Former Portsmouth-based vet, Simon Wood, who was struck off in 2018 after a conviction for possessing indecent images of children, has had his application for restoration to the Register refused by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee.

Mr Wood pleaded guilty to three charges of making indecent images of children at Portsmouth Magistrate’s Court in December 2017. Following his conviction, Mr Wood was given a community sentence, fined and made subject to a sexual harm prevention order for five years.

Mr Wood’s application for restoration was based on the argument that he was professionally competent to be restored to the Register, that he had strong mitigation for his original conviction (for which he had demonstrated remorse), that he had a low chance of reoffending, had engaged proactively with the Probation Service and rehabilitative courses, and that had completed his community service.

In considering Mr Wood’s application, the Disciplinary Committee took into account a number of factors including Mr Wood’s acceptance of the Committee’s original findings, the seriousness of the original findings, protection of the public, the future welfare of animals in his care should he be restored, the length of time off the Register, his conduct since removal from the Register, efforts by Mr Wood to keep up-to-date with his continuing professional development (CPD), the impact of removal from the Register on Mr Wood and public support for his restoration.

However, on balance, the Committee decided that Mr Wood was not currently fit to be restored to the Register.

Ian Arundale, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "In essence, the Committee decided that the facts of the charge justifying removal from the Register and the underlying criminal behaviour were too serious for Mr Wood to be restored at this time. It concluded that because Mr Wood continued to be subject to a sexual harm prevention order, notification requirements for sexual offenders and because he remained on the Barring List by the Disclosure and Barring service until January 2023, he was not fit to be restored to the Register at this time.

"The Committee accepted that Mr Wood had made significant efforts to rehabilitate himself but it was not persuaded that he was fit to be restored to the Register because ancillary orders relating to the underlying criminal offences remained in force. The Committee noted that at the time those orders were made Mr Wood was described as having an addiction and although the Committee accepted that there was a low risk of future reoffending, it decided that because the orders were still in place for public protection reasons, Mr Wood was not fit to be restored to the Register."

The full report of Mr Wood’s restoration hearing can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

As of today, veterinary surgeons in the UK can call themselves 'Doctor', following a decision made by the RCVS Council.  

The decision to allow the use of the courtesy title followed a consultation which received 11,202 responses, of which 81% were in favour of the change, 13% against, and 6% did not mind either way.

The College says the idea is to align the UK with international practice, provide greater clarity for the profession and offer reassurance to clients and the animal-owning public that all veterinary surgeons registered with the RCVS, regardless of where they qualified, have veterinary degrees of an appropriate standard. Most international veterinary surgeons use the title and, in Australia and New Zealand, this is frequently tied to registration and professional standing, rather than necessarily academic attainment.

RCVS President Professor Stuart Reid said: "I am very pleased that the response from the consultation gave Council such clear direction and has allowed us to bring UK vets in line with the majority of veterinarians worldwide. It was my privilege to pose the question, which has been well and truly answered by the profession and the public.

"Whether one regards the decision as correcting a historical anomaly or simply providing greater clarity at home and abroad, there is no doubt that the issue has generated huge interest. Yet regardless of whether individual vets choose to use the title, it will not change the profession's ongoing commitment to the very highest of standards."

Nearly 50% of respondents to the consultation were veterinary surgeons, 22% veterinary students, 21% animal-owning members of the public, and the rest were veterinary nurses, veterinary nurse students, practice managers and non-animal-owning members of the public.

RCVS CEO, Nick Stace said: "I am delighted that such a strong message came from both the public and the profession on this issue. We have a responsibility to maintain confidence in the veterinary profession and this move will help underline to the public in particular that veterinary surgeons work to very high standards, regardless of where they qualified."

Use of the title is optional, and guidance has been produced to support the change. It stresses that veterinary surgeons using the title should be careful not to mislead the public, and that it is important that the use of 'Doctor' or 'Dr' by a veterinary surgeon does not suggest or imply that they hold a medical qualification or a PhD. If the title is used, the veterinary surgeon should use it in conjunction with their name and either the descriptor 'veterinary surgeon' or the postnominal letters 'MRCVS'.

The guidance is available as part of supporting guidance chapter 23 to the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons, and can be read online at www.rcvs.org.uk/advertising (see paragraphs 23.6-23.8).

Veterinary surgeons may start using the title straight away; details about how their RCVS Register entry can be updated will be issued over the coming months.

The BVA and the RCVS have issued a joint response to the Migration Advisory Committee’s Call for Evidence on the impact of the UK’s exit from the EU, in which they say that Brexit will exacerbate recruitment problems for the veterinary profession, making the placement of vets on the Shortage Occupation List an immediate priority.

The joint submission points to evidence from recent surveys indicating a current workforce shortage of 11% in small animal practice and an overall deterioration in the ability of practices to hire suitably qualified staff. 

Following the exit from the EU, existing shortages will likely worsen, whilst changes in trade could increase the demand for veterinary skills, producing a shortfall in the UK’s capacity to ensure animal health and welfare, food safety and public health. 

Placing the veterinary profession on the Shortage Occupation List would reduce restrictions on recruiting veterinary surgeons from abroad, something the response says will become a necessity post Brexit.

Currently about half of vets registering each year in the UK are graduates from the EU. If there are no appropriate immigration measures in place when the UK leaves the EU, this EU contribution could decline, leaving a large gap in the veterinary workforce. Research among BVA members has indicated that since the EU referendum, about one fifth are reporting that recruitment has already become harder. Meanwhile, a study commissioned by the RCVS has shown that nearly a third of veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses whose nationality is non-UK European are considering a move back home.

The BVA / RCVS response highlights that although the veterinary profession is relatively small, it performs a range of roles that are vital to the UK’s economy and maintaining standards in society. Agriculture and food production would suffer from a lack of veterinary input, potentially reducing its livestock outputs worth £12.7bn in 2016, whilst the equine industry and aquaculture would also struggle. The companion animal veterinary market, that has a turnover of £3 billion, could experience significant losses due to workforce shortages.

Veterinary surgeons from the EU make a particularly significant contribution to critical roles in public health with estimates suggesting that 95% of Official Veterinarians working in abattoirs are from overseas and the large majority of these are from the EU. Reducing the veterinary presence in slaughterhouses would increase the risk of food fraud, provide the potential for animal welfare breaches and remove a level of public health reassurance.

While the number of UK veterinary graduates has increased year-on-year from the established veterinary schools, with potentially more schools in the pipeline, it is unlikely that UK universities can meet this increased demand in the short timeframe required. BVA, RCVS and Defra recently launched the Veterinary Capability and Capacity Project (VCCP) to help ensure the veterinary sector can continue to play its role in society.

BVA Senior Vice President Gudrun Ravetz said: "Our members have been reporting problems with recruitment and retention of vets for several years and this situation will only worsen under Brexit unless appropriate measures are in place. Vets are vital to our society. Across the UK vets are needed to certify imports and exports, conduct cutting-edge research, prevent disease outbreaks, ensure food safety in abattoirs and achieve our world leading standards in animal welfare.

"We are setting out a very strong case to add the profession to the Shortage Occupation List now to help us manage the immediate shortfall in critical veterinary roles, while the UK negotiates a longer term immigration policy that must meet the UK’s veterinary workforce needs post-Brexit without creating disproportionate administrative burdens for veterinary businesses."

Chris Tufnell, RCVS Senior Vice-President and Chair of the College’s Brexit Taskforce, said: "The first of our recently published Brexit Principles is that ‘vital veterinary work continues to get done’. In order to ensure this is met we want the Government to recognise that there are significant current and potential shortages in the profession that can only be mitigated by putting it on the Shortage Occupation List so that animal health and welfare and public health is safeguarded.

"Our ideal outcome is that EU veterinary surgeons currently living and working in the UK are allowed to stay indefinitely and that, in terms of any post-Brexit immigration system, graduates of European schools accredited by the European Association of Establishments for Veterinary Education (EAEVE) are allowed to work here with the minimum of restrictions."

More information is available in BVA/RCVS’s full response to the Migration Advisory Committee’s Call for Evidence:www.bva.co.uk/uploadedFiles/Content/News,_campaigns_and_policies/Get_involved/Consultation_archive/Migration%20Advisory%20Committee%20BVA%20RCVS%20Submission%20FINAL.PDF

A veterinary nurse has been reprimanded by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for removing the heads of two dead stray cats and taking them home. 

The nurse, who admitted the charges against her, successfully applied for anonymity at the outset of the case, on the basis that the shock factor of the removal of the animals' heads could greatly upset members of the public and veterinary staff, leading to a backlash which would present a threat to her safety. 

The Disciplinary Committee heard that the nurse, who was working as a locum, asked a permanent member of staff if she could take a couple of skulls from the strays, because she had a friend who 'cleaned up' dead strays and wildlife and displayed the skulls at home. 

The College’s case was that the nurse’s actions amounted to serious professional misconduct because she failed to afford the dead animals with the respect and dignity they deserved, there was a risk to human health because she failed to comply with biosecurity measures, and her actions had the potential to undermine public confidence in the profession.

Although she admitted that her conduct fell short of what was expected, the nurse countered that her actions were not intended to be disrespectful to the animals, that she was an animal-lover who had three cats of her own, and that her actions were not malicious but misjudged.

Weighing up the case, the Committee found that the aggravating features of her conduct were around biosecurity and abuse of her professional position, while in mitigation it found that there was no financial gain in her actions and that it was a one-off incident.

Kathryn Peaty, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The respondent’s conduct represented a biosecurity risk.

"Any body part would be in some degree of decomposition.

"As the cats were strays, it was unclear as to whether or not they had been in good health.

"Although the respondent transferred the body parts to her home and kept them in the freezer in cadaver bags, there was a risk that they could leak.

"In short, her actions were not without risk to human or animal health.

“The respondent abused her professional position.

"She had an obligation to treat the cadavers with respect.

"Her professional position gave her access to the cadavers.

"She abused her professional position by severing the cats’ heads and, using a scalpel, body bags and other equipment she pursued an interest of her own, rather than performed the role she was employed to undertake.

"Although she may say that she obtained permission to remove the cats’ heads from a permanent member of staff, she was a Registered Veterinary Nurse and therefore an autonomous professional.

"Whatever permissions she received should not have made her believe she had a licence to act as she did.”

Considering the appropriate sanction, the Committee took into account her relative youth and inexperience, the fact she made open and frank admissions at an early stage, the fact she made efforts to avoid a repetition of the behaviours, the insight she had shown into why her conduct was wrong, and the amount of time that had passed since her conduct relative to the total length of her four-year veterinary nursing career.

The Committee also considered positive character references from fellow veterinary nurses with whom she worked and trained.

Kathryn added: “The Committee considered that a reprimand was the sanction it should impose.

"A reprimand marks the Committee’s view of the respondent’s behaviour, thereby satisfying the public interest.

“The Committee did consider issuing a warning as to future conduct, but it had no concerns that the respondent would fail to follow the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses in the future.

"It therefore rejected a warning as an appropriate alternative.” 

The full findings of the Disciplinary Committee can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

West Midlands-based veterinary nurse Laura Jane Garfield has been struck off by the RCVS Veterinary Nurse Disciplinary Committee after it found that she had misled and been dishonest with a charity.

The Disciplinary Committee heard that Mrs Garfield had told a representative of the Retired Greyhound Trust (RGT) that she had possession of a greyhound called Lola, that she proposed keeping Lola living with her as an adoptee, and that she would not relinquish possession of Lola except to the RGT. This was despite the fact that, at the time of signing the adoption agreement, she had already given Lola to another charity named Greyhound Gap and that, as a result, her conduct was misleading and dishonest.

In considering the facts of the case, the Committee found the charges and all constituent parts proven and went on to consider whether this amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. 

Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The end result of the respondent’s decisions and conduct meant that RGT was persuaded to pass lawful possession and ownership of the dog Lola to the respondent when it would not have agreed to do so had it been told the truth by her.

"In truth, the respondent was not going to adopt and re-home Lola herself. Instead the respondent’s plan and intention was that Lola should be passed on to a third party who had been recommended by a rival dog rescue charity for rehome and adoption."

Judith added: "The consequence was that a social media dispute broke out when the rival dog charity decided to attempt to take advantage of the erroneous belief of the respondent that a decision had been taken by RGT to put Lola to sleep. The publicity generated by the respondent’s erroneous belief… was obviously adverse…. The gravamen [seriousness] of the respondent’s dishonest conduct was that she set one dog rescue charity against another, caused them to spend publicly raised funds on a legal dispute about who should be allowed to retain Lola when those precious funds ought, instead, to have been spent on their charitable objectives."

The Committee judged that the charge and its parts constituted serious professional misconduct and went on to consider the sanction against Mrs Garfield. 

In considering the proportionate sanction the Committee took into account both mitigating and aggravating factors. In terms of aggravating factors the Committee considered that the dishonesty was pre-meditated, that she accused members of a rescue charity of lying and demonstrated no or only minimal insight into her wrongdoing. In mitigation the Committee considered that Mrs Garfield had cooperated with the College in its investigations, that she had acted in the genuine belief that she was acting in the best interests of Lola and that her conduct did not put Lola at risk or cause her to suffer any adverse consequences as a result. The Committee also accepted the testimonials and positive evidence from colleagues. 

However, the Committee decided that removal from the Register would be the only appropriate sanction.

Summing up Judith Way said: "The reputational consequences for RGT were potentially significant bearing in mind that it is a rescue organisation with some 57 or so branches across the country. All of these consequences, actual and potential, stem from the respondent’s premeditated act of dishonesty in relation to which the Committee considers she showed very limited insight prior to this disciplinary hearing, as she did during the course of this hearing.

"In the result, it is the conclusion and decision of this Committee that the only proper sanction that can be imposed in this case is that the respondent’s name should be removed from the Register.”

Mrs Garfield has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to appeal.

An unnamed veterinary nurse, of an unspecified gender, working at an undisclosed location, has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for drug-related offences.

Jane (or John) Doe was charged with having stolen midazolam, butorphanol and promethazine hydrochloride from their practice for use other than for veterinary purposes, making false clinical records concerning the use of drugs on their own dogs to disguise the fact that the drugs were instead being used for non-veterinary uses, and drawing up medication taken from the practice into a syringe for the purpose of self-medicating.

In addition, they were charged that their conduct was dishonest.

The Committee found it proven that Jane/John Doe had taken approximately 150 vials of midazolam, 87 ampoules, 112 tablets and one elixir bottle of promethazine hydrocholoride, and 0.2mls of butorphanol together with Iml of midazolam for their dog at a time when their dog was, in fact, dead.

The Committee also found it proven that the defendant had drawn up medication for the purpose of self-medicating, and had created false clinical records.

In deciding the sanction, the Committee concluded that the respondent had abused their position of trust, that their actions were dishonest, prolonged and repeated in nature, and undermined the reputation of the profession as a whole.

Therefore the only appropriate action was removal from the Register.

Unusually, the RCVS did not issue a press release about this case, as it normally does.

There was also a protracted delay between the hearing and the report of the hearing being published on the College website.

Furthermore, when it was finally published, the report had been redacted to remove any reference to the name, gender or location of the respondent.

When asked why, the College said: "Matters of a highly confidential nature arose following the hearing which led to a delay in the decisions being published.

“The decisions have been redacted and we cannot provide the reasons for the redactions as that would necessarily involve disclosure of confidential and personal information.

"However, the circumstances are considered to be exceptional and the College’s decision to make the redactions was only made following very careful consideration of evidence provided to the RCVS.

"The decision has been published on the RCVS website in its redacted form and in view of the timeframe and the circumstances, it has not been considered appropriate to issue a press release.”

Comment
The College will for sure have had very good reasons for redacting the name of the respondent in this case.

One has to assume there must have been a very real threat to the respondent’s life, and under those circumstances, confidentiality is absolutely right and proper.

However, whatever the reason, secrecy is never a good look, especially when it comes in the form of a cape worn by a regulator.

So it is frustrating to hear that the College has again made a rod for its own back, when it could so easily have included a very general one-line explanation for why it felt redaction was necessary, without compromising the individual’s confidentiality.

It would have been enough, for example, just to say that the College felt there was a risk to life. People would accept that.

The RCVS Veterinary Nurses Disciplinary Committee has ordered that Karen Tracey Hancock be removed from the Register after finding that she had been dishonest about an injury she claimed to have sustained while working in practice in August 2015.

The inquiry in regard to Karen Tracey Hancock took place in her absence in January, after she indicated that she was content not to appear or to be represented. 

The charges against Mrs Hancock related to an injury she falsely claimed she sustained to her knee while moving a euthanased dog in August 2015 that was then exacerbated while moving another dog a couple of weeks later.

The charges also stated that she made entries in the practice’s accident book also stating that she had injured her knee at work and then aggravated it later.

The charges also stated that, in County Court civil proceedings against the practice in relation to the alleged injuries, she falsely:

• issued a claim notification form dated 22 January 2016 stating that she had sustained a knee injury caused by her work at the practice in August 2015;
• signed a statement dated 30 June 2017 stating that she had sustained a knee injury at work on 13 August 2015 which had then been aggravated at work on the 29 August 2015;
• issued Particulars of Claim dated 13 July 2018 stating that she had sustained a knee injury caused by her work at the practice on 13 August 2015.

The Committee noted that the County Court claim made by Mrs Hancock was listed for a trial and concluded with a consent order dated 21 June 2019 which stated that the claim was dismissed.

It also considered evidence from eyewitnesses regarding the two alleged events that led to and exacerbated her knee injury in August 2015. In doing so the Committee found that, though Mrs Hancock did have an injury to her right knee, this was due to a horse-riding incident a number of years earlier and that her account of the incidents on 13 and 29 August, and therefore her claims to have been caused injury by them, were false and that her conduct had been dishonest.

The Committee therefore found all charges against Mrs Hancock proven.

The Committee then considered whether the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct. In doing so it considered submissions made by Counsel for the RCVS that there were a number of aggravating factors in the case of Mrs Hancock’s conduct including that the misconduct was sustained over a long period of time, was premeditated and involved lying for financial gain.

In commenting on whether the conduct was serious professional misconduct Judith Way, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee found all of the aggravating factors set out… in this case applied to its decision on whether or not the conduct amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

"Such conduct would bring the profession of veterinary nurses into disrepute and would undermine public confidence in the profession because the dishonesty was directly concerned with the respondent’s work as a veterinary nurse in the veterinary practice.

"The Committee concluded that the dishonest behaviour was serious misconduct, particularly so because it took place at the respondent’s workplace. It considered that honesty and trust between veterinary nurses and their employers is essential to the profession and that such conduct as set out in the charges would be considered deplorable by other members of the profession."

The Committee was therefore satisfied that all four charges individually and cumulatively amounted to serious professional misconduct.

Committee members then considered the appropriate sanction for Mrs Hancock, taking into account the aggravating factors, including a lack of insight in that, in correspondence before the hearing, she continued to deny the charges. In mitigation it noted that there had been a significant lapse of time and that she had a long and hitherto unblemished career.

On balance it decided that removal from the Register was the appropriate and proportionate sanction and requested Mrs Hancock be removed from the Register, particularly as dishonesty is considered ‘in the top spectrum of gravity’ for misconduct.

Judith Way added: “The Committee acknowledged that the respondent was physically unwell with her knee between 2015 and 2019. However there was no evidence that her health had caused her to commit the misconduct. It noted the representations that the respondent made regarding the need to support herself financially but the Committee determined that the public interest outweighed the respondent’s own interests in this case because the proven dishonesty in the circumstances in which it took place was fundamentally incompatible with continued professional registration.

“In the Committee’s judgment without any evidence of remorse or insight by the respondent a suspension order could not meet the public interest in this case. It therefore concluded that removal of the Respondent’s name from the register was the proportionate and appropriate sanction in this case.”

Essex-based Anne Mullen MRCVS has been suspended from the Register for two months by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for failing to have professional indemnity insurance (PII) or equivalent arrangements in compliance with the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons.

The case was brought by the College after a member of the public raised a 'concern' relating to Mrs Mullen's practice in December 2015. The concern was not pursued by the College. 

However, during its initial investigation, the RCVS case manager ascertained that contrary to the requirements of the Code of Professional Conduct, Mrs Mullen did not have PII.

In January 2016 Mrs Mullen was advised by the College that, in order to comply with the Code, she needed to ensure her professional activities were covered by PII or equivalent arrangements.

The matter was considered by the Preliminary Investigation Committee which asked, in October 2016, that Mrs Mullen produce evidence that she was now compliant with the requirement to have PII or equivalent. Mrs Mullen responded in November 2016 confirming that she had not put in place such arrangements.

The case was then referred to the Disciplinary Committee in January 2017.

During the hearing it was determined that, during the relevant time period (from November 2015 to November 2016) Mrs Mullen was practising but did not have professional indemnity insurance in place and therefore was in breach of the Code. 

Mrs Mullen, who represented herself, told the Committee that she admitted that she did not have PII. She explained that she was 'ethically and morally opposed to it' as she felt that it did not give fair compensation to claimants and did not know it was a requirement of the Code of Professional Conduct until she was informed by the College in January 2016.  

When giving oral evidence as to equivalent arrangements she disclosed that she kept significant funds in a bank account; these were not however specifically earmarked for use in the event of any possible claims, and were also required to pay practice expenses.

In light of evidence produced by the College and her own admissions, the charges against Mrs Mullen were found proved and she was found guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

In coming to this decision Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The respondent failed to have PII in place for a period of about 12 months as specified in the charges. Moreover, she failed to remedy the situation when advised in January 2016 by the College that she was in breach of the Code and the supporting guidance. This remains a continuous course of conduct, which has still not been remedied. The respondent has chosen not to read the Code, or the supporting guidance, until very recently, in relation to her obligation to have PII or equivalent arrangements in place, and she failed to heed the advice of the College that she must rectify the position." 

In considering the sanction the Committee took into account mitigating and aggravating factors. Aggravating factors included the fact that the misconduct was sustained over a significant period of time and that limited insight was shown by Mrs Mullen. While she did begin to display limited insight into the significance of her misconduct, the Committee said that this insight was "hampered by her ambivalence towards the College and the systems that regulate the veterinary profession."

In mitigation the Committee took into account Mrs Mullen’s long and unblemished career and the fact she was a sole practitioner who reported challenging personal circumstances and provided a unique service to a niche group of clients.

However, Chitra Karve said: "The Committee is unable to overlook the Respondent’s lack of commitment to obtaining PII or equivalent arrangements, even after being advised by the College that this was essential. The Committee is aware that a suspension could adversely affect her practice and her clients that she uniquely serves. However the Committee thinks it is necessary to send a clear message to the respondent and the public, that failure to obtain PII or equivalent arrangements is wholly unacceptable."

She added: "Accordingly, the Committee directs the Registrar to suspend the respondent’s registration for a period of two months. The Committee considers that this period of suspension will give the respondent an opportunity to rectify her breaches of the Code in relation to PII… and to reflect upon her attitude towards the College and the appropriate regulation of the veterinary profession."

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded and warned a Clwyd-based veterinary surgeon on charges relating to falsifying prescriptions to obtain drugs for her own use.

At the outset of the two-day hearing, Mrs Alina Grecko admitted that in 2009 she had written out three prescriptions for her own use whilst working as a veterinary surgeon at Greenfield Veterinary Surgery, Holywell, Clywd, and that this amounted to serious professional misconduct. The Committee found this to be the case, and said she was right to admit it. The Committee also said this was deliberate wrong-doing on three separate occasions and involved an obvious breach of Mrs Grecko's legal duties in relation to prescription which was bound to diminish the profession and public confidence in it. It was also a flagrant breach of the Guide to Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons.

In the Committee's opinion the charge was a serious one; it involved falsehoods and disregard of legal obligations and of the profession's standards, as well as compromising another professional - a pharmacist. In mitigation, however, the Committee accepted that the offence involved no harm to any animal or person, nor risk of harm except to herself; nor was there financial gain. Mrs Grecko was a young and relatively inexperienced veterinary surgeon, and the Committee's view was that the offence was the result of her not thinking straight at a time of great stress in her personal and professional life, rather than a clearly thought out course of deliberate conduct. It was in no doubt that Mrs Grecko was genuinely remorseful about her behaviour and had insight into its seriousness.

The Committee also considered evidence relating to the circumstances in which the prescription came to be written. It accepted the general case that the original idea of self-prescribing did not come from Mrs Grecko; however, the Committee did not find that she had been encouraged or persuaded; the most that could be said was that Mrs Grecko had taken up a casual suggestion that she might write the prescription herself.

When deciding on sanction, the Committee took into account both the facts of the particular case and the mitigating factors. It reiterated that the primary purpose of the sanction is not to punish the Respondent but to protect the welfare of animals, to maintain public confidence in the profession, and to uphold proper standards of conduct and said the sanction applied must be proportionate to the nature and extent of the Respondent's conduct, and weigh the public interest with the interests of the Respondent. The Committee also said that in a case involving the writing of false prescriptions the importance of public confidence in the profession and of upholding the standards of the profession mean that the Committee would normally feel that at least a suspension from the Register should be imposed.

Having given anxious consideration to the question whether that course could properly be avoided in this case, the Committee felt able to take an exceptional course and the sanctions it has imposed are that the Respondent will both be reprimanded and warned as to her future conduct. It directed that these sanctions will remain on her record indefinitely.

The Privy Council has overturned an RCVS Disciplinary Committee to strike Leeds-based Dr Gary Samuel MRCVS from the Register following his conviction for theft, common assault and a public order offence at Cardiff Magistrates' Court in November 2011.

The Disciplinary Committee had agreed the sanction following a hearing in February 2013, at which it decided that Dr Samuel's conviction made him unfit to practise veterinary surgery.

Dr Samuel appealed the decision and the Privy Council heard the case on 26th March.

Dr Samuel had been sentenced by Cardiff Magistrates' Court to concurrent terms of 28 days' imprisonment for theft and common assault and 12 weeks' imprisonment for the public order offence, all suspended for 12 months. He had also been ordered to carry out 140 hours' unpaid work and to pay compensation of £75 and costs of £625. The charges related to an incident involving Dr Samuel and his neighbour, described by the Privy Council as "a spontaneous outburst in the course of an angry quarrel between neighbours", for which it felt that the Disciplinary Committee's sanction of removal from the Register was "disproportionately severe."

The Privy Council felt that, in making its decision, the Disciplinary Committee followed too closely the verdict reached by the Magistrates' Court, and did not take mitigating circumstances sufficiently into account, including whether the attack by Dr Samuel on his neighbour had been provoked by racial abuse.

Delivering the Privy Council's judgment, Lord Toulson said: "It is apparent from the reasons given by the Committee, both on the question of fitness to practise and on the question of sanction, that it was considerably influenced by the fact that the magistrates imposed a suspended prison sentence.

"Although Dr Samuel pleaded guilty to the theft of the camera and he was not in entitled to go behind his plea, it is nevertheless difficult to understand on the evidence how the prosecution would have proved that there was an intent permanently to deprive [the victim] of it. In all the circumstances, it is hard to conceive that the court would have considered that the offences truly passed the custodial threshold for a person of good character, if it had not had the power to suspend the sentence... Dr Samuel's conduct was thoroughly reprehensible, but the Board [Privy Council] does not consider that its gravity was such that it would be in the interests of the public now to remit the case to the Committee".

Dr Gary Samuel will not now be removed from the Register

The Privy Council's judgment can be read in full at http://jcpc.uk/decided-cases/index.html

Two candidates for the 2017 RCVS Council elections have had their challenge of the results dismissed by a committee tasked with assessing their claims.

John Davies and Tom Lonsdale MsRCVS both objected to edits made by the College to their candidate statements.

Mr Davies explained in his statement how he'd been subject to "bewildering, unfounded and damaging allegations" from two veterinary nurses, one of which he says resulted in his dismissal from a practice at which he was a partner. He went on to explain how, in addition to taking the dismissal case to an employment tribunal and winning, he had also raised concerns with the College about the nurses who'd made the allegations against him. Mr Davies outlined the way he felt that the RCVS mismanaged his case and how that had driven him to stand for Council to try and address the grave concerns he now had about the governance of the profession. However, the Returning Officer redacted the details on the grounds that they were considered to be defamatory and/or factually misleading.

The main grounds for Mr Lonsdale’s challenge was that the election had been furthered by corrupt practices, namely undue influence (all in terms of the Misrepresentation of the People Act 1983). In addition, the Returning Officer edited Mr Lonsdale’s candidate statement before circulation to the electorate, refusing to include hypertext links and removing references that the Returning Officer believed to be defamatory. The Returning Officer also declined to publish his ‘Quiz the candidates’ video on the RCVS website and/or YouTube channel when requests to make minor amendments considered defamatory were refused.

Both challenges were lodged with the RCVS last July, after which the College set up a Challenge Committee in accordance with the election challenge procedure, approved by Privy Council. It comprised  three members of Council nominated by RCVS President Stephen May.

Sitting with one of the RCVS Legal Assessors – Mr Richard Price OBE QC – the Challenge Committee was required to decide whether to declare the election void, based on whether the alleged irregularity in question rendered the election substantially not in accordance with the RCVS Council Election Scheme, or that the irregularity concerned significantly affected the result of the election (in which Mr Lonsdale and Mr Davies came 15^th and 16^th respectively out of 16 candidates).

Following written submissions from both the RCVS and Mr Davies, the Challenge Committee dismissed Mr Davies’s challenge, stating that there was no irregularity in the conduct of the election on the part of the Returning Officer, and that there was no valid basis for challenging the validity of the election.

The Challenge Committee (comprising the same members as for Mr Davies’s challenge) also dismissed Mr Lonsdale’s challenge, stating that it considered it to be 'totally devoid of merit'.

Prior to reaching this decisions, however, two preliminary challenges made by Mr Lonsdale were also considered and dismissed.

The first related to the members of the Challenge Committee, whom Mr Lonsdale argued should stand down on the basis of actual or apparent bias based on his allegations of connections with the pet food industry.

The Committee considered that a fair-minded and informed observer, having understood the facts, would conclude that the connection of committee members to the pet food industry were '….remote, indirect and, in the case of one panel member, virtually non-existent'.

Each committee member was satisfied that there was '…no real possibility of their judgement being distorted or influenced by any interest in, or links with, the pet food industry.'

The second challenge was to The Legal Assessor, who had been appointed to advise the Committee. Mr Lonsdale had alleged that Mr Price had displayed bias in the way that he had given advice to the Committee in relation to the challenge to the Committee membership. This was also dismissed.

The Disciplinary Committee has directed that Kfir Segev be restored to the RCVS Register, having removed him over two years ago for dishonesty and misleading clients.

Mr Segev, formerly practising in Stanmore, Middlesex, was removed from the Register following an 11-day hearing ending on 19 May 2009 at which he had been proven guilty of deliberately concealing from his clients that their dog was terminally ill, whilst at the same time recommending that she undergo expensive and unnecessary procedures. 

This was Mr Segev’s first application for restoration to the Register. The Committee found that, during his period of removal, he had undergone “extensive personal and professional rehabilitation”, which included attendance at a clinical psychologist and voluntary work in the local community.

The Committee found that, during his period of removal, he had undergone "extensive personal and professional rehabilitation. 

From 2009 to September 2011, Mr Segev logged 420 hours of certificated continuing professional development, with particular emphasis on ethics, client relationships and animal welfare.

The Committee noted he had also seen practice and taken the advice of mentors, including about 80 days at “a number of high quality practices with eminent members of the profession”.

These included Professor Dick White MRCVS, of Dick White Referrals, Professor David Noakes FRCVS, Emeritus Professor of the Royal Veterinary College and Mr David Grant MBE FRCVS, Hospital Director at the RSCPA Sir Harold Harmsworth Memorial Hospital, all of whom gave evidence at the hearing in support of Mr Segev.

Professor White said that, since late 2009 when he was approached by Mr Segev for help in remedial training, continuing education and mentoring, he had subsequently had frequent dealings and conversations with him.

Professor White said: “I formed the opinion that he invariably exercised professional clinical judgement that is, if anything, considerably deeper than many professional colleagues. I felt he demonstrated compassion for patients and empathy for owners in equal measure and believed him to have come to understand fully the seriousness of his behaviour."

Mr Segev’s efforts at rehabilitation were described as “exceptional” by Professor Noakes, who said he was “impressed by Mr Segev’s genuine acceptance of the fact that he had committed a serious offence and deserved to be punished.”

Mr Grant, who had been in contact with Mr Segev since November 2010, told the hearing that, in his opinion, it was most evident that Mr Segev accepted his wrongdoing and, along with Professor Noakes, indicated that he was willing to offer continued support and help.

The College opposed the restoration of Mr Segev on three grounds, namely: the gravity of the matters found proved at the original hearing; that the length of time off the Register was insufficient to mark these and ensure that the reputation of the profession was not undermined in the eyes of the public; and, Mr Segev’s conduct, relying on two matters arising from the footage in a BBC Panorama programme, which was filmed both before and after the 2009 hearing.

The College also questioned whether Mr Segev genuinely accepted the original findings.

The Committee agreed that the findings of the original hearing were serious; it was, however, impressed by Mr Segev’s complete and genuine written and public apologies for what he had done.

It disagreed that the length of time off the Register was too short.

It was mindful that the purpose of the sanction of erasure is not primarily of punishment and considered that no useful purpose would be served by delaying further Mr Segev’s restoration.

Whilst the Committee found Mr Segev was wrong to have continued to display ‘veterinary surgeon’ on the practice nameplate (as shown in the television footage), it was satisfied that he did not intend to hold himself out as a practising veterinary surgeon and no harm to the public or animal welfare resulted from his mistake.

The footage also showed Mr Segev was in breach of RCVS guidance on the administration of anaesthesia by permitting a student veterinary nurse to induce anaesthesia by using incremental doses of intravenous propofol, with an unqualified assistant offering advice on the depth of anaesthesia during its incremental induction. The Committee considered Mr Segev’s actions to be an error, now cured.

In conclusion, the Committee accepted Mr Segev “had made genuine and successful attempts to reform his previous attitude and failings”.

It noted that a large number of testimonials had been provided by colleagues, friends and clients, and that the impact of removal on Mr Segev had been severe.

It concluded that his previous mistakes provided “no reason, relevant to animal welfare, to suggest that his restoration would be unwise.”

Speaking on behalf of the Committee, Chairman Beverley Cottrell said: “Restoration to the Register of a veterinary surgeon who has been guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect of such seriousness is not something to be undertaken lightly … But, in all the circumstances of this case, [we have] decided that Mr Segev is a fit person to restore to the Register, and so direct the Registrar.”

Former vet Warwick Seymour-Hamilton, who was removed from the Register in 1994, has had his eleventh attempt at restoration rejected by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee.

Mr Seymour-Hamilton was removed from the Register after his Kent practice was found to have unhygienic and unsterile conditions as well as poor record keeping, although he has always disputed this, maintaining that he was not actually practising at the time of the inspection. 

Mr Seymour-Hamilton made an application for restoration on the basis that he did not want to be restored to the Register in order to practise veterinary surgery, but so that he could more easily achieve recognition from academics and drug companies for his work on herbal and natural remedies.

Mr Seymour-Hamilton's dispute over the original findings of the 1994 case was ruled inadmissible.

In considering his application, the Committee took into account the fact that he had not accepted the original findings from 1994 nor had he, over the course of his various applications for restoration, shown any insight into his original conduct or the serious concerns about his fitness to practice raised in previous restoration hearings.

It also considered that Mr Seymour-Hamilton had been off the Register for 29 years and would need to have demonstrated prolonged, intensive and formal training to ensure he met the Day One Competences required of a veterinary surgeon.

The College submitted that he had made no such attempts and so would pose a significant risk to animal health and welfare if he were allowed to practice again.

The Committee also considered that Mr Seymour-Hamilton had indicated that he had practised veterinary surgery while off the Register – including conducting two spay procedures in Calais, France – and had used his own animals to try out new and untested ‘herbal remedies’.

The College submitted that this indicated someone who didn’t have due regard to the importance of the current level of skills, experience and qualifications required in order to undertake veterinary surgery competently, and therefore posed a risk to animal health and welfare.

Dr Kathryn Peaty MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The College invited the Committee to consider that where, as here, some 29 years have passed since this veterinary surgeon has practised, there has been no intensive, and prolonged re-training, no acceptance of the original findings and no insight into concerns about his fitness to practise, there will inevitably be a serious risk to the welfare of animals and the wider public interest if the applicant is restored to the Register.

The Committee agrees, and considers that the applicant has not shown the required insight as to the steps he needs to take to return to safe veterinary practice.”

Accordingly, the Committee decided that it would not be in the public interest to restore Mr Seymour-Hamilton to the Register.

www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary