made a detailed opening statement in support of her application, in which she said that the period since her name was removed from the Register was extremely difficult and also that she now unconditionally accepted all the Committee’s original findings in May 2021, some of which she had previously denied and had failed to acknowledge.
Dr Burrows went on to state that she only had herself to blame for her actions and that she now understood and accepted that the original sanction of removal from the register had needed to be severe given the serious breach of trust to the public, to the veterinary profession and the insurance industry that was a direct consequence of her dishonest actions.
Since removal from the Register, Dr Burrows had taken on the role of receptionist in a Vets4Pets practice in Cardiff, which required her to deal directly with the public and their insurance requests and entitlements.
She stated that as a result of her involvement over the past 18 months in processing insurance claims, she acknowledges the “delicate” relationship between veterinary surgeons, clients and insurers.
Additionally, working as a receptionist, had allowed her to recognise the need for contemporaneous and clear clinical notes.
She also highlighted her CPD, which was relevant to insurance, as well as the fact she’d undertaken a professional ethics course to assist her rehabilitation, reflection, and insight.
In support of Dr Burrows’ restoration to the Register, the Committee took into account three witness accounts from people who work at the Vets4Pets branch where Dr Burrows works as a receptionist.
All witnesses gave positive reflections on Dr Burrows’ character and assured the Committee that they would provide the correct level of support to allow her to return to work safely and that they would have all the necessary safeguarding measures in place to ensure that the public’s and the profession’s interest is always at the forefront.
Judith Way, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was impressed by the fact that busy professionals chose to give up their time to provide witness statements and give evidence in support of Dr Burrows’ application.
"All witnesses were clearly supportive of Dr Burrows’ request for restoration to the Register.
“The Committee found Dr Burrows to show remorse and she does now accept the findings of dishonesty that were made against her in the original enquiry hearing and stated that her conduct was dishonest.
"In the Committee’s view, the evidence given by Dr Burrows on affirmation was very believable and she now accepts her dishonesty together with the gravity of her dishonesty.
“The Committee also formed the view that the steps she has taken to address her dishonesty serve to confirm that she is passionate about the prospect that she be allowed to return to practise.
"The Committee was impressed by Dr Burrows and the evidence given and is now satisfied that she will ensure the highest standards of probity and honesty in the future.
“Having taken all evidence into account, the Committee is satisfied that the future welfare of animals under Dr Burrows’ responsibility will be properly protected, and that her future dealings with insurers will be honest in all respects and that the interests of the public will be met.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
The guidance has been in place since March to help practices continue to provide the public with veterinary services whilst safeguarding the health of their teams and clients.
The RCVS Council Covid-19 Taskforce reviewed the situation on 30th July and decided to extend the guidance after taking into account the pandemic’s progress, the latest government guidance, the headline results from a survey of practice experience of remote consulting, and 'other data from a number of veterinary practices'.
The Taskforce says it also considered the need to continue to provide practices with flexibility in the face of possible local or national lockdowns, the need for inclusivity of those practice teams members and clients who may still be shielding, the likelihood of quarantine of members of the team due to travel and/or Test and Trace and the fact that no major safety issues had been identified as part of the RCVS-commissioned survey into the immediate impact of the temporary guidance.
RCVS President Mandisa Greene, who chairs the Taskforce, said: “Whilst lockdown measures have been eased and matters have improved, we are far from being back to business as usual and the threat of returning to more severe lockdown measures, whether locally or nationally, is still very much alive."
The updated flowchart, along with all the College’s coronavirus guidance for the professions, is available at: www.rcvs.org.uk/coronavirus.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has suspended a veterinary surgeon for a period of three months for practising veterinary surgery while not registered with the College.
At a hearing which concluded on 9 September, Silke Birgitt Lindridge, of the Consett Veterinary Centre, Medomsley Road, Consett, County Durham, was found guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect for practising when she ought to have known that her name had been removed from the RCVS Register for non-payment of fees.
The Committee heard that Mrs Lindridge, who qualified as a veterinary surgeon at the University of Berlin in 1997, had returned to Germany whilst on maternity leave in September 2006 but had continued to be the sole principal of two practices, the Consett Veterinary Centre, and the Winlaton Veterinary Centre in Tyne and Wear. She had continued to run the practices whilst in Germany, and had returned to the UK on several occasions during 2007, when she practised veterinary surgery on small animals and horses. She had not been registered with the College for the period between 5 June 2006 and 2 April 2008.
To practise veterinary surgery when unregistered is a criminal offence. However, after consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service, a decision was taken that it was not in the public interest to prosecute Mrs Lindridge and that the matter should be left with the RCVS Disciplinary Committee.
Mrs Lindridge claimed not to be aware that she was unregistered, stating that a fee notice and reminder, as well as a telephone call and correspondence from the College about her registration status, had not been brought to her attention by her practice administrators. The Committee accepted that she had not known, but decided that, as registration was a professional obligation, Mrs Lindridge should have known that her name had been removed from the Register, a charge that Mrs Lindridge accepted. The Committee felt that: "The failure of Mrs Lindridge to put in place proper systems for the administration of her practice, including the payment of her annual retention fee... was lamentable." The way in which the practice had paid its bills during her absence demonstrated an "utterly careless attitude to the administration of the practice".
Taking account of the fact that Mrs Lindridge had not knowingly practised while unregistered, and the positive support of her clients, the Committee decided that a three-month period of suspension from the Register was appropriate.
Beverley Cottrell, chairing the Committee, commented: "The Committee would like to make it clear that it is the personal responsibility of every practising veterinary surgeon to ensure that the annual retention fee is paid and that their names are on the Register. It is in the public interest that clients should be assured that the practitioner is a regulated person, who is capable of providing valid certificates."
She continued: "The record of Mrs Lindridge's practice during 2007 discloses that she was providing certificates for horses and small animals whilst she was unregistered. Those certificates are invalid. She was also prescribing prescription-only drugs when she was not entitled to do so. The Committee considers that a short period of suspension is proportionate to the nature and the extent of the charge, the public interest and the interests of Mrs Lindridge."
The RCVS is seeking applications for a paid, part-time parliamentary internship from veterinary surgeons and students who have completed the third year of a veterinary degree.
Applicants are also required to demonstrate a commitment to the advancement of the veterinary profession in the UK.
The internship is to support the activities of Professor the Lord Trees, with the successful applicant expected to work three days a week whilst Parliament is sitting (around 150 days a year). The role is for one year, starting in October, and is London-based, with a salary of £15,000 (not pro-rata). A housing allowance may also be available.
Applicants should send a CV and covering letter to Lesley Evans, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, 62-64 Horseferry Road, London SW1P 2AF or email l.evans@rcvs.org.uk. The deadline for applications is 22 April 2013, with interviews taking place in late May/early June.
Further details about the role are available at www.rcvs.org.uk/about-us/work-for-us.
The Disciplinary Committee heard that Mr Samuel had been convicted of five animal welfare offences at Leeds Magistrates' Court in January 2016. The charges related to causing unnecessary suffering to a number of animals including twelve dogs and four cats, and failing to take steps to ensure that the needs of the animals for which he was responsible were met. The animals were kept at the Armley Veterinary Practice, for which Mr Samuel was, at the time, practice principal.
Mr Samuel was sentenced to 12 weeks' imprisonment suspended for 12 months on the condition he completed 150 hours' unpaid work and paid a fine of £100. He was also ordered to pay costs of £500 and a victim surcharge of £80. He was also made subject to a disqualification order for three years.
Dr Samuel subsequently appealed against his conviction in April 2018. His appeal was dismissed in respect of five of the charges but was upheld in respect of one charge, which, as a result, did not form part of the College’s case.
Dr Samuel declined to attend the hearing in person and was not represented before the Disciplinary Committee. In considering the facts of the charges against Dr Samuel the Committee found them proven.
The Committee then went on to consider whether the proven charges, both individually and cumulatively, rendered Dr Samuel unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
The College’s case was that the convictions concerned animal welfare and therefore went to the heart of his practice as a vet, that Dr Samuel behaved in a manner incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon, that he failed in his core responsibility as a veterinary surgeon to protect and act in the best interests of animal welfare, and that he maintained he had no responsibility for the animals on his practice premises – an assertion referred to as ‘an extraordinary position for a veterinary surgeon to take’.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "ust as the judgment of the Crown Court and the Magistrates Court had found, the Committee also found that Dr Samuel must have known that the animals were in distress and were in a neglected state. The Committee was sure that Dr Samuel must have been aware of the animals notwithstanding his continued denial. The Committee concluded that Dr Samuel was unfit to practise because of the facts underlying the convictions. Dr Samuel had an overriding duty of care for the animals and to take action in relation to their health and welfare because they were living under the roof of his veterinary practice."
In considering its sanction against Dr Samuel, the Committee concluded that removal from the Register was the most appropriate option. It took into account the fact that the animals were found starving in a cellar without water, that Dr Samuel had not demonstrated insight into the serious nature of his offences, that he continued to deny responsibility and, furthermore, found no evidence that he no longer posed a risk to animals in the future.
Ian Green added: "The Committee decided that the behaviour found proved was fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon because in this case there had been a serious departure from standards as set out in the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons…. Furthermore, there had been serious harm caused to a number of animals and a risk of harm to a number of other animals."
Dr Samuel has 28 days from being informed of the Disciplinary Committee’s decision in which to make an appeal to the Privy Council.
The Committee’s full decision and findings can be found here
Defra has launched a public consultation on proposals that would enable the RCVS to reconstitute its disciplinary committees independently of the RCVS Council, to ensure that the same group of people are not responsible for setting the rules, investigating complaints and hearing cases. The Royal College is urging the profession to support the proposals.
The proposed changes will be made by a Legislative Reform Order that will amend a specific part of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, to require the RCVS Preliminary Investigation and Disciplinary Committees to be made up of veterinary surgeons and lay members who are not RCVS Council members, and who are appointed at arm's-length.
RCVS President, Dr. Jerry Davies said: "I am delighted that Defra is consulting on these long-anticipated proposals, which would allow the RCVS to deliver better, fairer and more effective regulation. I would urge members of the profession and the public to respond to this important consultation and to support the changes."
Under the proposals, following a transitional period, the Committees would cease to include Council members. The bodies which consider allegations of misconduct on the part of veterinary surgeons would thus be independently constituted and detached from policy discussions. The proposals would also improve the independence of the disciplinary processes by formally bringing lay people into the relevant Committees.
In addition, the College says that changes would increase the pool of people available to investigate complaints and sit on disciplinary hearings, thus allowing the case-load to be handled more efficiently, and ensuring that complaints are heard swiftly.
The full details of the proposals can be found in Defra's consultation documents, which can be accessed at:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/consult/2012/01/16/veterinary-surgeons-1201/
Dr Bremner was convicted in 2017 of harassing his ex-wife, and for perverting the course of justice by sending his daughter an e-mail, pressuring her to ask her mother to withdraw the charges against him. He pleaded guilty to both of the charges, saying he did not understand that it was a condition of his bail that he could not contact his ex-wife. He also expressed shame and remorse at his actions, explaining that his behaviour was triggered by extreme anger, grief and stress.
In relation to the charges, the Respondent was committed to prison for 12 months, suspended for 12 months, ordered to comply with a Rehabilitation Activity Requirement within 12 months, and ordered to pay £85 in costs and £115 as a surcharge to pay for victim services.
The Committee found the facts proved based on the certified copy of the certificate of conviction, as well as the Respondent’s admissions to the facts of the charges. It was satisfied that the Respondent brought the profession into disrepute by the seriousness of his convictions. In addition, the Committee regarded the Respondent as having deficient insight and a need to fully accept personal responsibility for his actions and their consequences.
The Committee was also satisfied that the nature of the communications sent by the Respondent which led to the convictions and the breach of bail conditions, coupled with deficient insight amounted to serious professional misconduct and rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
The Committee considered various mitigating factors including the fact that no actual harm occurred to any animal, there were no concerns raised about the respondent’s practice, that he has a long and unblemished career, and that he showed some insight into his offences which continues to develop.
The Committee also took into account that preventing the Respondent from practicing could mean the loss of jobs for 33 or so employees, which weighed heavily on their decision. The Committee also agreed with the RCVS’s submissions that there was a very low likelihood of repetition of the offending behaviour. Aggravating factors included the emotional harm caused to the Respondent’s ex-wife, and that the harassment was a course of conduct sustained over a period of five months.
Therefore, when taking into account the particulars of this case, the Committee decided to impose a reprimand and warning on the basis that it would be proportionate to maintain public confidence in the profession in light of the serious nature of these charges.
Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee was of the view that the conviction for intending to interfere with the course of justice was particularly serious, in light of the need to maintain public confidence in the profession, because it involved a disregard of proper criminal process.
"However, a particular feature of this case is the risk to the jobs of 33 or so employees if the Respondent were to be prevented from practising as a result of the Committee’s imposition of a sanction. It is this mitigating factor which weighed most heavily with the committee and they therefore concluded that both a Reprimand as to this conduct and a Warning as to any future conduct is sufficient and proportionate in this case to meet the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards."
Mr Bremner has 28 days in which to make an appeal about the Committee’s decision to the Privy Council.
They include the successful completion of its governance review, the launch of the Graduate Outcomes consultation (the biggest in 20 years) and the Edward Jenner Leadership Programme (a massive open online course to develop leadership skills at all levels of the profession).
The College also highlights the continuation of its Mind Matters Initiative and how the initiative's aim - to encourage a compassionate and empathetic profession - is becoming a central part of the College's core strategy.
The report also covers the work done by the College to explore an outcomes-based approach to continuing professional development (CPD), review Schedule 3 and the Veterinary Surgeons Act, plan for the UK’s exit from the European Union and promote (jointly with the BVA) the benefit of registering with a vet to the public via a social media campaign.
The report includes the College’s independently-audited finances with details of income and expenditure. Whilst the College is not a charity, the accounts have been prepared in accordance with the Charities Statement of Recommended Practice – a framework for charity accounting and reporting, which allows easier comparison with the finances of similar bodies.
The report will be presented for adoption by members of the College at this year’s RCVS Day on Friday 12 July 2019 at the Royal Institute of British Architects.
The report can be downloaded from the RCVS publications webpage, or contact publications@rcvs.org.uk to request a hard copy.
Veterinary surgeons who want to pay in full must do so before before 1st June 2021. For those UK-practising vets who want to pay the fee in three instalments, the first payment should be received before 1st June, the second payment before 1st October and the final payment before the end of the year.
Any vets who do not pay either the fee in full or the first instalment before 1st June will be removed from the Register. If they want to be restored, they'll need to pay an additional restoration fee as well as the registration fee.
Professor Susan Dawson, RCVS Treasurer, said: “Due to the ongoing disruption to the profession because of the lockdown, we are glad to say that RCVS Council has again approved the ability for members of the profession to pay their fee in instalments and therefore spread the cost during this already difficult year.
"We would like to remind members of the profession that the option to pay in instalments is only available to UK-practising veterinary surgeons. For any UK-practising veterinary surgeons who have a Direct Debit set up but who wish to pay by instalments, please make sure to cancel your Direct Debit as soon as possible."
Payments can be made via the My Account area of the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/myaccount) where you will also need to confirm that you meet the annual continuing professional development (CPD) requirement and declare any convictions, cautions and/or adverse findings.
Any questions, contact the Registration Department: registration@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0707.
For advice about making payments or submitting a remittance form, contact the Finance Department on finance@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0723.
Further details about paying in instalments can also be found in a series of FAQs at: www.rcvs.org.uk/setting-standards/advice-and-guidance/coronavirus-covid-19/retention-fee-faqs/
The College says that although professional bodies advise their members to value their own wellbeing and seek help if unwell, there has been an absence of senior professionals who have felt able to say 'been there myself'.
By asking senior medical professionals to share their stories of overcoming struggles with mental health, &me aims to encourage other medical professionals to seek help, in part by showing that such experiences do not exclude people from achieving leading roles in healthcare.
With the addition of Dr Cathy Wield in August, there are now seven ambassadors for the &me campaign, and all of their stories can be read at www.vetmindmatters.org/&me:
Lizzie Lockett, Director of the Mind Matters Initiative, said: "Over the past eight months we have seen an incredible level of support for our &me ambassadors. Our Facebook post about Rob Pettitt, for example, reached nearly 25,000 people, many of whom posted stories about Rob helping them navigate veterinary school and better understand their own mental health issues. These kind of role models really do help reduce stigma, and we thank every one of our ambassadors for having the courage to share their own experiences with mental health."
Louise Freeman, Vice-Chair of the Doctors’ Support Network, said: "The &me campaign has really shown how the medical professions can work together when it comes to mental health. Medical professionals face many of the same challenges, and we needn’t face them alone – instead we can work as one to tackle stigma and speak openly about mental health issues. And it’s not just in the UK that health professionals can feel as if they are ‘not allowed’ to experience mental health problems. As a direct result of the &me campaign, health professionals from around the world including Australia and the U.S. have been in contact with DSN to confirm that they have similar issues within their local health culture."
The campaign is still interested in hearing from not only doctors and veterinary surgeons but also nurses, veterinary nurses, dentists, pharmacists and other healthcare professionals who want to open up about their experiences of mental ill health. To participate in the campaign, please email Dr Louise Freeman on vicechair@dsn.org.uk.
On social media tweets about the campaign are sent from @vetmindmatters and @DocSupportNet twitter accounts using the hashtag #AndMe.
The individual, referred to as Mrs D throughout the hearing and who was granted anonymity by the Committee on grounds relating to her health, faced three charges against her.
The first charge was that she posted the tweets from her Twitter/X account.
The second charge was that in a number of tweets (Schedule 1 below), she falsely stated or implied that she was a veterinary surgeon, and that, in some tweets, while falsely holding herself out to be a veterinary surgeon, she used language that was offensive and/or unprofessional.
The third charge was that in a number of tweets (Schedule 2 below) she made statements that were offensive, discriminatory and brought the veterinary professions into disrepute.
At the outset of the hearing Mrs D admitted all the facts of the charges against her, and also admitted that her conduct amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional capacity.
The Committee considered that there were a number of aggravating factors in Mrs D’s behaviour, including a lack of probity and integrity, as well as dishonesty, in holding herself out as a veterinary surgeon.
Her conduct was also premeditated and took place over a lengthy period of time, involved abuse of her position, and demonstrated discriminatory behaviour, as a large number of her tweets were highly offensive towards various minority groups.
In mitigation, the Committee heard from the respondent that she had a number of difficulties in her personal life which led to inappropriate use of social media, though she did not suggest these factors excused her behaviour.
The Committee also considered that Mrs D had a long and previously unblemished career of 15 or so years, had made early admissions (albeit she had initially denied being responsible for the tweets) and shown considerable remorse.
However, in terms of the sanction, the Committee considered that removal from the Register was the most proportionate sanction it could impose.
Paul Morris, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: “For a registered veterinary nurse to pretend to be a veterinary surgeon on a public platform is itself an extremely serious matter.
"When that presentation is associated with the highly offensive language of the tweets in this case, extending over a period of years, the conduct is in the view of the Committee fundamentally incompatible with continued registration.
“The Committee has concluded that removal from the register is the only sanction which is sufficient to satisfy the public interest in maintaining proper standards of behaviour for registered veterinary practitioners and public confidence in the profession and its regulation.”
The Tweets
Schedule 1
Schedule 2
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that the name of a veterinary surgeon who formerly practised in Norwich should be removed from the Register, having found him unfit to practise veterinary surgery following his Crown Court conviction for fraud.
During the one-day hearing, the Disciplinary Committee heard how Francisco da Cruz had abused his position whilst practising as a veterinary surgeon at Hellesdon Vets, his then workplace in Norwich, by defrauding a insurance companies of around £10,000 with fictitious claims for veterinary treatment on non-existent pets.
Following an investigation by the City of London Police's Insurance Fraud Enforcement Department (IFED), Mr da Cruz was convicted on five counts of fraud by false representation on 21 February 2013 at the Old Bailey in London, and later sentenced to eight months' imprisonment (suspended for two years) and 200 hours of unpaid community work; he was also ordered to pay just over £10,000 in compensation and costs.
Although Mr da Cruz had left the UK for Brazil shortly after his sentencing and was therefore not present at the hearing, the Committee was satisfied that he was deliberately evading the disciplinary proceedings, rather than being genuinely unable to participate in them, and so the hearing proceeded in his absence.
First accepting the copy certificate of conviction against Mr da Cruz as true, the Committee then had no hesitation in concluding that these convictions rendered him unfit to practise as a member of the veterinary profession. It found that the five counts of fraud were deliberate crimes of dishonesty, committed over a significant period of time and for significant financial gain. He had abused his position as a veterinary surgeon and abused the trust which the insurers placed in him as a professional.
Chairing and speaking on behalf of the Committee, Professor Peter Lees, said: "The Committee has no real confidence that there is no significant risk of repeat behaviour from the Respondent. His conduct subsequent to the criminal proceedings gives it no confidence that he has reformed himself to the extent that he will in the foreseeable future be fit to return to practice. So far from satisfactorily completing his criminal sentence, it appears that the Respondent has deliberately gone abroad to avoid doing so."
Bearing in mind that the purpose of any sanction it imposed was not to punish Mr da Cruz, but to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards of conduct within it, the Committee concluded that the convictions were too serious to allow any sanction other than removal from the Register.
The full details of the Committee's decisions are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).
The awards, which were first launched last year, are open to UK practices, branch surgeries or other organisations who employ veterinary surgeons or nurses. They were created to highlight wellbeing in the veterinary profession and celebrate workplaces where:
• health and happiness are valued;• there are systems and initiatives that motivate;• staff are engaged;• communication is positive;• there is commitment to being a better place to work.
The prize for each category includes two registrations and banquet tickets for SPVS/VPMA Congress 2018 where the winners will be announced to the media and will be available for interview.
Practices that are thinking about applying can now access a free five-minute Wellbeing Checklist that can help provide examples of some simple activities that can improve the health and wellbeing of the veterinary team.
Nick Stuart from SPVS said: "Taking five minutes to fill out the Wellbeing Checklist is a great way to get a sense of how your practice is doing, and to identify ways in which you could improve. Practices are often doing a lot more than they realise and the Checklist shows how even such small steps as a having a fruit bowl in the staff room, or having a five-minute huddle at the start of the day, can make a huge difference."
Lizzie Lockett, MMI Director, said: "Having a supportive and constructive culture is key not just for the welfare of the staff, but for the animals they take care of. It allows all members of the team to feel comfortable coming forward with questions, clarifications, or even mistakes, and can ultimately lead to safer and more consistent care for patients."
Entries can be made now via the website www.vetwellbeingawards.org.uk, where the Wellbeing Checklist is also available.
The closing date for entries is Friday 15 December 2017. You can follow the awards on twitter @vetwellbeing and Facebook /vetwellbeingawards/.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended a Kent veterinary surgeon from the Register for eight months after he was found guilty of dishonest certification.
At the outset of the hearing held on 14/15 December, Takeshi Okano, of Lakeview Veterinary Centre in Deal, Kent, admitted charges that, whilst acting as Official Veterinarian, he had signed a number of certificates when he knew that did not have all the information needed to do so.
On 23 June 2009, Mr Okano had been asked to act as Official Veterinarian to examine four horses and sign the certificates necessary for their export to the USA. The certificates required Mr Okano to certify he had received a written declaration from the owners that the animals had been in the UK for 60 days previously. Mr Okano also signed certificates indicating that the horses had only been in France, Ireland, or the UK for the same 60-day period. Despite having received no such declarations, and having no information whatsoever of where the horses had been, Mr Okano signed the certificates. At the hearing, no explanation for Mr Okano's actions was offered.
Mrs Beverley Cottrell, Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee said: "The validity of any certificate is an integral part of the system relating to the export or import of animals. At Section G of the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct, emphasis is given to the importance of certification, the importance of the signature and the guidance issued by DEFRA. These provisions are well known to the profession."
The Committee was satisfied that Mr Okano's actions in signing the certificates without the owners' declarations amounted to a serious departure from professional standards. In reaching a decision on sanction, it considered that, whilst a reprimand or warning would not be appropriate, neither would removing Mr Okano's name from the Register be proportionate, or necessary either in the public interest or to protect animals.
"Mr Okano is a young veterinary surgeon at the start of his career, who from the outset admitted his actions," said Mrs Cottrell noting that the testimonials from veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and clients, and his record of Continuing Professional Development demonstrated his commitment to high standards within the profession. "In reaching this decision, we have paid particular regard to the fact the false certification was neither persistent nor concealed, nor was he a senior veterinary surgeon."
The Committee directed Mr Okano's name be suspended from the Register for eight months.
The RCVS has announced that this year, for the first time, it will accept debit card payments from veterinary surgeons who are renewing their registration.
The annual renewal fee should be paid by 31 March. Those who have not paid by 30 April will be charged an extra £35 to renew their registration while those who have not paid by 31 May will be removed from the Register.
Corrie McCann, RCVS Director of Operations, said: "Following feedback from the profession, this year, thanks to a change in our registration regulations, we are able to accept debit card payments which we hope will make the renewal process much easier and more convenient for our members. Furthermore, members will also no longer be charged if they choose to pay their fee by credit card."
Veterinary surgeons will also need to confirm their registration details (including their correspondence and registration addresses), confirm that they have met the RCVS requirement for continuing professional development of 105 hours over a three-year period and disclose any new or previously undisclosed convictions, cautions or adverse findings.
Another change is that vets will now have the choice of either home or work as their registered address (in the past, only work addresses were allowed).
The annual renewal can be completed by returning the form that has been sent by post or by logging into the 'My Account' area of the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/login) using the security details that have been sent to all MsRCVS.
Any members who have not received their annual renewal form or security details for the 'My Account' area 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 0733 or finance@rcvs.org.uk
The panel, chaired by veterinary ethicist Professor David Morton CBE, was established last year on a trial basis as a means of offering an ethical review process for practice-based research projects that may not have the same access to resources as clinical studies in academia or industry.
Since its establishment at the end of July last year it has received 23 applications, mostly concerning small animal clinical studies. However, due to demand from the profession, it will shortly be considering applications for equine or farm animal-based research and will be recruiting new panel members to cover these areas.
Eleanor Ferguson, RCVS Registrar, said: "Although the number of cases considered so far have been relatively small, the service has been very well received as a means of providing ethical review to those who might not otherwise be able to do so and so, therefore, might struggle to get papers published.
"Considering the importance of practice-based research we expect there to be an increase in the number of applications as word gets out about the service and so are happy to extend the trial for another year and for it to consider a wider range of applications."
Further details about the Panel, as well as guidelines for making applications and the application forms, can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/ethics
For an initial discussion about submitting an application to the Ethics Review Panel, contact Beth Jinks, Standards and Advisory Officer, on 020 7202 0764 or ethics@rcvs.org.uk
Mr Dobson was struck off in 2021 after the DC found that he'd carried out an act of veterinary certification after being removed from the Register for non-payment, failed to have professional indemnity insurance in place and failed to respond to requests from the RCVS about these things.
Mr Dobson submitted a restoration application by email at the start of June, but then didn't reply to any further correspondence from the College, didn't provide any detail supporting his application, didn't attend the hearing and didn't contact the RCVS to explain why.
The Committee decided to go ahead with the restoration hearing in Mr Dobson's absence.
It decided that although Mr Dobson's email on 2nd June 2023 did suggest that he accepted the original findings for which he was removed from the Register, there was not enough evidence of remorse or insight into the the failings which led to him being struck off in the first place, or that he had attempted to keep his continuing professional development (CPD) up-to-date or that, if restored, he would pose no risk to animal health and welfare.
Paul Morris, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Disciplinary Committee will only restore the name of the applicant veterinary surgeon to the Register where the applicant has satisfied it that he or she is fit to return to unrestricted practice as a veterinary surgeon and that restoration is in the public interest.
“The Committee’s real concerns about this application and this applicant are that it has before it no evidence of any value or substance to satisfy either of these criteria.
"There is no basis on which the Committee could conclude that the applicant is fit to return to unrestricted practice.
"In turn, there is no basis on which the Committee could conclude that it is in the public interest that this applicant’s name be restored to the Register.
“It is of importance to the profession and to members of the public that restorations to the Register should only occur when the applicant has established by clear evidence that the criteria which are set out in the public documents produce by the College have been satisfied.”
He added: “Having regard to the above criteria and its findings on them, the Committee considers that it remains the case that the protection of the public and the public interest requires that his name be not restored to the Register and therefore refuses this application.”