Andrew Dobson has had his application for restoration to the Register refused by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after failing to attend the hearing or provide information to support his application. 

Mr Dobson was struck off in 2021 after the DC found that he'd carried out an act of veterinary certification after being removed from the Register for non-payment, failed to have professional indemnity insurance in place and failed to respond to requests from the RCVS about these things.

Mr Dobson submitted a restoration application by email at the start of June, but then didn't reply to any further correspondence from the College, didn't provide any detail supporting his application, didn't attend the hearing and didn't contact the RCVS to explain why.

The Committee decided to go ahead with the restoration hearing in Mr Dobson's absence.  

It decided that although Mr Dobson's email on 2nd June 2023 did suggest that he accepted the original findings for which he was removed from the Register, there was not enough evidence of remorse or insight into the the failings which led to him being struck off in the first place, or that he had attempted to keep his continuing professional development (CPD) up-to-date or that, if restored, he would pose no risk to animal health and welfare.

Paul Morris, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Disciplinary Committee will only restore the name of the applicant veterinary surgeon to the Register where the applicant has satisfied it that he or she is fit to return to unrestricted practice as a veterinary surgeon and that restoration is in the public interest.

“The Committee’s real concerns about this application and this applicant are that it has before it no evidence of any value or substance to satisfy either of these criteria.

"There is no basis on which the Committee could conclude that the applicant is fit to return to unrestricted practice.

"In turn, there is no basis on which the Committee could conclude that it is in the public interest that this applicant’s name be restored to the Register.

“It is of importance to the profession and to members of the public that restorations to the Register should only occur when the applicant has established by clear evidence that the criteria which are set out in the public documents produce by the College have been satisfied.”

He added: “Having regard to the above criteria and its findings on them, the Committee considers that it remains the case that the protection of the public and the public interest requires that his name be not restored to the Register and therefore refuses this application.”

www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

Dunbartonshire-based Georgina Bretman has been struck off the Register of Veterinary Nurses by the RCVS VN Disciplinary Committee following her conviction in 2017 for causing unnecessary pain and suffering to an animal.

In August 2017, Georgina Bretman was found guilty of causing unnecessary pain and suffering to her two-year-old dog Florence by injecting the animal with insulin, causing the dog to suffer from hypoglycaemia, collapse, convulsions and seizures, for which it needed immediate veterinary treatment to avoid coma and death.

Following her conviction, Miss Bretman was sentenced to a Community Payback Order, with a requirement to carry out 140 hours of unpaid work. An order was also made to take Florence away from her and to ban her from owning a dog for two years. 

At the VN Disciplinary Committee hearing, Miss Bretman admitted the facts as contained within the charge against her and the Committee found the charge proved.

The Committee went on to consider whether the charge rendered Miss Bretman unfit to practise.

The Committee heard from Miss Bretman’s counsel, Mr O’Rourke QC who indicated that Miss Bretman accepted that her conviction rendered her unfit to practise as a Registered Veterinary Nurse. The Committee found Miss Bretman’s actions in deliberately administering a poisonous substance to  Florence thereby risking Florence’s death to be “very serious and deplorable conduct on the part of a veterinary nurse, a member of a profession specifically entrusted to look after and care for animals.” It also took into account the fact that Florence needed urgent veterinary treatment to avoid death and that Miss Bretman was in a position of trust over Florence as her owner.

Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "Miss Bretman’s conduct was also liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession and to undermine public confidence in the profession. The fact that she was a veterinary nurse was made clear at the trial and reported in the press. The Committee considered that members of the public would be rightly appalled that a Registered Veterinary Nurse had committed an offence of this kind.

The Committee was satisfied that this conduct fell far below the standard expected of a Registered Veterinary Nurse and that Miss Bretman’s conviction was of a nature and seriousness that rendered her unfit to practise."

The Committee then heard oral evidence from Miss Bretman in which she explained that she had always been passionate about working with animals and working in the veterinary profession and how she enjoyed her work as a veterinary nurse with a particular interest in hydrotherapy and rehabilitation.

She spoke about the devastating effect of the incident and the shame that was ‘brought down on her head’. She told the Committee that she had been suspended from her job and, since her conviction, had not worked as a veterinary nurse.

However, Miss Bretman said that, while she accepted and respected the verdict of the court, her stance remained that she had not done what was alleged and now hoped to rebuild her career as a veterinary nurse. She accepted that the offence of which she had been convicted was very serious, particularly for a veterinary nurse.

In considering Miss Bretman’s sanction the Committee took into account the aggravating and mitigating factors. Aggravating factors included the fact there was actual injury to an animal, that it was a pre-meditated and deliberate act against an animal for whom she was responsible, the fact that a medicinal product was misused, a lack of insight and a lack of remorse.

In mitigation the Committee took into account the fact she had no previous disciplinary history, had received positive references and testimonials and that, following the conviction, she demonstrated a willingness to be removed from the Register and to not work with animals to avoid causing embarrassment to the RCVS.

Stuart Drummond said: "The Committee was of the view that the nature and seriousness of Miss Bretman’s behaviour, which led to the conviction, was fundamentally incompatible with being registered as a veterinary nurse. The conduct represented a serious departure from professional standards; serious harm was deliberately caused to an animal; the continued denial of the offence demonstrated a complete lack of insight, especially in regard to the impact of her behaviour on public confidence and trust in the profession. In light of these conclusions, the Committee decided that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction was removal from the Register.

"In reaching this decision the Committee recognised the impact this was likely to have on Miss Bretman, which was unfortunate given her young age and her obvious passion for a career as a veterinary nurse. The Committee had considered with care all the positive statements made about her in the references and testimonials provided. However, the need to protect animal welfare, the reputation of the profession and thus the wider public interest, outweighed Miss Bretman’s interests and the Committee concluded that removal was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction. The Committee determined that it was important that a clear message be sent that this sort of behaviour is wholly inappropriate and not to be tolerated. It brought discredit upon Miss Bretman and discredit upon the profession". 

The Committee then directed the RCVS Registrar to remove Miss Bretman’s name from the Register. Miss Bretman has 28 days from being notified of the Committee’s decision to submit an appeal.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has decided to postpone its decision on the sanction for a Dyfed-based veterinary surgeon convicted of drink-driving for a second time, this time for a further twelve months.

Lynn Jo Ann Davies MRCVS first appeared before the Committee in January 2018 to face a number of charges related to two drink-driving offences, breaching the terms of her undertakings to the College as part of its Health Protocol, and being under the influence of alcohol on three occasions while she was on duty as a veterinary surgeon in December 2016. 

Dr Davies admitted all five charges against her and admitted that this meant she was unfit to practise veterinary surgery and that she was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. The Committee accepted her admissions and found, with the exception of one allegation, that her conduct was disgraceful in a professional respect.

At its first hearing the Committee having considered both aggravating and mitigating circumstances decided to postpone the hearing for six months on the basis of Dr Davies’ entering into a new set of undertakings, including one not to practise veterinary surgery and to remain abstinent from alcohol during the period of postponement.

At the second hearing, in July 2018, the Disciplinary Committee resumed its sanction inquiry decision. Dr Davies’ Counsel submitted on her behalf that Dr Davies wished to return to practise and the Committee reviewed her witness statements, documentary proof and medical records that she provided to demonstrate she had complied with the her undertakings given at the last hearing. 

Stuart Drummond, Chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "Having had the opportunity to see and hear from the respondent when she gave evidence and when she answered the questions put to her, the view formed of her current state of health was favourable. All members of the Committee considered that the account she gave of herself in the witness box was confident and they were reassured by her evidence as to how she now sets about managing her levels of stress and how she reacted to stressful incidents.

"Such concerns as the Committee had about her return to practice concerned her ability to receive support from a third party who would act as a mentor…the Committee therefore requires the Respondent to identify, within a period of one month of today’s date, a veterinary surgeon who would agree to act as her mentor. That mentor would have to be a veterinary surgeon acceptable to the College as someone suitable to act in that capacity and that mentor would have to be approved before the Respondent could resume practice.

"A further requirement of the Committee would be that the Respondent should make a disclosure to any new employer of the fact of her appearances before this Committee in January 2018 and in July 2018 and of the decisions of the Committee in relation to both such hearings. The final requirement of the Committee in this respect is that the respondent should not accept a 'sole charge position' at any time during her employment during this next period of postponement of sanction."

The Committee directed that the hearing be postponed for a further 12 months.

Dr Bradley Viner has been invested as the President of the RCVS for 2015/16 at a ceremony held at the Institution of Civil Engineers in Westminster.

Bradley has been an elected member of RCVS Council since 2005 and was Treasurer from 2010 to 2014. During his time on Council he served on a number of committees including both Education and Standards as well as chairing the Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Practice Subcommittee and the now obsolete Planning and Resources Committee.

Having graduating from the Royal Veterinary College in 1978, Bradley established a small animal practice in outer north-west London in 1979 which has now expanded to a group of five practices. Bradley was also among one of the first veterinary surgeons in the UK to achieve a higher award in veterinary general practice upon obtaining an MSc (VetGP) with Middlesex University.

Bradley is well known for his media work, writing for publications such as The Veterinary Times and Your Cat as well as broadcasting, with regular stints as the ‘in-house’ vet for programmes such as The Big Breakfast, Blue Peter and This Morning. He is also a Trustee of Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and Chair of its Building Committee as well as being Vice-President of International Cat Care.

Bradley highlighted three areas that he considered crucial for his presidential year:

• the Vet Futures project and its final report (due in November)
• the new RCVS Fellowship
• the new Practice Standards Scheme also due to launch in November.

He said: “If I had to pick a theme for my year it would be continual improvement. It is a very easy term to bandy about, but much more difficult to actually implement it efficiently. It involves accepting that there are many different ways we can tackle the challenges we face, and that we rarely do things perfectly. It is only by recognising our imperfections that we can get better, and it takes courage to open oneself up to criticism.

“I think back to my somewhat chequered school reports, which I had to sheepishly take home to my father, and the rather frequent comments that “Bradley could do better”. I think they meant it as criticism, but I would now take it as positive encouragement. The College is doing extremely well. It can continue to improve and become even better. During my year I undertake to do everything in my ability to ensure that it does.”

Upon receiving the chain of office from the outgoing President Professor Stuart Reid, Bradley’s first official duty was to welcome the new Junior Vice-President Chris Tufnell saying that he was an ideal person to take on the role and praising his “calm but authoritative manner, and his passion for educational matters from the perspective of a practising vet.”

Bradley praised the outgoing President Professor Stuart Reid as a “hard act to follow” – particularly in light of him running this year’s London Marathon. Professor Reid then took up the position of Senior Vice-President, replacing Colonel Neil Smith.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has refused an application by Warwick Seymour-Hamilton to be restored to the Register of Veterinary Surgeons.

Mr Seymour-Hamilton was originally removed from the Register in June 1994 for failing to maintain his practice’s equipment and facilities in working order and for a total disregard of basic hygiene and care for animals, thereby bringing the profession into disrepute.

The restoration hearing on 20th May was Mr Seymour-Hamilton’s seventh application for restoration. Previous applications had been heard but refused in July 1995, June 2010, February 2015, March 2016, May 2017 and April 2018. However, as the Committee makes its decision on the merits of the case before it, those previous applications were not considered as relevant to its current decision.

The Committee heard oral evidence from Mr Seymour-Hamilton and were shown clear bottles with liquid, a container with tablets and petri dishes with grown cultures as detailed documentary evidence. In respect of any concerns regarding keeping his veterinary practice up-to-date, Mr Seymour-Hamilton said that “you never lose that skill” and explained that he kept up-to-date through extensive reading and conversations with veterinary surgeons in Europe. 

However, the Committee had significant concerns as to his fitness to practise safely as a veterinary surgeon for a number of reasons, including that nearly 25 years had passed since he was last in practice and that there was little, if any, evidence of him keeping up-to-date with the knowledge and skills required to practise as a veterinary surgeon.

Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The applicant worryingly did not accept that he was in any way deskilled by the passage of time. The evidence that the applicant has provided showed limited interaction with other veterinary surgeons and there is no documented evidence of the discussions or structure of the meetings he had with veterinary surgeons in Europe.

"There is no evidence of a prolonged and intense period of re-training by way of relevant study to demonstrate that a sufficient level of competence to return to practise has been achieved. In the absence of such evidence the Committee was of the view that there would be a serious risk to the welfare of animals if the applicant was restored to the Register.

"Further, it was a grave concern to this Committee that the applicant demonstrated worrying attitudinal issues towards individuals of a different religion and his attitude to employing a minor when he knew it to be against the law. Such attitudes are incompatible with professional standards the public would expect of a veterinary surgeon."

Finally, with no evidence of public support for the applicant, the Committee concluded that the application for restoration should be refused.

Warrington-based Natalia Oakes MRCVS has been given a formal warning by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after it found a number of charges proved in relation to incorrect certification about the conditions of a greyhound kennel.

The Disciplinary Committee heard that Miss Oakes had signed a Greyhound Board of Great Britain (GBGB) Veterinary Surgeons Residential Kennel Inspection Form which indicated that there were 55 greyhounds in the kennel, when there were in fact more; that she had stated that the kennels were in an acceptable condition, when they were in fact not; and that she knew the form was inaccurate and/or was dishonest in relation to what she had indicated on the form.

The kennels in question, Rough Cottage, were owned by Louise Eccles and her husband, Rod Eccles. Mrs Eccles was licensed by GBGB as a trainer, allowing her to train and race greyhounds and making the kennels accountable to inspections by veterinary surgeons.

At the time of the form in question, Miss Oakes had been attending Rough Cottage for about a year-and-a-half on a monthly basis, up through August 2016. At that point, on or around 1 August 2016, Mrs Eccles had left Rough Cottage for personal reasons.

Miss Oakes subsequently visited the premises on 14 August 2016 along with Amanda Gething of Northern Greyhound Rescue, when she learned that rather than there being 55 dogs, there were more than 80. 

On 16 August, she and Amanda Gething returned to Rough Cottage with Lucille Cavadino, from Lancky Dogs, a greyhound rescue organisation. They became aware of the existence of kennels on the premises that were not of acceptable standard, but Miss Oakes found that the dogs housed in these kennels were fit and healthy.

Miss Oakes also spoke to Mr Eccles around this time, and although he had plans to rehouse some of the dogs she was concerned that he might change his mind. Miss Oakes took the decision to complete and sign the kennel inspection form that Mr Eccles had handed to her, knowing that the details contained therein were incorrect. She stated that the reason that she did this was to appease Mr Eccles so that he would not hinder the plans to remove and rehouse the dogs. She admitted to the area GBGB Stipendiary Steward that she had signed the form and that it contained incorrect information.

At the beginning of the hearing Miss Oakes admitted all the charges except for the final one, namely that she had been dishonest about what she had indicated on the form. When she gave evidence during the hearing, however, she admitted that she had been dishonest and so all charges were found proved.

The Committee then turned to deciding whether these charges, having been found proven, would result in a finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect against Miss Oakes. The Committee considered her motives in signing the form were to try and safeguard animal welfare, but considered that she was misguided in how she chose to achieve that aim. The Committee, therefore, found that signing a form that is known to be misleading or inaccurate is in definite breach of the Code of Professional Conduct, and concluded that her conduct constituted disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

When considering a suitable sanction, the Committee took into account a number of mitigating factors, including some 62 testimonials that were submitted in favour of Miss Oakes, and the fact that she believed she was acting in the best interests of the animals’ welfare.

Chitra Karve, Chair of the Disciplinary Committee, said: "So far as mitigating factors are concerned, the Committee is satisfied that the Respondent’s motivation for what she did was governed by her overwhelming wish to promote the health or welfare of the greyhounds at Rough Cottage.

"The Committee is satisfied that no actual harm or risk of harm to any animal occurred in this case. There was no financial gain to the Respondent and the Committee has been told that she charged no fee for her extensive efforts in organising or assisting with the removal and rehousing of the greyhounds from Rough Cottage.

"The Committee considers that this was a single and isolated incident and that the risks of similar behaviour being repeated in the future are low."

Chitra added: "The Committee has decided that it will be sufficient to protect the welfare of animals, to maintain public confidence in the profession and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct, for the Respondent to be given a formal warning as to her future conduct."

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has decided to take no further action against Glamorgan-based Simona-Claudia Panait MRCVS, who was imprisoned after being convicted of dangerous driving.

Miss Panait faced the charge that on 3 April 2018, at Cardiff Magistrates’ Court, she was convicted of causing serious injury by dangerous driving for which she was sentenced to 10 months in prison, disqualified from driving for 41 months and ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £140.

At the start of the hearing Miss Panait admitted to the charge against her which related to an accident on 15 May 2017 in which, following an attempt to overtake a number of vehicles, she lost control of her car and collided with a vehicle on the other side of the road, causing serious injuries to herself and life-changing injuries to the other driver. The Committee subsequently found this charge to be proved.

The Committee then considered whether the charge found proved made her unfit to practise veterinary surgery.

In doing so, it took into account the fact that Miss Panait was convicted of a serious crime which resulted in serious harm to another and for which she received a custodial sentence.

The Committee decided that the criminal conviction and the custodial sentence fell far below the standard expected of a veterinary surgeon and therefore rendered her unfit to practise veterinary surgery.

In considering her sanction, the Committee heard directly from Miss Panait who attended the hearing having been released from prison on licence.

Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "After the submissions the respondent spoke directly to the Committee. She was understandably emotional and was remorseful and apologetic. She acknowledged that she had made a mistake and apologised for bringing the profession into disrepute…. To the Committee her sense of personal responsibility or shame was palpable."

The Committee also took into account other aggravating and mitigating factors in the case.

The Committee recognised that it was a serious offence with significant consequences for both the victim and Miss Panait but accepted it was a single isolated incident, that Miss Panait has made efforts to avoid repetition of the incident by undertaking further driving instruction and recognised that she had displayed full insight and remorse. Furthermore, it also considered the many testimonials from colleagues and clients and that she had received significant support from her employers.

Mr Drummond added: "The Committee came to the conclusion that this was one of those exceptionally unfortunate and sad cases where it is appropriate and proportionate to take no further action. The respondent has insight and is deeply remorseful and has accepted full responsibility for what has happened.

"In the circumstances of this case the Committee determined that the public interest has been met by the finding that the respondent’s conviction renders her unfit to practise. The Committee was of the view that to impose any sanction now would be disproportionate."

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that the name of a Berkshire-based veterinary surgeon, previously convicted of four offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, should be removed from the RCVS Register of Veterinary Surgeons.

Dr Ohene-Gyan was convicted at Reading Magistrates Court on 13 June 2012 of offences involving causing unnecessary suffering to three dogs and a cat that he had treated whilst working at Woosehill Vets, Wokingham, between February and October 2011. These offences related to failing to provide adequate or appropriate veterinary care or treatment, or failure to investigate and address an animal's poor condition. He was sentenced to 21 weeks' imprisonment concurrently for each offence.

Dr Ohene-Gyan did not attend the one-day Disciplinary Committee hearing and was not represented, although College records showed that he was aware of the dates of the hearing, and had had opportunity to apply for an adjournment. In the absence of any known good reason for Dr Ohene-Gyan's non-attendance, the Committee concluded that it was in the interests of justice that the hearing go ahead.

In considering whether the Respondent's convictions made him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon, the Committee depended on the findings of the District Judge and the remarks she had made when sentencing. "I found as a matter of fact that some of your actions were taken simply to run up a bill for the owners of pets," she had said. "You were in a position of special responsibility, trusted by the owners of the animals to treat them appropriately and to alleviate their suffering. You ignored advice from staff. Several animals were affected by your cruel disregard of their welfare. Some of the cruelty arose due to your incompetence. You have demonstrated that you are not fit to be trusted with the care of animals."

The Disciplinary Committee Chairman, Professor Peter Lees, speaking on behalf of the Committee, said: "The Respondent's actions, motivated by financial gain, caused serious actual injury to the four animals over a prolonged period of time. Clients are entitled to expect that veterinary surgeons will treat animals in their care humanely and with respect, and make animal welfare their first priority. The Committee considers that the care described in the District Judge's findings demonstrated a total disregard for the professional responsibilities of a veterinary surgeon."

The Committee concluded that the removal of Dr Ohene-Gyan's name from the Register was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case in order to protect the welfare of animals, maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards of conduct, and it directed the Registrar to do so.

The RCVS has announced a new student innovation competition called "What's Your Big Idea?", being held by ViVet ahead of the second Innovation Symposium in October.

The competition is open to all UK-based undergraduate veterinary students and offers them the opportunity to work as a team to brainstorm, develop and present an innovative idea to a board of industry professionals.

Students can enter either as a single applicant or as a group (of roughly five members), with single applicants then being placed in a group with other applicants from their university. There can be more than one team representing each university.

Each student’s project can cover any aspect of veterinary health innovation. The RCVS suggests potential projects might include: innovations within veterinary education, innovations to improve sanitation and hygiene, innovations to improve veterinary-public communication and innovations to improve patient safety.

Entries must show how they have improved upon – or extended beyond – current expectations of best practice in their chosen area.

Each applicant will receive support from one of the Association of Veterinary Students’ (AVS) Vet Futures Ambassadors, as well as a mentor session with a chosen industry professional to guide them on their project.

Teams will need to submit three components for judging: a log of their progress throughout the project (which can include social media updates using the hashtag #ViVetStudentInnovation), mentor engagement and feedback, and a five-minute video ‘business pitch’.

The three finalist groups of the competition will be invited to present their pitch to a board of industry professionals at a ‘Dragon’s Den’ style event held at the RCVS ViVet 2019 Innovation Symposium on Tuesday 1 October 2019 in Manchester.

The winning and runner-up groups will then be selected and will be presented alongside the ‘mentor’s choice’ award. The Mentor’s Choice award will be selected by the team mentors. The prize will be awarded to an individual who shows excellence and enthusiasm within their work on the project.

Anthony Roberts, RCVS Director of Leadership & Innovation (pictured right), said: "This competition provides a great opportunity for veterinary students to engage with their fellow classmates across different fields of study and to work on projects that could genuinely make a difference to animal health and welfare and the way veterinary services are delivered. Teams will receive one-on-one mentoring and will be guided through the innovation process, developing skills that will be useful throughout their careers. We look forward to seeing the three finalist teams presenting at the RCVS ViVet Innovation Symposium in Manchester on 1 October." 

Zoe Skinner, Vet Futures Student Representatives Team Leader, said: “This competition is a great opportunity for veterinary students to receive mentoring from experienced veterinary professionals and form contacts within our profession. It gives students a way to work together as a team and allows them to learn how to produce and develop innovative, problem-solving concepts as well as skills in delivering presentations. These are all important aspects of our career ahead, which will look brilliant on our CV’s.”

ViVet is now accepting registrations for the competition for the 2018/19 academic year. To enter, applicants must submit an online registration form. For further information, email info@vivet.org.uk.

The RCVS has announced the steps it will be taking in response to the Standards Committee's review of 24/7 emergency care.

Whilst the College has stopped short of making home visits entirely discretionary, it has confirmed that with regards to 24/7 emergency care overall:

• It will be placing greater emphasis on owners' legal responsibilities for their animals
• It will provide guidance to assist and empower vets to decline to attend an animal away from the practice when unnecessary or unsafe
• In the next two months or so, the supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct will be updated to reflect the above
• There will be an obligation on veterinary surgeons to provide more information to clients about their out-of-hours emergency service.

This follows RCVS Council's agreement in principle on recommendations that flowed from the Standards Committee's comprehensive review of 24/7 emergency care. The review was triggered by a number of issues, including the profession's response to the Chikosi Disciplinary Hearing of June 2013.

The College says the recommendations were developed out of a detailed process of evidence gathering, which included 656 pages of views submitted to the College, 2,801 signatures to a petition on home visits, a three-day select-committee-style hearing where representatives from 15 organisations and a further 10 individuals gave their views, a snapshot of responses from 1,062 vets taking part in the RCVS Survey of the Professions, and an online survey of 1,250 animal owners.

Council praised the work, which had been carried out under the guidance of Standards Committee Chair Clare Tapsfield-Wright, and agreed that draft changes to the supporting guidance to the Code of Professional Conduct should be refined and agreed by the Standards Committee and published over the next couple of months.

Clare said: "This process was not carried out as a typical consultation, with proposals being issued for consideration: we really wanted to be open to the views of the profession and the public from the start.

"We found that the profession did not wish to remove the 24/7 requirement, but there was a lot of frustration and concern, particularly around safety, home visits, who should be seen, outsourcing and contingency planning.

"The Standards Committee looked in detail at all of these issues and I am delighted to have Council's support for the general direction of our proposals. We will now review some changes to the wording of the new guidance, to improve clarity, and publish it as soon as possible."

President Neil Smith said: "I am delighted with the way this process has been carried out. No doubt the outcome will not please everyone, but these changes are based on robust evidence.

"The approach taken by the Standards Committee forms a useful model that could be adapted to address other such issues that we may face in the future."

The presentation given to Council on 5 June can be downloaded from the RCVS website at https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-events/news/council-agrees-new-emphasis-for-24-7-guidance/ .

The RCVS has announced that the Disciplinary Committee (DC) and the Preliminary Investigation Committee (PIC) have appointed Ian Arundale and Dr Bradley Viner as their new Chairs, respectively.

Ian Arundale (pictured right) was appointed as the new Chair of the DC following an application process from within existing Disciplinary Committee members, with the final interview panel consisting of Amanda Boag (President at the time), Ian Green (current DC Chair) and Miran Uddin (an independent barrister who works in regulatory law). Ian begins his role as chair in late October.

Ian is Deputy Chief Constable of Cleveland Police in the north east of England and was a police officer for 32 years serving in South Wales, West Mercia and Dyfed-Powys Police Forces. He currently provides expert witness services to inquests, courts and public inquiries. Ian has worked internationally and has assisted police forces and organisations in the USA, India, the Far East and New Zealand. In addition to his work with the RCVS, Ian is also the Chairperson of the Audit Committee for the City of Cardiff Council and is a board member of the International Law Enforcement Forum (ILEF).

Ian said: "I am pleased to have been selected as DC Chair and am looking forward to chairing the committee. The role of the DC is crucial to ensuring the RCVS protects and upholds the high standards of the UK veterinary professions, and I am humbled to be in a position to support this important function."

Dr Martin Whiting has been appointed as the new Vice Chair for the DC. Dr Whiting qualified as a veterinary surgeon from the Royal Veterinary College (RVC) in 2006. Following a few years in practice, he returned to academia to complete a Masters in Medical Law and Ethics and a PhD in the public interest in veterinary professional regulation. Martin was appointed as Lecturer in Veterinary Ethics and Law at the RVC in 2013 and became an RCVS and European Specialist in Animal Welfare, Ethics and Law. In 2017, Martin moved to the Home Office to work with the Animals in Science Committee and is currently the Head of Operations for the Animals in Science Regulation Unit.

Dr Bradley Viner has been appointed as the new Chair of the RCVS PIC and began his role on 1 July 2019.

Bradley was appointed through an independent selection process led by an external HR consultancy, with RCVS Council ratifying the final appointments. Bradley replaces Andrew Ash, who chaired the PIC from July 2015 up until Bradley’s appointment.

Bradley established his own small animal practice in Pinner, Middlesex, which then grew to a group of five practices in north-west London. In 2017 he sold his practices to the Linnaeus Group and now works for them as Group Clinical Quality Lead across all their sites. He was made a Fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons in 2017 for Meritorious Contributions to Clinical Practice. Bradley was an elected member of RCVS Council between 2005 and 2017, including four years as RCVS Treasurer and one year as RCVS President in 2015-16.

Bradley said: "I was delighted to have been selected as Chair of this Statutory Committee as I feel it is one of the most important interfaces between the College, the profession and the public. It has a vital role to play in protecting animal welfare and the reputation of the profession, but I am well aware that fear of disciplinary proceedings can be very stressful to those involved. I undertake to continually strive to work to find a balance that ensures the Committee maintains a well-regulated profession acting in the public interest but also makes every effort to avoid causing unnecessary stress on members that are subject to its proceedings."

More information about the RCVS concerns investigation and disciplinary processes can be found at www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns. 

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that a veterinary surgeon from Berkshire be removed from the Register, following his administration of a prohibited substance to a racehorse and his subsequent attempts to conceal his actions.

At a six-day hearing that concluded yesterday, James Main, a partner in the O'Gorman, Slater, Main & Partners veterinary practice in Newbury, and former lead veterinary surgeon to racehorse trainer Nicky Henderson, faced four charges of serious professional misconduct concerning his treatment of Moonlit Path, a six-year-old mare owned by The Queen.

Three of the charges related to Mr Main breaching British Horseracing Authority (BHA) rules by injecting Moonlit Path with tranexamic acid (TA) on the day she was due to race; the fourth charge related to his dishonest concealment of this treatment in his practice clinical records. Nicky Henderson had himself faced a BHA Inquiry into this case in 2009 and subsequently been sanctioned.

The Committee heard that on 18 February 2009, Mr Henderson's yard requested a veterinary surgeon attend Moonlit Path to administer an injection of Dycenene the following morning. The injection was requested as the mare was prone to exercise-induced pulmonary haemorrhage. Mr Main attended on the morning of 19 February and injected the horse with intravenous tranexamic acid. Moonlit Path raced at Huntingdon later that day, along with the eventual winner, and favourite, Ravello Bay - another horse trained by Mr Henderson. Moonlit Path finished sixth and a urine sample taken from her after the race tested positive for TA.

Of the four charges, Mr Main admitted injecting Moonlit Path with TA on the day she was due to race when he knew this breached the BHA's rule prohibiting any substance other than the horse's usual feed and water being given on race day. However, Mr Main denied knowing that, if tested, a horse would test positive for TA (thereby imposing a strict liability on the trainer); he denied administering a prohibited substance to a horse with the intention to affect that horse's racing performance; and, he denied dishonestly concealing the TA injection by omitting it from his clinical records and referring to it as a 'pre-race check'.

The Committee heard and carefully considered evidence from Mr Henderson and his employees, from BHA investigating officers and its Director of Equine Science and Welfare, from an expert equine physiologist and from Mr Main himself. In its findings, the Committee stated it was "unimpressed by Mr Henderson's evidence and surprised by his apparent lack of knowledge of the rules of racing".

Whilst the Committee accepted Mr Main believed at the time that Moonlit Path would not test positive for TA, it considered he failed to fully inform himself of the medicinal product he was using; especially so as TA does not possess a Marketing Authorisation as a veterinary medicinal product. In so doing, he did not meet his professional obligation to provide Mr Henderson with the information and advice he needed.

The Committee concluded that TA was a prohibited substance and, whilst accepting that Mr Main's concern had solely been for Moonlit Path's welfare, he had actually breached BHA rules by affecting her performance through administering such a substance.

Finally, the Committee found that Mr Main had deliberately concealed the TA injection to Moonlit Path by describing it in his notes as a 'pre-race check' - a protocol developed over several years between the practice and Mr Henderson. Such inaccurate clinical records were in breach of the RCVS Guide to Professional Conduct and led the Committee to conclude he had acted dishonestly. The Committee also found Mr Main "did not act with candour" by claiming to have administered the TA injection the day before the race. On questioning by the Legal Assessor, however, he admitted that he had known that Moonlit Path was racing the same day that he administered the injection.

Professor Sheila Crispin, chairing the Committee, said: "[We] regard it as wholly unacceptable practice that a veterinary surgeon should be party to serious breaches of rules of another regulatory body in the field of animal welfare ... and which go to the very integrity of racing.

"Whilst the findings relate to a single incident, [we] are satisfied that Mr Main's actions amounted to pre-meditated misconduct ... It is highly relevant that Mr Main held positions of responsibility within the racing industry where he was required to uphold the rules and standards of the profession," she added.

Noting Mr Main's "long and hitherto unblemished career as a highly respected equine veterinary surgeon", the Committee accepted Mr Main's evidence that the reason for the administration of tranexamic acid was solely his concern about the welfare of the horse. Nevertheless, it found his evidence was "evasive, lacking in candour and on some aspects of the case his evidence was untrue".

Professor Crispin concluded: "...proven dishonesty has been held to come at the top end of the spectrum of gravity of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect ... Having considered carefully all the mitigation put forward on Mr Main's behalf, [we] have concluded that Mr Main's behaviour was wholly unacceptable and so serious that removal of his name from the Register is required."