Mr Wood was convicted of three offences which involved the download of 38 videos and 13 indecent images of children, at Portsmouth Magistrates’ Court in December 2017.
In January 2018, he was sentenced to a three-year Community Sentence for each offence, to run concurrently, and was made subject to a five-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order.
He was also fined £1,000 and ordered to pay costs of £340 and a victim surcharge of £85.
Mr Wood was also placed on the barring list by the Disclosure and Barring Service and required to register with the police pursuant to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for a period of five years.
Mr Wood appeared before the Disciplinary Committee, admitted his conviction and accepted that it rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
In determining the sanction, the Committee says it took into account a number of mitigating factors: his conviction involved no actual harm or risk of harm to an animal; there was no financial gain; he had engaged in open and frank admissions at an early stage; he was experiencing mental ill-health at the time of the offence; he had taken subsequent steps to avoid a repetition of such behaviour; there had been a significant lapse of time since the incident; and he showed insight into the harm caused by his offence.
The Committee also considered that the purpose of a sanction is not to punish, but to protect the welfare of animals, as well as maintain public confidence in the profession and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct. On consideration of the appropriate sanction, the Committee decided that postponement of judgement was not appropriate, and that taking no action was not an option.
The Committee then considered whether a reprimand or warning was appropriate, but they considered that would not match the gravity of the offence – a period of suspension would also mean Mr Wood would automatically return to the Register after the period of time without the College being able to review his fitness to practise, rendering it an inappropriate sanction. The Committee therefore determined that the removal of Mr Wood from the RCVS Register was the only way to protect the wider public interest and maintain confidence in the profession.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "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 perception, the reputation of the profession had to be at the forefront of its thinking and ultimately it was more important than the interests of the Respondent.
"The decision is not simply based on the fact that these offences were of a sexual nature but because they were repeated frequently over a significant period of time, and at the time, the Respondent knew on his own admission that what he was doing was wrong.
"Accordingly, the Committee had decided that removal from the Register is appropriate and proportionate in this case. The Committee will direct the Registrar to remove the Respondent’s name from the Register forthwith."
Mr Wood has 28 days to appeal the Committee’s decision after which, if no appeal is received, the Committee’s judgment takes effect.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has accepted an application for restoration to the RCVS Register by Gordon Lonsdale, who had been struck off in March 2004 for illegally delegating acts of veterinary surgery to insufficiently qualified members of his practice staff.
At the initial Inquiry, Mr Lonsdale, who formerly worked as a sole practitioner in Shropshire, had admitted three separate charges of serious professional misconduct. These included allegations that he had instructed nurses and support staff to undertake dental extractions, dog and cat castrations, the removal of tumours or masses, the induction and maintenance of anaesthesia, lancing abscesses and suturing wounds.
At yesterday's hearing, the onus was on Mr Lonsdale to satisfy the Committee that he was fit to be restored to the Register, not least in view of his former health problems and the eight-year period for which he had been off the Register.
He provided the Committee with evidence of undertaking continuing professional development, including 130 hours of online courses and seven weeks of seeing practice, letters of endorsement from former clients and testimonials from friends and former colleagues.
The Committee accepted Mr Lonsdale's evidence that he had successfully addressed his alcoholism, which it recognised as being a contributory factor to his poor decision making in an isolated working environment. He assured the Committee of his intention that, should his application be successful, he intended to work only in a multi-handed, rather than single-handed, practice in future.
The Committee found him to be an honest and frank witness who had made a credible attempt to refresh his small animal practice knowledge; it was satisfied that he accepted the findings of the original hearing and that he had put the welfare of animals at risk, and it noted his expression of remorse.
In considering Mr Lonsdale's application, the Committee made a number of recommendations, including that he should register for the RCVS Professional Development Phase, undertake certain parts of the RCVS Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Practice, restrict himself to his recognised areas of competence, investigate communication courses run by the Veterinary Defence Society and continue with the mentoring programme provided by the Veterinary Surgeons Health Support Programme. Mr Lonsdale stated that he was willing to follow all of these recommendations.
Professor Peter Lees, who chaired and spoke on behalf of the Disciplinary Committee, concluded: "In these circumstances, we do not consider that any further period of erasure would be of benefit either to the public or the veterinary profession. Therefore, we direct the Registrar to restore Mr Lonsdale's name to the Register."
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) has clarified the legal position regarding the disbudding of goats, following recent media reports concerning undercover filming on UK goat farms.
The carrying out of any activity which amounts to veterinary surgery is restricted to veterinary surgeons unless there is a suitable exemption that allows other people to do it. The removal of the horn-bud of goats (disbudding) is considered veterinary surgery under the provisions of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (the Act).
Schedule 3 of the Act provides certain exemptions to the restriction on carrying out veterinary surgery, such as those allowing veterinary nurses and student veterinary nurses to undertake any medical treatment or any minor surgery (not involving entry into a body cavity) in certain circumstances. However, Schedule 3 specifically provides that these exemptions do not allow non-veterinary surgeons to undertake the disbudding of goats, except the trimming of the insensitive tip of an in-growing horn which, if left untreated, could cause pain or distress.
There are no other Exemption Orders covering the disbudding of goats and therefore this procedure may only be undertaken by veterinary surgeons.
The Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007, the Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (Wales) Regulations 2007 and the Prohibited Procedures on Protected Animals (Exemptions) (Scotland) Regulations 2007 all include disbudding of goats as a procedure which can be carried out for non-therapeutic reasons. However, this secondary legislation is subject to the restrictions in the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 and therefore disbudding of goats is restricted to veterinary surgeons.The Welfare of Animals (Permitted Procedures By Lay Persons) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 currently include disbudding of goats as a procedure which may be carried out by non-veterinary surgeons. However, the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 applies to Northern Ireland and the Regulations are scheduled to be amended later in 2012. This will make it clear that only veterinary surgeons may disbud goats in the UK.
The secondary legislation in the UK does not explicitly require anaesthetic to be administered when disbudding goats. However, disbudding should be carried out by veterinary surgeons in accordance with good practice and in such a way as to minimise pain and suffering caused to the animal, which should include use of an anaesthetic.
In summary, only a veterinary surgeon may undertake the disbudding of goats and due to the nature of the procedure, veterinary surgeons disbudding goats should administer anaesthetic.
Nominees for the RCVS Council and its Veterinary Nurses Council have been announced, with 13 candidates for the former and four for the latter.
The nominations closed on 31 January, and the following are standing:
RCVS Council
* denotes current RCVS Council member
VN Council
* denotes current VN Council member
The RCVS is seeking candidates to run for election to the RCVS and VN Councils.
There are six seats on the RCVS Council and two on the VN Council due to be filled in the 2010 election. Candidate nominations must be received by 31 January 2010; voting papers will then be distributed to all veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses eligible to vote, the election held in March and the results announced early in May. Those elected will take their seats at RCVS Day in July to serve four-year terms.
Jane Hern, RCVS Registrar said: "Like us or loathe us, what the RCVS does impacts directly on the lives of veterinary surgeons and nurses, their clients and patients. Getting regulation right is something that all Members and Listed/Registered VNs have power to influence.
"We know from the reaction we get when we propose changes or ask for your comments that vets and VNs are not backwards about coming forwards," Jane continued. "There has been a substantial rise in the number of vets voting, since a low point in voter turnout was reached in 2002. So, if you know someone you think is up to the job, why not persuade them to stand?"
All prospective candidates need to provide the signatures and registered/listed addresses of two proposers, and should also submit a short biography, 'manifesto' and photograph for inclusion in the elections booklets. Nobody can nominate more than one candidate, and no current member of the RCVS Council or VN Council may nominate anyone.
Newly elected RCVS Council members should expect to sit on at least one committee which, together with Council attendances, means a time commitment of at least six to eight days a year. Those elected to the VN Council should expect to spend approximately six to eight days attending Council meetings, working parties and subcommittees. Both RCVS Council and VN Council members are permitted to claim certain expenditures arising from Council-related duties and their employers can also claim a standard day-rate for loss of earnings.
Nomination forms and full details relating to RCVS Council nominations can be downloaded from www.rcvs.org.uk/rcvscouncil10 or obtained by contacting the Executive Office (020 7222 0761 or executiveoffice@rcvs.org.uk). Nomination forms and details relating to the VN Council will be online shortly at www.rcvs.org.uk/vncouncil10 and can also be requested from Annette Amato (020 7202 0788 or a.amato@rcvs.org.uk).
All nominations must be made in writing on the prescribed form and received by the Registrar on or before the closing date of 31 January 2010.
The RCVS is inviting responses from veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and animal owners to a call for evidence on the provision of 24-hour emergency veterinary care, in order to understand how best to meet the expectations of all those involved.
In an open letter to the profession and the public published on the RCVS website, the Chairman of the RCVS Standards Committee, Clare Tapsfield-Wright, said:
"Over the past two years, lay people working with the RCVS have raised questions about the veterinary profession's ability to provide 24/7 to the extent required by the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct, and said there is a disconnect between the public's expectations and the profession's capacity to meet those expectations."
Clare also refers to an RCVS Disciplinary Committee Inquiry in June 2013, which raised a number of issues on home visits by veterinary surgeons, including: speed of response; travelling time and distance; daytime versus out-of-hours obligations; individual versus corporate responsibility; and, staffing levels and contingency plans.
The letter is accompanied by a range of background information, including the reports of Lay Observers to the RCVS Preliminary Investigation Committee; Working Party reports from the College's 2009 consultation on 24-hour emergency cover; and, further details about the June 2013 DC Inquiry.
The College says additional feedback will be sought through next year's RCVS Survey of the Professions, and via focus group research for animal owners. Once all responses have been collated, a number of individuals and organisations will be invited to a Standards Committee meeting to present and discuss their views.
Responses in writing are invited by 5pm on Monday, 17 February 2014, and should be emailed to 24-7@rcvs.org.uk or posted to the Professional Conduct Department, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, Belgravia House, 62-64 Horseferry Road, London SW1P 2AF.
The RCVS has launched a new online form to allow veterinary surgeons to change their Register title to 'Dr'.
You can make the change by logging into the 'My Account' area of the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/login) where you can access the form. Usernames and passwords for the My Account area were sent to all veterinary surgeons in February as part of the annual renewal process.
The College says an email confirmation is sent once the form is completed and changes should take effect immediately in the My Account area. However, it may take up to 24 hours before the title appears on an individual's Register entry.
The use of 'Doctor' as a courtesy title was approved by RCVS Council at its March meeting, following a public consultation which garnered more than 11,000 responses.
Use of the title is optional and veterinary surgeons who choose to use 'Doctor' or 'Dr' should use it in conjunction with their name and either the descriptor 'veterinary surgeon' or the postnominal letters 'MRCVS'. This ensures that they do not mislead the public by suggesting or implying that they hold a human medical qualification or a PhD.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has announced that Nick Stace has been appointed its Chief Executive and Secretary, and will take up his post on 3 September 2012.
Mr Stace leaves CHOICE, Australia's equivalent of consumer group Which?, after three and a half years as Chief Executive Officer. At CHOICE, Nick led the modernisation of the organisation, this year taking it to the number one spot as the most trusted media entity in Australia. A long-standing consumer champion, Nick also held the post of Deputy CEO at Which?, he was a director at Consumers' International and former Prime Minister Gordon Brown's Director of Strategic Communications.
RCVS President Jerry Davies said: "I am delighted that Nick Stace will be joining the College. With his impressive track-record, I believe that we have a Chief Executive who will lead the College into a new phase of modernisation and development. I am grateful to the Interview Panel, led by Council member Dr Barry Johnson, for all their hard work in securing this excellent appointment."
Nick Stace said: "It is an enormous privilege to be leading an organisation that seeks to ensure Britain has the best vets in the world. The College has a special place in the lives of every vet in the country, it also has a responsibility to animals and consumers to set high standards and ensure they are met. I look forward to helping the College continue to improve veterinary standards across the country and to lead the College through its next stage of development."
The role of Chief Executive and Secretary is a new one - previously the Registrar led the executive of the College. One of Nick Stace's first tasks will be to assist in recruitment of the Head of Legal Services/Registrar, a new role.
The RCVS Charitable Trust has released the results of a survey that suggests a lack of available, high-quality research could be hampering the implementation of evidence-based medicine (EVM) in veterinary practice.
Of the 70 survey respondents, although 70% said they were familiar with the concepts of EVM, only 36% said that they always used EVM principles or that EVM principles were deeply embedded within their practices. When asked about the barriers to implementing EVM, many vets commented that there was a lack of high-quality research available to them.
Trust director, Cherry Bushell said: "This survey was relatively small as our intention is for it to help spark discussion at our forthcoming symposium 'The Sceptical Vet: Eminence or Evidence? Finding the best way forward for the veterinary profession'. We want to consider the possibility of developing a range of evidence-based resources for the veterinary profession, so it's interesting to hear vets commenting about the lack of an available, high-quality evidence base."
All those completing the Trust's survey were entered into a prize draw for a chance to have their travel expenses to the event reimbursed. Veterinary surgeon Ariel Brunn (top right) from Vets Now, Maidenhead, was the winner. She said: "I'm really looking forward to this Symposium and the discussion that will come with it - along with clinical governance, evidence-based practice provides a means to offer the best care for our veterinary patients. Having been a practising vet for less than 5 years, I'm excited to learn more about how EVM can be incorporated into veterinary practice and I'm certainly pleased to have won the prize draw to support my travel to this event."
This symposium will take place on Tuesday 30 October 2012, at Church House Conference Centre, London. A limited number of places are still available for practising veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses only via the Trust (a.doorly@rcvstrust.org.uk or 0207 202 0741). For more information visit http://trust.rcvs.org.uk/grants-and-collaborations/the-sceptical-vet-eminence-or-evidence.
Reporter Andy Davies spoke to Charlotte Debbaut MRCVS, a veterinary surgeon from Belgium working at the Tindale Veterinary Practice in Gloucestershire, where there are 13 vets with eight different nationalities. He also interviewed Matthew Pugh MRCVS and Ovidiu Oltean MRCVS from Belmont Veterinary Centre, a mixed practice in Hereford which employs five foreign nationals out of a team of 13 veterinary surgeons.
Finally, he talked to John Blackwell MRCVS at Brownlow Veterinary Group in Shropshire, where Brexit had already caused a Croatian member of his team to refuse a permanent position and return to Ireland.
Congratulations to the RCVS and BVA press offices, who will have been hard at work behind the scenes.
See: https://www.channel4.com/news/brexit-affecting-vet-recruitment
The RCVS is now accepting disclosures from veterinary surgeons about any criminal cautions, convictions or adverse findings they may have against them, as part of a voluntary period before the requirement to disclose commences in 2014.
The requirement that veterinary surgeons notify the College about criminal cautions, convictions or adverse findings on registration, and on an annual basis as part of their registration renewal each March, was introduced as part of the Code of Professional Conduct in 2012 (section 5.3, see Notes to Editors). However, the College has allowed a bedding-in period for the Code before enforcing the requirement.
From 2014, new registrants will have to disclose any criminal cautions, convictions or adverse findings that may affect registration (for example, those from university fitness to practise procedures).
Veterinary surgeons already on the Register (including overseas and non-practising categories, as well as UK-practising) will only be required to disclose criminal cautions, convictions or adverse findings that have occurred since April 2006. Fixed-penalty motoring offences are excluded.
The veterinary profession has fallen under the Notifiable Occupations Scheme since April 2006, which means that serious convictions are already passed to the College from the police.
If a veterinary surgeon declares a criminal conviction, this will be initially considered by the Registrar, and, if necessary, referred to the Preliminary Investigation Committee. In some cases, the matter will be referred on to the Disciplinary Committee to decide if the nature of the caution or conviction affects the veterinary surgeon's fitness to practise - in which case the usual sanctions of removal or suspension from the Register could apply.
Eleanor Ferguson, Head of Professional Conduct said: "We hope, through this new requirement, to increase the public's confidence in the veterinary profession, and to safeguard animal health and welfare. The move brings the veterinary profession into line with many others - including registered veterinary nurses, who have made such a disclosure since their Register was introduced, in 2007."
The RCVS has launched a dedicated advice line to assist affected veterinary surgeons, on 07818 113 056, open Monday to Friday, 11am-4pm.
Callers will speak to one of three RCVS solicitors who can advise on the process and the possible outcomes of disclosure. Alternatively, veterinary surgeons can contact disclosure@rcvs.org.uk.
Detailed information regarding the requirement, including examples of the kinds of convictions that may be referred to the Preliminary Investigation Committee, and a disclosure form, can be found on www.rcvs.org.uk/convictions.
The RCVS has announced the members that will comprise its new Audit and Risk Committee, which was set up following recommendations in the RCVS Overspend Review Group's report (otherwise known as the McKelvey Report).
The Audit and Risk Committee will support RCVS Council in meeting its oversight responsibilities, including:
Its members are:
Non-Council membersElizabeth Butler (Chairman) is a practising Chartered Accountant who has held a wide variety of non-executive appointments, bringing both professional expertise and a depth of understanding of risk and governance. Among other roles, she has chaired the audit committees of the Royal College of Nursing and Hyde Housing Association, and currently chairs the audit committees of the Electoral Commission and the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, she is also chairman of Lewisham Healthcare NHS Trust.
David Hughes is a chartered accountant and a former senior partner who has extensive expertise in financial reporting, accounting, auditing, risk management and governance issues. He is currently a Non-Executive Director and Chairman of the Audit Committee for the Highways Agency and a member of the Department for Transport Audit Committee.
Judith Rutherford has five years' experience as a Non-Executive Director and as a member of the Audit Committee in a community Healthcare and Primary Care Trust within the regulated environment of the NHS. She is currently Director of an organisation that provides interim management and consultancy to the private and public sectors.
RCVS Council membersRichard Davis is a Privy Council-appointed member of RCVS Council. He farms 104 hectares in North Bedfordshire and has been a director of First Milk Ltd for seven years. He has also been a director of Westbury Dairies Ltd, where he was Chairman of the Audit Committee. Richard has served on the audit committee of Assured Food Standards (Red Tractor) for the last six years and served as the Chairman of Assured Dairy Farms for six years (the scheme sets, audits and monitors production, welfare and environmental standards for most UK processors, and over 12,000 dairy farms).
Lynne Hill MRCVS is Chief Executive of Langford Veterinary Services Ltd, University of Bristol, and was previously Head of the Clinical Services Department at the Royal Veterinary College. Prior to that, Lynne was European Marketing Manager for Hill's Pet Nutrition. She is an elected member of RCVS Council and was President in 2005-6.
The non-Council members of the Committee were appointed by a panel chaired by Sir David Barnes, Chairman of the Governance Review Group.
The new Committee, which is accountable to Council and will report at least annually, will meet for the first time in early autumn.
Jacqui Molyneux, RCVS President said: "I am pleased that the new Audit and Risk Committee is now in place. It should offer reassurance to both members and the public that the framework via which Council's activities are scrutinised is robust."
The RCVS Charitable Trust has announced that it is working in partnership with Imperial College London and the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) to co-fund a doctorate entitled 'Veterinary training and veterinary work: a female perspective, 1919-2000.'
This will look at the shift in women's expectations, experiences, professional networks and career trajectories, and examine how and why certain veterinary activities came to be regarded as suitable (or unsuitable) work for women. In the course of this research the personal collections of two prominent members of the veterinary profession, Connie Ford and Olga Uvarov, will also be catalogued, to make these papers more accessible to both professional researchers and more generalist readers.
Clare Boulton, RCVS Charitable Trust Librarian and the Trust's project supervisor said: "This exciting project is an opportunity to really use the archival material held by the RCVS Charitable Trust Library, interview transcripts and surveys, to describe and analyse the educational and work experiences of successive generations of female British vets. It's great to be able to work with other academic institutions on a project of this nature so we can share expertise - and make the most of the research findings."
The research will be carried out by Julie Hipperson, who holds an MA in Modern History from King's College London, and whose interests include women in the professions in the twentieth century, and rural environments and communities. She said: "I hope new insights will be gained into the most famous of veterinary female pioneers.
"More than this, however, I will be looking at the mainstream of female vets, their aspirations, motivations and achievements since 1919, and also the obstacles they encountered, in order to contextualise the 'feminisation' of the profession. This is a sizeable challenge, but one which I hope will be invaluable not only to the veterinary profession, but also to understand more fully women in the professions throughout the twentieth century."
More information can be found on the Trust's website http://trust.rcvs.org.uk/pioneers-and-professionals/ and on Julie's 'Pioneers and Professionals' blog at http://pioneersandprofessionals.wordpress.com/
Chris has been an elected member of Council since 2009 and, during this time, has served on the Education Committee, the Examinations Appeal Committee and the Operational Board as Chair of the Education Committee and Junior Vice-President.
He graduated with a veterinary degree from the University of Glasgow at the relatively advanced age of 30 having first attained a degree in Agricultural and Environmental Science from the University of Newcastle. Following graduation he worked in a mixed practice in Herefordshire before buying an equine and companion animal practice in West Berkshire, which currently employs five veterinary surgeons and five support staff.
In his maiden speech, Chris called on veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to be proud of themselves as people who are committed to the welfare of animals in their care and to not be so hard on themselves.
He also outlined several areas that he would like to prioritise during his presidential year. These included delivering the priorities set out in the Vet Futures Action Plan, exploring bringing veterinary paraprofessionals into the College’s regulatory remit, driving forward the College’s international profile and dealing with blame and fear culture in the profession.
He said: "I’ve seen first-hand in Africa and India what the delivery of veterinary care can do for the welfare of animals in these regions and the wellbeing of people that frequently depend upon them. As one of the richest nations in the world we will further investigate what we can do, through knowledge transfer and support, to help raise the standards of veterinary care in developing countries.
"Sadly we often hear that there are vets and nurses who live in fear of the RCVS. This is something of which I am personally ashamed. Being particularly mindful of the role that fear and anxiety play in mental health, I will do everything I can to replace this fear... I will encourage all hardworking vets and nurses, whichever field they are in, to wear their [MRCVS] ‘badge’ with pride. Feel good about what you do, feel great about what you do."
Chris’ first official duty upon receiving the presidential chain of office from outgoing President Dr Bradley Viner, was to welcome the new Junior Vice-President Professor Stephen May. He also praised Bradley for his calm authority, humour and wisdom throughout his year as RCVS President.
The RCVS is advising all practices that it is not currently carrying out a data-gathering exercise and that phone calls prompting the return of a survey, and requesting mobile phone numbers, are not being made on behalf of the College.
The warning comes after several practices have called the College to query 'feedback forms' - supposedly issued in relation to the Practice Standards Scheme or the payment of members' retention fees.
The practices were asked to return forms which they had not received, and also to provide mobile phone numbers, by someone who claimed to work for the 'statutory regulator' or 'the RCVS'. Contact phone numbers left by the caller were either RCVS fax numbers or numbers which looked like RCVS direct dial numbers, but were not.
Lizzie Lockett, Head of Communications, said: "This looks like an exercise to gain mobile phone numbers which is being carried out in the College's name. We are currently investigating who might be making these calls. In the meantime, if a practice receives such a call, it would be helpful if they could take down a name and contact number and let us know."
Ring 020 7202 0725 or email l.lockett@rcvs.org.uk to report any suspicious activity.
Amir Kashiv faced a charge of being unfit to practise veterinary surgery after twice being found guilty of letting dogs roam freely on public highways or land not owned or controlled by him in Peterborough Magistrates’ Court, once on 20 April 2016 and once on 16 November 2016, and by having repeatedly breached court orders in relation to the same.
Dr Kashiv admitted the convictions, but denied that individually or in any combination they rendered him unit to practise veterinary surgery. This was therefore left to the judgement of the Committee.
In considering whether the convictions rendered Dr Kashiv unfit for practice, the Committee first considered the facts of the convictions.
Dr Kashiv had long taken in house dogs with physical and behavioural problems, at some stages having as many as 30 on his property. In 2014 neighbours became concerned by dogs escaping and noise nuisances, and on 14 November 2014 Dr Kashiv was served by the Police with a Warning Notice, requiring him to install adequate fencing within 28 days.
Four days later he was then served with an Abatement Notice for a Noise Nuisance about the dogs, and on 10 January 2015 he was then served with a Community Protection Notice requiring him to stop his dogs roaming and ensure adequate fencing.
After multiple subsequent escapes Dr Kashiv pleaded guilty of being in breach of the Community Protection Order at the Magistrates’ Court on 20 April 2016, receiving penalties amounting to £5,000 and costs of £6,000, as well as a two year Criminal Behaviour Order requiring him to reduce the number of dogs to no more than five with 28 days, and requiring his dogs to be supervised at all times while they were outside the house.
Two months later one of the dogs was seen outside the property, resulting in another conviction for breach of the Criminal Behaviour Order on 16 November 2016, and Dr Kashiv was fined £250 as well as £250 in costs.
The Committee then considered whether this resulted in Dr Kashiv being unfit to practise veterinary surgery. It considered it a serious matter that a veterinary surgeon should allow himself to be made subject to a Warning Notice, and that, being subject to such a Notice, he should then be found in repeated breach of the Notice and invite prosecution. While the Committee accepts that it is difficult to fence his entire grounds, ten acres in total, the Committee took it as a mark against Dr Kashiv that he failed to address the concerns of the authorities by reducing the number of dogs he housed until he was compelled to do so.
Jane Downes, who was chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee regards this as a case close to borderline. These offences, involving the mismanagement by a veterinary surgeon of his animals and repeated offences demonstrate that Dr Kashiv had a less than adequate insight in 2014 and 2015 into the seriousness of the situation or into the understandable concerns of his neighbours and of the authorities. They are capable of bringing the profession into disrepute so as to undermine public confidence in it.
"But, in the end, The Committee has concluded that Dr Kashiv is not unfit by reason of these convictions to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
"It is apparent from the material before the Committee that Dr Kashiv is a dedicated veterinary surgeon whose life’s work has been devoted to the welfare of small animals and who has gone to extraordinary lengths, at his own expense, to do all that he possibly could to alleviate the suffering of, and rehabilitate, unloved and abandoned and unwell dogs.
"In all the circumstances and in the light of all the evidence the Committee finds that the convictions, whether taken individually or in any combination, do not render Dr Kashiv unfit to practice veterinary surgery."
The RCVS has announced that the Registrar, Gordon Hockey, has decided to leave the College after 16 years' service.
Gordon served first as Assistant Registrar / Head of Professional Conduct, and, since 2012, as Registrar / Director of Legal Services.
Dr Bradley Viner, RCVS President, said: "We wish to thank Gordon for all his hard work and wish him every success in the future.
"He has been a key figure at the RCVS for many years, and has brought about much positive change in the organisation, particularly with respect to reform of our disciplinary processes and the introduction of our new Charter, in February 2015."
The RCVS is holding a session at the London Vet Show on Saturday 23rd October from 8:30am-9:30am to provide guidance and advice concerning the work your nursing team does in practice.
As the RCVS says, the recent Panorama programme "It shouldn't happen at a vets'" was a stark reminder of the importance of ensuring that all practice staff are working within the appropriate legal framework.
The session will answer such questions as:
Because of the early start, the RCVS is providing breakfast from 8:15am, though I wouldn't get your hopes up for eggs benedict and freshly smoked Loch Fyne kippers.
The RCVS says the session will be relevant for all members of the practice team, but that if you can't make the session, they will be on hand to discuss VN legislation on stand M26.
The RCVS has released the results of a competition held at BSAVA Congress earlier this month, in which veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and other members of the practice team were asked to identify three animals from sound only.
The correct answers were a purring cat, a Chihuahua dog (the breed had to be specified) and a guinea pig.
Of 370 entrants, only 104 (28%) were correct. Some of the more outlandish answers included, for the cat noise: elephant, lion, whale and dolphin; and, for the guinea pig noise: ferret, meerkat, dove, chicken and frog. However, the majority of those getting it wrong were stumped by the requirement to specify the breed of dog, with Jack Russell Terrier or some 'yappy little thing ' proving a favourite.
The winner of the competition was Liverpool-based veterinary surgeon, Anna Rowntree, who won an iPod Nano. She said: "I thought the competition was good fun and a real novelty. It certainly drew me to the stand and was not what I would have expected from the RCVS - it proves they can be approachable! I was very excited to have won and I still can't believe I have."
The noises competition linked to the College's theme for the event, 'Falling on deaf ears?', which examined how the organisation takes account of responses to its consultations, debunking the myth that those who take the trouble to reply are not listened to. The topic was addressed by President Professor Sandy Trees in a presentation on the Saturday of Congress. Visitors to the stand were also given RCVS-branded earphones to reinforce the listening message.
Copies of all three presentations made by the RCVS at BSAVA Congress are now available on RCVSonline (www.rcvs.org.uk/ear_ear). They are:
Dr Fures was convicted of driving with excess alcohol in the Dublin Criminal Courts of Justice in December 2018.
Later, when renewing his UK RCVS registration, Dr Fures told the RCVS Chief Investigator that on the day of his offence, he'd been on a flight from Frankfurt to Dublin which suffered engine failure, causing the pilot to perform a forced emergency landing in Amsterdam. There, he claimed, the passengers switched to an airworthy plane for the rest of the journey, during which he had several drinks to calm his nerves.
In a remarkably detailed and complex investigation, the RCVS Chief Investigator rang Lufthansa and discovered that the flight had not suffered engine failure and had flown direct from Frankfurt to Dublin without incident.
In May and July 2020, the RCVS Chief Investigator wrote to Dr Fures setting out the result of his investigations and research. In his responses Dr Fures accepted that his memory of the incident was wrong.
At the outset of the hearing Dr Fures made an application to the Committee enter into undertakings to voluntarily remove himself from the UK Register and to not apply to re-join. However, the Committee did not accept these undertakings in part on the basis that he was not of retirement age and intended to continue to practise in Ireland.
The Committee considered that if it were to accept his undertakings, then there would be no judgement or findings that could be passed on to the Veterinary Council of Ireland for consideration via its own disciplinary procedures.
Ian Arundale, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee decided that this is a case in which the public interest, confidence in the profession, and, potentially, the welfare of animals, demands that there be a full hearing, with determinations made by the Disciplinary Committee."
The Committee then went on to consider the facts of the case.
Dr Fures admitted that he had supplied the RCVS with false information about his conviction for drink driving but denied that this was dishonest at the time that he supplied the information. He accepted that the information he provided was wrong, in that his flight between Frankfurt and Dublin, while delayed by just over an hour, did not have to land in Amsterdam as he had previously claimed.
He said that his false statement was based on misremembering the circumstances and that he had genuinely believed his statement was true at the time it was made to the RCVS. He said that, due to shame over his conviction and the negative impact it had on the life of him and his family, he had created a false memory of the circumstances.
However, the Committee was not persuaded that there was any other explanation in this case, other than that Dr Fures deliberately and dishonestly gave false information to the RCVS, to excuse his behaviour.
The Committee then considered if the admitted and proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Ian said: “The Committee was of the view that Dr Fures’ actions in dishonestly giving false details to his regulator was serious. While it was the case that there was no actual harm or risk to animals arising out of his conduct, the Committee took into account that the dishonest account was given deliberately.
“In addition, it was sustained, in that it was relied upon and expanded upon on several occasions when the College sought further clarity. Dr Fures had the opportunity to correct the situation, and give the truthful account, but he did not do so. The dishonesty was designed to achieve personal gain to Dr Fures, in that he wished to minimise the actions which the College may take against him, and, in consequence, safeguard his career.
“Dr Fures’ action in dishonestly giving false information to his regulator struck at the heart of his obligation, as a registered professional, to be open and honest with his regulator. This obligation is necessary to allow the College, as regulator, to carry out its crucial and statutory functions in ensuring that it investigates concerns properly.”
In considering the sanction for Dr Fures, the Committee took into account the mitigating factors, including the fact that there were no previous regulatory findings against Dr Fures or any previous conviction for dishonesty, that he had demonstrated remorse for his actions, that there was no actual harm or risk of harm to any animal, that no concerns raised about Dr Fures’ practice, that there was no repetition of the dishonest conduct and that he had demonstrated some insight.
However, in terms of aggravating factors it considered that there was deliberate and sustained dishonesty and that he had sought personal gain as a result of his actions.
After considering various options, the Committee decided that a reprimand and warning as to future conduct was the most appropriate sanction for Dr Fures.
The full findings for the case can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
All veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and VN students are to be invited to take part in an RCVS survey of their profession and, for the first time, these surveys will measure mental wellbeing at a population level.RCVS Registrar, Jane Hern said: "Both surveys are being undertaken on our behalf by the Institute of Employment Studies - an independent research organisation. As in previous surveys, all the data will be anonymised by the IES before being shared with us. This will ensure individuals cannot be identified."The information will provide a snapshot of the veterinary profession and help the RCVS to understand and analyse changing trends. Some of the anonymised data will also be shared with researchers at Defra and at the School of Medicine, University of Southampton, who will analyse selected topics in more depth.Jane added: "These surveys produce very useful information about the veterinary and veterinary nursing profession, not least because they usually get a good response rate.
"We will use the information, for example, in our discussions about new veterinary legislation, 24/7 and the Professional Development Phase for newly-qualified vets. So please make sure that you send the form to the IES - or fill it in online - before 8 February."The RCVS normally surveys veterinary surgeons every four years, and last surveyed veterinary nurses in 2008. To obtain concurrent data regarding vets and VNs, both these surveys are taking place at the same time. Forms can by sent back in the freepost envelope provided, or completed online at www.employmentresearch.co.uk/vs2010.htm (vets) and www.employmentresearch.co.uk/vn2010.htm (VNs). The findings of previous studies can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/surveys.
From the start of 2016, the RCVS will no longer allow veterinary surgeons or veterinary nurses to enter undocumented continuing professional development (CPD) on their records.
Under the RCVS Codes of Professional Conduct, veterinary surgeons are required to record a minimum of 105 hours of CPD over a three-year period, while veterinary nurses are expected to carry out 45 hours of CPD over the same period.
Historically, vets and nurses have been able to record 10 and 5 hours as undocumented private study per annum respectively. The RCVS Education Committee decided to discontinue the allowance for vets in May and the Veterinary Nursing Committee followed suit in June.
Julie Dugmore, RCVS Head of Veterinary Nursing, said: “As with the veterinary surgeons, this decision was made because it was felt that all CPD, including private study, should be properly documented on the CPD records of veterinary nurses.
“This change, however, is not intended to discourage private study which we recognise extends across a range of different types of learning, including reading, and can be very valuable for personal development, but merely that it should be properly documented.”
The College says it hopes the changes will also clear up uncertainty around the respective allowances for veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses, as some were under the impression that private study, even if it was documented, could only be classed within that category.
The Education Department is also in the process of reviewing the information available to veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses regarding what counts as CPD, in order to clear up uncertainty and provide more specific examples for each learning category.
Information about CPD for veterinary surgeons can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/cpd, while for veterinary nurses the information is available at www.rcvs.org.uk/vncpd
Ms Evans was charged with causing or allowing a veterinary nurse colleague to order a prescription-only medicine from a practice supplier knowing that it was intended for human use, and made a false entry prescribing the medication on the clinical records of a cat belonging to her nurse colleague.
She was also charged with falsely recording details purporting to be the results of the blood tests on cat and then entering notes on the animal's clinical history which falsely indicated that there had been a meaningful result, and then indicating to the animal's owner that there had been a meaningful result, when in fact the tests had failed to produce any meaningful results.
The final charge was that her conduct in making the false entry for the prescription-only medication, and all elements of the second charge was dishonest and misleading.
Ms Evans admitted the first charge on the basis that she had allowed rather than caused the order to be made, all the other facts of this charge were admitted.
She admitted the second charge on the basis that she had failed to inform the cat’s owner of the test results, all the other facts of this charge were admitted.
She also admitted that elements of her conduct had been dishonest and misleading.
Having found the charges proven by Ms Evans’ admissions, the Committee considered whether her admitted actions and conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.
Ms Evans, through her legal counsel, accepted that the admitted charges passed the threshold for serious professional misconduct, though that question still needed to be determined independently by the Committee.
The Committee found that Dr Evans’ conduct had breached several key parts of the Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance, particularly around honesty and integrity.
It also found aggravating factors in this case, including the risk to human health by allowing the prescription-only medication to be ordered knowing it was for human use, the abuse of her professional position, the breach of client trust, the potential adverse impact on the welfare of the cat for whom she falsified the blood test records, and the potential adverse impact on the welfare of the cat for whom she had falsely recorded the prescription-only medicine.
The Committee found no mitigating factors relating to the facts.
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said in relation to the first charge: “In the Committee’s view, this irresponsible approach to a prescription-only medicine risked human health, potentially compromised an animal’s welfare, since the clinical record suggested the cat had been given Fluconazole when it had not, constituted an abuse of the trust placed in her as a registered veterinary surgeon and was in breach of legal provisions designed to safeguard human health.
“Such behaviour falls far below the standard expected of a registered veterinary surgeon, undermines public confidence in the profession and would be considered deplorable by colleagues and the public alike.
"The Committee was thus satisfied that charge 1 on its own amounts to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
He added: “Acting dishonestly runs contrary to one of the most fundamental principles of the profession.
"The public need to know that they can rely on the honesty and integrity of the people to whom they entrust the care and welfare of their animals.
“Further, Dr Evans’ conduct in both incidents had the potential to undermine public confidence in the profession of veterinary surgery and bring the profession into disrepute.
"In all the circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that Dr Evans’ behaviour as reflected in charge 2 fell far short of the standard expected of a veterinary surgeon and amounted to disgraceful conduct.
“Accordingly, the Committee found proved the allegation that Dr Evans was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”
Having found serious professional misconduct in relation to all charges, the Committee considered what the most appropriate and proportionate sanction would be for Ms Evans’ actions and conduct.
In doing so, it considered 137 positive references and testimonials from Dr Evans’ professional colleagues and clients, poor staff morale at the practice at the time as well as compelling, exceptional evidence relating to Dr Evans’s health at the time of the two incidents.
In mitigation, the Committee considered the fact that Dr Evans had no previous disciplinary history and had a hitherto unblemished career as a veterinary surgeon; her open and frank admissions; the circumstances of pressures at work exacerbated by Dr Evans’ desire to please everyone and not let anyone down; the fact that Dr Evans was feeling very isolated; the significant insight into her conduct and its impact; effective and targeted remediation to ensure there would be no likelihood of the conduct being repeated; genuine expressions or remorse and apology; support from her employers; and the very significant number of positive testimonials.
Summing up the Committee’s decision on sanction, Mr Morris said “In all the, somewhat exceptional, circumstances of this case, the Committee was satisfied that a reprimand and a warning not to behave in this way again, would provide adequate protection to animals, as it was satisfied Dr Evans was most unlikely to ever make such a flawed set of decisions again.
“The Committee was satisfied that Dr Evans does not represent a risk to animals going forward, indeed from the character evidence it is clear that she always puts the welfare of animals first.
"She has also shown, since this episode, that she can work under pressure and not resort to making bad decisions and thus the Committee considered the wider public interest would best be served in this case by a reprimand and a warning.
“Notwithstanding the serious nature of Dr Evans' conduct, the Committee was satisfied that a fully informed member of the public would not be shocked if Dr Evans were allowed to continue to practise.
“The decision of this Committee is, therefore, that Dr Evans be reprimanded and warned about her behaviour.
"Dr Evans should, however, be under no illusion of how serious it is to have a finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect made against her and she should not take lightly the decision of this Committee to reprimand and warn her.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
Bob was a member of RCVS Council from 1992 until 2004 and was President in 1999/2000. During his time on Council he also served as a member of all of the major committees of that time, with the exception of the Disciplinary Committee, and chaired several of the subject boards for the RCVS Diplomas.
Current RCVS President Chris Tufnell said: "Bob was 100% responsible for my involvement with the RCVS, putting me forward for a working party in my first year in practice. Throughout his career he nurtured young professionals who he genuinely saw as the future and he was particularly dedicated to furthering and improving the education and development of veterinary surgeons, as demonstrated by his involvement in the RCVS Diplomas, the College’s continuing professional development (CPD) board and the former RCVS Trust.
"His dedication to our profession was exceptional and his kind and erudite observations, both public and private, were always welcome. We will miss him and our thoughts are with his family at this difficult time."
Photo courtesy Dulwich College.
Kellie Price, a Kent-based Registered Veterinary Nurse has been suspended from the Register for nine months by the RCVS RVN Disciplinary Committee after she admitted dishonestly creating four prescriptions, one of which was then fraudulently presented to a pharmacy.
The Committee heard that in January 2013, Miss Price, who did not attend the hearing and had no representation, had dishonestly created a prescription for two inhalers while working at a veterinary practice in Kent.
This prescription had been written and signed in the name of a locum veterinary surgeon, Cristiana Tudini MRCVS, without her knowledge or consent. The false prescription was subsequently presented to a pharmacy for dispensing.
In addition, in March 2013, Miss Price dishonestly created a further three prescriptions - one of which was written in the name of her colleague Cormac Higgins MRCVS, and two written in the name of Cristiana Tudini MRCVS without either's knowledge or consent. All four false prescriptions had been made out for Miss Price's Jack Russell terrier.
Upon discovering the false prescriptions, Mr Higgins asked Miss Price for an explanation and subsequently suspended her from her position pending further investigation. However, after being interviewed by Mr Higgins, she resigned before any in-house disciplinary hearing could take place. The allegations were then reported to both the RCVS and the police, the latter giving Miss Price a formal caution in respect of the false prescription made in January 2013.
In considering Miss Price's sanction, the RVN Disciplinary Committee took into account a number of aggravating and mitigating factors. In mitigation, it accepted Miss Price's explanation that, in the early hours of 6 January, she had suffered an asthma attack and that she had created the false prescription at work in a panic after realising her inhaler was empty and fearing a further asthma attack. The Committee also took into account a witness statement from Cormac Higgins MRCVS which described her as a "great nurse" and "good with patients and clients".
However, the Committee also considered aggravating factors including Miss Price's dishonesty and the fact that she then made further false prescriptions in March, although these were not then presented to a pharmacy.
Professor Noreen Burrows, who chaired the RVN Disciplinary Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: "The Committee is... satisfied that the admitted dishonesty amounts to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect [and] is satisfied that the respondent's conduct fell far short of the conduct to be expected of a registered veterinary nurse."
On deciding the sanction she added: "Taking into account all of the circumstances, the Committee has concluded that the suspension of the Respondent's name from the Register for a period of nine months is the proportionate sanction in this case."
The Committee's full findings and decision are available on the RCVS website (www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary).