Mr Wood faced three charges, all relating to allegations of misconduct over a laboratory test for an alpaca while he was working at a practice in South Oxfordshire.
The charges alleged that in September 2023, Mr Wood told the alpaca’s owner that it had tested positive for Johne’s disease when in fact, the animal had not been tested.
He then allegedly sent a letter confirming a positive test result for the test that had not taken place, and then created a false test result report in the name of a veterinary surgeon colleague and sent it to another colleague by email.
He later told the alpaca's owner that he had given her the wrong result by mistake and that the test result was actually negative.
Then in October 2023, he emailed the laboratory saying that a member of his practice’s administrative staff had written the false report.
In November he told the managing partner of his then employer on three occasions that he was investigating the false report in order to find out who sent it.
Finally, he sent a misleading and dishonest email to a veterinary surgeon colleague falsely indicating that a member of the practice’s staff had manufactured the false report, when that was not the case.
At the outset of the hearing Mr Wood admitted the facts of all the allegations against him.
Having found the facts proven, the Committee found that the charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, something which Mr Wood himself also admitted.
The Committee identified a number of aggravating factors in Mr Woods' conduct, including his lack of honesty, probity and integrity, the fact the conduct was premeditated, that it involved a breach of the client’s trust, the abuse of his professional position, the fact the conduct was sustained and repeated over a period of time, and that his conduct contravened advice given by the RCVS.
The mitigating factors included positive testimonials from professional former colleagues and client farmers, the fact that he had engaged in some remediation in order to avoid repeating the dishonest behaviour, and that he showed significant insight into his misconduct.
Dr Neil Slater MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee recognised that the serious repeated dishonesty, which was to conceal wrongdoing, made the respondent’s misconduct particularly serious.
“It therefore gave consideration as to whether his conduct was fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon and whether removal was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.
“The Committee considered that this was a particularly difficult case to reconcile, as, on the one hand the misconduct was so serious whereas on the other hand, the respondent had demonstrated significant insight; the risk of repetition was low; the evidence of his professional achievements was strong and the testimonials from client farmers and professional colleagues were impressive.”
He added: “The Committee considers that suspension is sufficient in the circumstances of this case to satisfy public confidence in the profession and to uphold proper professional standards of conduct and behaviour.
"The Committee therefore imposes a suspension of 18 months on the respondent.
"In determining this length, the Committee considered that this was the least period necessary in order to meet the significant public interest considerations in this case.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings
The model for the forecast was developed by the College with the Institute of Employment Studies using data from the RCVS Registers, the 2019 and 2024 Surveys of the Professions, Office for National Statistics data for projected economic growth and the PDSA’s Animal Wellbeing (PAW) Reports.
However, the model does not take account of the impact of the increasing costs of veterinary care on pet ownership trends, the full effect of which may not yet have been felt.
The main predictions of the model are:
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS Chief Executive Officer, said: “In 2021, there were clear concerns about there being a workforce crisis within the veterinary professions, and while that certainly seemed to be the case, and is likely to continue to be so in the short-term, according to this model the future picture for the professions looks much better in most areas of veterinary practice.
“However, government service/public health looks to be an area where there is still a significant shortfall in supply, which is concerning considering the importance of government vets in food safety, disease prevention and international trade and we are willing to continue to work with government to find ways to remedy this shortfall.
“We are aware that there may be some concerns about the implications of the model, particularly concerning the potential oversupply of veterinary nurses.
"While we stand by the robustness of the data, demography is not destiny, and with the planned enhancement of the veterinary nurse role, and the likelihood of suppressed demand due to prior shortages, it is likely that the number of veterinary nursing roles will expand to encompass the number of veterinary nurses available to work in it.
“Finally, we are aware that there are also some limitations to the model in its current form, for example, in terms of regional data.
"This is a work in progress, and we will continue to update and improve the model as and when new data allows.”
The workforce modelling report is available to download from www.rcvs.org.uk/publications
Allegations were reported both in The Times, and the Veterinary Record.
In its statement, the College said: "We know that the University of Edinburgh takes any such accusations extremely seriously and that its inquiry fully and robustly investigated the claims in 2019. This inquiry found no evidence of misconduct, a decision that was later upheld after an appeal.
The College recognised the massive impact that bullying can have on anyone who has been subject to it and acknowledged that the individual accounts published in the Veterinary Record were upsetting to read. However it also drew attention to the 'huge amount of stress that can be caused by ‘trial by media’, especially when an inquiry has concluded that there were no issues to be found'.
As to the role of the RCVS Junior Vice-President, the College pointed out that this is a matter for RCVS Council, as the postholder is elected by Council.
Professor Argyle will be making a statement to Council at its next meeting on 5th November, after which Councillors will be able to ask any questions they have, and then consider the matter.
Meanwhile, the College has asked the Vet Record whether any of the people who made the anonymous testimonials would like to supply any information directly.
RCVS Council agreed, in principle, to the sale of Belgravia House and for the College and its London-based staff to move to different premises at its November meeting.
The sale of the building and the move will be overseen by the College’s Estate Strategy Project Board headed by former RCVS President Barry Johnson and including current and former RCVS Council members and RCVS staff.
The RCVS has been based at its current premises in 62-64 Horseferry Road for 25 years, but says it now needs more up-to-date and modern facilities to accommodate a projected increase in the number of staff.
The College says it has considered a number of alternatives, including expanding the current premises by adding or expanding floors. However, due to the fact that the building is in a conservation area, it has become clear that any such expansions would be unlikely to get planning permission from Westminster Council.
Lizzie Lockett, RCVS Chief Executive, said: "For a number of years it has become apparent that it is fast approaching the time at which our current premises will no longer be fit for purpose due to an increase in the number of RCVS staff – something that is projected to continue in the future – the ongoing need to use the building for Disciplinary Hearings, which take over the lion’s share of available meeting space, and the need for better and more modern facilities.
"Even putting our need for increased space on one side, Belgravia House requires major refurbishment in key areas such as air-conditioning and lifts, which would require staff to vacate the premises for up to 18 months, which would be costly and disruptive.
"We are therefore pleased that Council has recognised the need for the College to move somewhere that better reflects our needs and, over the coming months, we will be exploring a number of different options for new premises.
"In parallel to this we have put out an invitation to tender for agents to manage the sale of the building. The plan is for the arrangement to include lease-back so that we have time to find a suitable premises and enabling us to act quickly when we do."
Any organisations that are interested in putting forward a tender to manage the sale of the building should contact Corrie McCann, RCVS Director of Operations, on 020 7202 0724. Responses to tender are required by 30 November 2018.
Photo: Copyright Google 2018
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 charges related to the unexpected death of a cat called Hope during an operation to explore a growth in her mouth, and Dr Dantas-Holmes' subsequent communication with the animal's owners.
Dr Dantas-Holmes accepted that Hope’s death was most likely due to her failing to flush fluid through the giving set attached to an intravenous drip, leaving air in the tubing and causing some air to enter Hope’s bloodstream when the cannula was placed and the giving set’s control opened.
The first set of charges related to Dr Dantas-Holmes’ initial phone call to Hope’s owners ten minutes after Hope’s death, in which she said that Hope had died because of a reaction to anaesthetic drugs. Dr Dantas-Holmes failed to mention that the cause of death was still to be determined and failed to mention that a likely cause was in fact an air embolism and/or a complication relating to the intravenous drip.
Following her initial phone call to the owners Dr Dantas-Holmes viewed CCTV of her actions.
The owners then came into the practice later in the day, and the communications during that time constitute the second set of charges: that, during this meeting, Dr Dantas-Holmes didn’t correct her earlier statements about the cause of Hope’s death, and that she didn’t mention that there was an ongoing investigation or that a likely cause of death was an air embolism and/or complication.
The third set of charges related to Dr Dantas-Holmes’ subsequent clinical records, in which it was alleged that she failed to include references to the findings on review of the CCTV footage of Hope’s death, and the possibility of an air embolism and/or complication relating to the intravenous drip.
The fourth and final set of charges were that her conduct was misleading, and/or dishonest.
With regard to the first set of charges, the Committee found that Dr Dantas-Holmes did tell the owners that Hope died because of a reaction to the drugs, but that given the short nature of the phone call to the owners and the distressing circumstances there was no duty to discuss the investigation, or to mention the likely cause being an air embolism.
Concerning the communications with the owners when they came to the practice, the Committee found that Dr Dantas-Holmes did fail to mention that anaesthetic drugs might not have been the cause, and that she also failed to mention the investigation. Dr Dantas-Holmes had agreed with the Practice Manager, however, that she would not discuss the possibility of an air embolism or complication, and so that charge was not found proved.
On consideration of whether Dr Dantas-Holmes had failed to include relevant findings in the clinical reports, the Committee found both charges proved, and, in relation to the final set of charges, the Committee found that while Dr Dantas-Holmes had misled Hope’s owners, it was unintentional, and she had not been dishonest.
Ultimately, the Committee found Dr Dantas Holmes not guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
Stuart Drummond, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The findings of this Committee demonstrate that there were errors and omissions in communications with the owners. When communicating with a client it is the professional’s responsibility to ensure that the client has heard and understood what has been said. The importance of good and effective communication is particularly important when an unforeseen and shocking event occurs such as it did in this case.
"The particular circumstances of this case demonstrate how important it is to communicate effectively and the need for the veterinary surgeon to ensure that their clinical records for which they are wholly responsible, are complete.
"The Committee concluded that its findings demonstrated a departure from professional standards but that the falling short was not so grave as to amount to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."
The RCVS has announced that it is carrying out an audit of continuing professional development (CPD) for vets in order to monitor compliance and gauge what type of activities they are engaging in.
Under the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct, introduced in 2012, veterinary surgeons are expected to undertake 105 hours of CPD over a rolling three-year period in order to demonstrate that they are maintaining and advancing their knowledge and skills.
Nearly 5,000 vets - made up of three cohorts - have been asked to share their CPD records. The first cohort comprises 4,425 UK-practising vets who registered before 1 April 2012 but who did not confirm their CPD compliance upon renewing their registration this year. The second cohort comprises a random sample of 400 vets who did confirm their compliance upon renewing their registration this year. The third cohort comprises 84 vets who graduated before 2012 but have not yet completed their post-graduation Professional Development Phase.
Christine Warman, RCVS Head of Education, said: "Since it is coming up to three years since we introduced the Code we thought that now is a good time to take stock of the proportion of veterinary surgeons that are fulfilling the requirement and how they are doing so.
"It is also a good time to remind members of the profession of the importance of CPD and that it is not just a tick-box exercise but vital for everyday practice. Engaging in CPD is a personal obligation for all veterinary surgeons and demonstrates to both the profession and public that they are continually advancing their capability and competence.
"This year we will be providing some guidance on what constitutes CPD and how to undertake it to those who are non-compliant. However, from 2015, we may also refer those who repeatedly fail to comply, or respond to requests to submit their records, to our Professional Conduct Department for further investigation."
Vets who have been selected to take part in the audit will have received letters in early November and will have until Monday 1 December to respond. They can do so by either allowing the RCVS to view their online Professional Development Record (PDR) profile or by submitting their paper CPD record by post or by sending the College a scanned copy by email.
For further advice and to submit a CPD record by email, contact cpd@rcvs.org.uk. Those who have not yet registered for the PDR can do so by visiting www.rcvs-pdr.org.uk
Mr Smith was convicted of conspiracy to commit a fraud in which potentially dangerous horses were drugged and then sold to unsuspecting owners, at Maidstone Crown Court in June 2016. He was given 30 months' imprisonment, which formed one of the charges heard by the Disciplinary Committee.
There were also a number of charges related to his treatment of five different animals while in practice at the Lakeview Veterinary Centre in Folkestone, Kent. The charges were:
In relation to a Clydesdale mare named Grace on 14 August 2014 he failed to perform an adequate examination and/or undertake sufficient investigation and/or take a history of her; that after his initial visit to Grace on that day he failed to respond adequately to the owner’s telephone reports that Grace had deteriorated and/or failed to improve; and, that he failed to make adequate clinical records for Grace.
Between 29 September 2014 and 31 January 2015, in relation to a Labradoodle named Holly, he failed to keep adequate clinical records.
In relation to a cat named Maisey the allegations were that he failed to examine and investigate the cat adequately, he made a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and gave insulin to administer to the cat without first undertaking the minimum investigation required, failed to keep adequate clinical records and sent an incorrect, misleading and dishonest statement to the RCVS regarding his treatment of Maisey. All charges date between 30 October and 19 December 2014.
In relation to a cat called Comet the allegation was that between 1 April and 17 April 2015 he failed to keep adequate clinical records and failed to respond adequately and appropriately to concerns raised by the owner.
Regarding a Yorkshire Terrier with diabetes named Poppy the allegation was that in two emergency out-of-hours calls made by Poppy’s owner to Mr Smith in April 2015 regarding the dog’s condition, he failed to recommend veterinary treatment or keep adequate clinical records. Furthermore, when the owner attended the practice following the two calls and the death of Poppy, he attributed the care to another member of the practice and failed to communicate effectively with the owner.
Having heard from a number of witnesses, including Mr Smith, and having received representations from Mr Smith in relation to the above charges, the Committee found almost all of the charges proven, with the exception of those relating to Mr Smith’s alleged conversation with Poppy’s owner at the practice following her death.
The Committee then went on to consider whether the various proven charges amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect and whether the conviction rendered Mr Smith unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
In relation to the clinical charges the Committee found that, both individually and cumulatively, they amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.
The Committee also determined that the conviction rendered Mr Smith unfit to practise veterinary surgery and noted that it involved prolonged dishonesty, breach of trust, disregard for animal health and welfare and a "total abrogation of Mr Smith’s professional responsibilities."
Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee was particularly concerned because the dishonesty went to the heart of Mr Smith’s responsibilities as a veterinary surgeon. His registration as a veterinary surgeon enabled him to take part in the conspiracy, and that role involved him conducting certified examinations on animals and supplying drugs for administration to animals. Reliable and honest certification is a vital element of the veterinary surgeon’s public role."
In considering the sanction against Mr Smith the Committee looked at the clinical charges and the conviction separately.
In relation to the clinical charges the Committee found that his treatment of the animals in these cases was fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon. The Committee therefore directed that Mr Smith’s name should be removed from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons.
The Committee said that the case demonstrated that Mr Smith’s lack of treatment or his inappropriate treatment of these animals caused harm and that in some regards, for example the writing of accurate and contemporaneous clinical notes, Mr Smith demonstrated a total disrespect for the Code of Professional Conduct.
The Committee went on to say: "Further, he deliberately lied to his regulator. He demonstrated deep-seated attitudinal issues including a misplaced belief in his own abilities and had no insight or commitment to do anything different in the future. In those circumstances the likelihood of repetition was significant in the Committee’s view."
In considering the sanction for his conviction of conspiracy to commit fraud the Committee took into account a number of aggravating factors including the premeditated nature of the conduct, the fact it was repeated over four years and the fact that harm was caused to both animals and people as a result of his actions.
Cerys Jones said: "As the decision notes, some of the riders were novices or children and as a result of their experience they lost confidence in riding a horse. As the independent veterinary surgeon Mr Smith was in a position of responsibility because he was certifying the horses as to their suitability. A particularly aggravating feature in this case is that Mr Smith had previously been removed from the Register for falsely certifying horses for export."
In relation to the conviction the Committee also directed that the Registrar remove Mr Smith from the Register.
Mr Smith has 28 days from being informed of the Committee’s decision to make an appeal against it.
The full findings can be found here.
Miss Herdman faced three charges.
The first was that she indicated to a friend that she would supply diazepam and/or tramadol for use by their husband.
The second was that she supplied diazepam and/or tramadol and/or gabapentin.
The third was that she gave advice on the dosages of diazepam and/or tramadol and/or gabapentin.
Miss Herdman was not present at the hearing and was unrepresented, but the Committee determined that it was appropriate to proceed in her absence as she had been notified, was aware that the hearing was taking place and her absence was voluntary.
However, Miss Herdman had been in contact to indicate her pleas to the charges.
She admitted the intention to supply diazepam and/or tramadol and that she had provided advice on the dosages.
She also admitted that she had supplied diazepam but strongly denied that she had supplied tramadol and/or gabapentin.
Taking all the evidence into account (including messages sent by Miss Herdman and her admissions), the Committee found proven the charges in relation to the intent to supply and the advice on dosages.
The Committee also found proven the charge in relation to the supply of diazepam, but found not proved the charge relating to the supply of tramadol and gabapentin for several reasons, including the fact that the messages sent by Miss Herdman did not point unequivocally to her actually suppling each of the drugs to which she referred.
There was no suggestion that the diazepam was stolen from her place of work.
The Committee found that Miss Herdman’s actions had breached paragraphs 1.5 and 6.5 of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses.
The committee judged that there were a number of aggravating features of Miss Herdman’s conduct, including that she was not qualified or authorised to prescribe medication to animals, let alone to human beings and that providing a controlled drug to a person who was already taking various painkilling medications was reckless.
The Committee also felt that a reasonable and informed member of the public would be very concerned to learn that a veterinary nurse had supplied a controlled drug to a friend for their personal use.
Regarding the sanction for Miss Herdman, Paul Morris, chairing the Veterinary Nursing Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Drawing all the material together, and considering the matter as a whole, the Committee had to impose a proportionate sanction for an isolated incident of serious professional misconduct which arose out of a misguided attempt to help a friend.
"The conduct in question was entirely out of keeping with Miss Herdman’s usual practice and there is no real risk that it will be repeated.
"However, this case was much too serious to take no further action and no useful purpose would be served by postponing a sanction.
“The Committee considered that a warning or reprimand would not be sufficient to satisfy the public interest as veterinary nurses are trusted by the public to deal with medication responsibly and failure to do constitutes a severe breach of trust.
“The Committee therefore considered a period of suspension sufficient to meet the public interest in maintaining the reputation of the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct for members of the profession.
“The Committee also considered whether a removal order would be appropriate but concluded it would be disproportionate and that such a step would remove from the profession an experienced, competent and valuable veterinary nurse for no discernible benefit.
“It was decided that Miss Herdman’s registration be suspended for a period of three months – a period which is sufficient to mark the gravity of the misconduct while taking into account the circumstances in which it arose.”
https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings/
The company says it has made the test available in response to customer demand and growing evidence that in rare cases pets living with COVID-19-positive humans can be at risk of infection.
The test will be available to veterinary surgeons in North America this week and will roll out across most of the world in the coming weeks, via the company's worldwide network of laboratories.
Jay Mazelsky, President and Chief Executive Officer of Idexx Laboratories said: "We have continued to monitor the rapidly evolving public health crisis worldwide, paying special attention to the effects on pets.
"While there is currently no evidence that dogs or cats play a role in transmitting the disease to humans, it became clear offering the test was the right thing to do when we saw clinical evidence that pets—especially cats and ferrets—can in rare cases be at risk for infection. And, we heard from our customers around the globe that veterinarians needed a testing option."
Idexx recommends the test is used when three specific criteria are met:
Idexx says leading health authorities agree with the company that transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is primarily person-to-person and advise against testing asymptomatic pets. Since mid-February, the company has tested over 5,000 specimens for the virus, from cats, dogs, and horses with respiratory symptoms in 17 countries. To date, it has found no positive results, suggesting that dogs and cats living with infected people generally remain uninfected, except in rare and isolated cases.
For information about the Idexx SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) RealPCR Test for pets, visit idexx.com/covid19-pet-test.
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has restored a veterinary surgeon who had previously been convicted of fraud to the Register, after finding him fit to resume practising.
Matthew Morgan had pleaded guilty to four counts of fraud in July 2013 having fraudulently claimed over £200,000 in pet insurance claims between November 2009 and December 2012. In August 2013 he was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, for which he served 12 months and was then released on licence.
Following his conviction and sentence, his case was brought to the RCVS Disciplinary Committee in February 2014 where it was decided to strike him off the Register. When his licence period expired on 18 August 2015, Mr Morgan applied for restoration to the Register.
During the course of the hearing, the Disciplinary Committee heard evidence from Mr Morgan, who accepted the findings of the Committee, describing the evidence as ‘fair’ and acknowledging the seriousness of his actions.
The Committee felt that Mr Morgan’s criminal conduct was very grave, as reflected in his custodial sentence and the fact that, as an Australian citizen, he had been issued with a deportation notice by the Home Office. It also felt that his crime had struck at the heart of public confidence in a profession for which honesty and integrity is expected.
However, the Committee considered that Mr Morgan, if restored, would pose few risks in respect of protection of the public, having no concerns about his competence as a veterinary surgeon, and accepted that there was little future risk to animal welfare if he were to be restored.
The Committee also considered that, since his release from prison, Mr Morgan has taken extensive steps to rehabilitate himself, has undertaken continuing professional development and has been working as a veterinary care assistant at two veterinary practices to keep up-to-date with current practice.
Furthermore, the Committee was satisfied that there was public support for Mr Morgan continuing as a veterinary surgeon given the references and testimonials submitted on his behalf.
In coming to its conclusion the Disciplinary Committee reiterated the seriousness of Mr Morgan’s criminal offending, saying that it had caused it “the greatest concern”. However, it also felt that issues of rehabilitation needed to be considered.
Professor Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee cannot emphasise enough the fact that veterinary surgeons who commit acts of fraud in the exercise of their practice can expect severe consequences, both in the criminal courts and within their own College and there can be no doubt that the decision to remove the applicant from the Register was a proper reflection of the seriousness of his offending.
“Given all of the matters referred to above, however, the Committee considers that the applicant has demonstrated sufficiently that he has learned the lessons required and is now fit to be restored to the Register.”
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has announced the results of the 2011 RCVS and VN Council elections.
Elected to the RCVS Council are:
Not elected are:
For the first time in eight years, all six successful RCVS Council candidates have served on Council before, although one - Sandy Trees - is currently an appointed, rather than an elected, member.
For VN Council, one existing member has been returned and two new members have been elected:
Not elected to VN Council was:
Following rises in previous turnouts, voting figures have dropped markedly this year in both RCVS and VN Councils elections, to 15.9% (3,887 voters) and 7.6% (723 voters) respectively. The previous turnouts were 18.8% (in 2010) and 11.2% (in 2009).
RCVS Registrar Jane Hern said: "It's certainly disappointing that the turnout has dropped so much this year. It's unclear whether this is due to lack of time, lack of awareness, or lack of interest, but perhaps anyone who didn't vote could let us know why, so we can see what we could do to increase participation.
"Nevertheless, my congratulations to all successful candidates, who I look forward to formally welcoming, or welcoming back, onto the Councils at RCVS Day in July, and my commiserations to those who were unsuccessful this time and who I hope won't be discouraged from standing again next year."
This year's chosen charity - the Veterinary Benevolent Fund - will receive a cheque for £922 arising from the College's pledge to donate 20p for each veterinary surgeon and veterinary nurse who cast a vote.
Dr Bremner was convicted in 2017 of harassing his ex-wife, and for perverting the course of justice by sending his daughter an e-mail, pressuring her to ask her mother to withdraw the charges against him. He pleaded guilty to both of the charges, saying he did not understand that it was a condition of his bail that he could not contact his ex-wife. He also expressed shame and remorse at his actions, explaining that his behaviour was triggered by extreme anger, grief and stress.
In relation to the charges, the Respondent was committed to prison for 12 months, suspended for 12 months, ordered to comply with a Rehabilitation Activity Requirement within 12 months, and ordered to pay £85 in costs and £115 as a surcharge to pay for victim services.
The Committee found the facts proved based on the certified copy of the certificate of conviction, as well as the Respondent’s admissions to the facts of the charges. It was satisfied that the Respondent brought the profession into disrepute by the seriousness of his convictions. In addition, the Committee regarded the Respondent as having deficient insight and a need to fully accept personal responsibility for his actions and their consequences.
The Committee was also satisfied that the nature of the communications sent by the Respondent which led to the convictions and the breach of bail conditions, coupled with deficient insight amounted to serious professional misconduct and rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery.
The Committee considered various mitigating factors including the fact that no actual harm occurred to any animal, there were no concerns raised about the respondent’s practice, that he has a long and unblemished career, and that he showed some insight into his offences which continues to develop.
The Committee also took into account that preventing the Respondent from practicing could mean the loss of jobs for 33 or so employees, which weighed heavily on their decision. The Committee also agreed with the RCVS’s submissions that there was a very low likelihood of repetition of the offending behaviour. Aggravating factors included the emotional harm caused to the Respondent’s ex-wife, and that the harassment was a course of conduct sustained over a period of five months.
Therefore, when taking into account the particulars of this case, the Committee decided to impose a reprimand and warning on the basis that it would be proportionate to maintain public confidence in the profession in light of the serious nature of these charges.
Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee was of the view that the conviction for intending to interfere with the course of justice was particularly serious, in light of the need to maintain public confidence in the profession, because it involved a disregard of proper criminal process.
"However, a particular feature of this case is the risk to the jobs of 33 or so employees if the Respondent were to be prevented from practising as a result of the Committee’s imposition of a sanction. It is this mitigating factor which weighed most heavily with the committee and they therefore concluded that both a Reprimand as to this conduct and a Warning as to any future conduct is sufficient and proportionate in this case to meet the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold proper standards."
Mr Bremner has 28 days in which to make an appeal about the Committee’s decision to the Privy Council.
The Prince's Trust 'creates life-changing opportunities' for those aged 11-30 and Nick has long-held a passion for making a difference to young lives. He has set up three charities for young people: with learning disabilities; who want to campaign to change the world; and who want to break down the barriers to enjoying nature and the outdoors.
Nick has led the RCVS since September 2012. During his tenure, developments at the College include a new Royal Charter, major governance reform, improved regulation of veterinary nurses, the instigation of Vet Futures, the introduction of the alternative dispute resolution service, significant evolution within the Practice Standards Scheme, the refocusing of RCVS Trust into RCVS Knowledge, the launch of Mind Matters, and the recognition of the College as a Great Place to Work.
Nick said: "It has been a great privilege to be CEO of the College and to work with such amazing staff, such a progressive Council and such a decent and caring profession. It is no surprise to me that vets and vet nurses are among the most trusted professionals in this country, and in my view this is due to their professionalism and to the excellence of the Royal College in maintaining and advancing standards. I hope I have played my part in helping the College and the profession navigate through a period of great change and preparation for significant change to come.
"At The Prince’s Trust I will be focused on the next generation, helping to give young people the confidence and purpose they need to make a success of their lives and the world around them. I know from my own personal experiences of school, and the various charities with which I have been involved, how many young people are not given the best chance in life. I cannot think of a better mission to take on."
RCVS President Chris Tufnell said: "I feel very fortunate to have worked closely with Nick over his five years with the RCVS; he has made a tremendous contribution to the College and our professions. With his energy and drive, he has infused the College with a culture of openness, engagement and dedication and has inspired the team through some impressive achievements.
"Nick’s leadership will enable vets and veterinary nurses to fulfil their potential and it's fitting that he's moving on to a role which benefits the lives of others. Meanwhile, there's a considerable amount of important work being done by the RCVS and I am confident that we have a strong team at Belgravia House to manage this until the new CEO is in post."
The RCVS says its Operational Board will be reflecting on Nick’s successes and the future needs of the College, before developing a specification for the new CEO and a recruitment process over the coming weeks.
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.”
Mr Molnar had been convicted at Manchester and Salford Magistrates’ Court in March 2018 of five counts of importing puppies to the UK in contravention of the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and other Mammals) Order 1974.
At that court hearing he also pleaded guilty to one count of keeping premises as a pet shop without the authority of a licence granted by a local authority.
As a result of his conviction Mr Molnar was sentenced to 270 hours of unpaid supervised work and was ordered to pay compensation of £2,683.93 and costs of £250.
The Committee, which proceeded with the hearing in Mr Molnar’s absence, found that the RCVS charges against Mr Molnar were proven and went on to consider whether, individually and cumulatively, they resulted in Mr Molnar being unfit to practice being a veterinary surgeon.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee accepts the College’s submission that the fact that they [the puppies] were imported contrary to the law of the UK, because they were underage and had not been properly vaccinated, undermines the integrity of a system which is designed to ensure that effective vaccination and precautions against disease take place in every case.
"The Committee also notes that the convictions in this case were directly linked to the respondent’s veterinary practice, as they related to animals sold from his veterinary practice address. By operating an unlicensed pet shop, and by doing so through an email address that referred to his occupation as a veterinary surgeon, the respondent was abusing his position as a veterinary surgeon, and acting in a way that was liable to undermine the reputation of the profession."
The Committee therefore found that, because Mr Molnar’s conviction was directly linked to his veterinary practice and posed a substantial risk to animal welfare and public health, his conviction meant his conduct fell far short of what was expected of a professional.
In considering the sanction for Mr Molnar the Committee considered that, while he had no previous convictions or adverse professional findings against him, the case against him was very serious "because of the risk of serious harm both to animals and the public, as well as being for financial gain."
Ian Green said: "The Committee considered that the respondent, as a veterinary surgeon, must have known the serious implications and consequences of what he was doing by importing these puppies unlawfully. The public should expect to be able to trust a veterinary surgeon to ensure that his conduct does not put at risk the health of both animals and humans."
Mr Green added that the Committee felt that the only appropriate sanction was to direct the Registrar to remove Mr Molnar’s name from the Register.
Mr Seymour-Hamilton was originally removed from the Register following an inspection of his Kent practice in 1993 which found that his operating theatre “showed a total disregard of basic hygiene and care for animals and was such as to bring the profession into disrepute”.
Since being removed from the Register, Mr Seymour-Hamilton has made applications for restoration in 1995, 2010, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019. Each was rejected.
In his latest application, Mr Seymour-Hamilton said that he did not want to re-join the Register in order to practise but to facilitate his research in the area of herbal medicine.
The Committee found that while Mr Seymour-Hamilton had accepted some of the findings of the original case, he disagreed with important facts, such as whether or not his surgery was open at the time of the inspection, and showed ‘minimal insight’ into the seriousness of the findings.
The Committee also voiced concerns over public protection and animal welfare should he be restored, saying that he had demonstrated little or no understanding of the purpose of regulation. The Committee also noted that he had, by his own admission, spayed two cats at a practice in Calais in recent years despite his long absence from the Register and unregistered status as a veterinary surgeon in the UK or France.
In considering his conduct since leaving the Register, the Committee found that Mr Seymour-Hamilton had admitted to a number of instances of conduct which it found ‘reprehensible’. This included carrying out spays; not self-isolating after testing positively for coronavirus and, in fact, travelling through France and Spain in breach of the lockdown put in place due to the pandemic; deliberately trying to re-infect himself with coronavirus and then visiting a vulnerable person without maintaining social distancing; treating his own animals with untested herbal remedies; and using his own remedies to treat people, which, in one case, included a nine-year-old boy in Greece.
In summing up Judith Way, who was chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee has concluded that he has not satisfied it that he is fit to be restored to the Register. He has exhibited a disregard for regulation and compliance with the law. He lacks an understanding as to why he has not been restored in the past. He has not set about addressing any of his shortcomings. He relies wholeheartedly on his research, yet he does not support that research with any real peer-reviewed publications and he fails to acknowledge the consequences of being out-of-practice for so long. He has misplaced confidence in his own abilities and does not recognise that his approach and/or actions can represent a danger to animals and to the public. The Committee has therefore reached the conclusion that the applicant is not a fit person to be restored to the Register.”
The full findings of the restoration hearing for Mr Seymour-Hamilton can be found at: www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
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
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
The RCVS has announced that it has accepted the resignation of council member Bob Partridge.
Bob, who had been an elected member of the RCVS Council since July 2006, tendered his resignation for personal reasons.
Peter Robinson will take up the vacated Council position, as he came next in the ballot in the 2013 election.
The RCVS is inviting responses from veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and animal owners to a call for evidence on the provision of 24-hour emergency veterinary care, in order to understand how best to meet the expectations of all those involved.
In an open letter to the profession and the public published on the RCVS website, the Chairman of the RCVS Standards Committee, Clare Tapsfield-Wright, said:
"Over the past two years, lay people working with the RCVS have raised questions about the veterinary profession's ability to provide 24/7 to the extent required by the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct, and said there is a disconnect between the public's expectations and the profession's capacity to meet those expectations."
Clare also refers to an RCVS Disciplinary Committee Inquiry in June 2013, which raised a number of issues on home visits by veterinary surgeons, including: speed of response; travelling time and distance; daytime versus out-of-hours obligations; individual versus corporate responsibility; and, staffing levels and contingency plans.
The letter is accompanied by a range of background information, including the reports of Lay Observers to the RCVS Preliminary Investigation Committee; Working Party reports from the College's 2009 consultation on 24-hour emergency cover; and, further details about the June 2013 DC Inquiry.
The College says additional feedback will be sought through next year's RCVS Survey of the Professions, and via focus group research for animal owners. Once all responses have been collated, a number of individuals and organisations will be invited to a Standards Committee meeting to present and discuss their views.
Responses in writing are invited by 5pm on Monday, 17 February 2014, and should be emailed to 24-7@rcvs.org.uk or posted to the Professional Conduct Department, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, Belgravia House, 62-64 Horseferry Road, London SW1P 2AF.
In previous years, candidates were only asked to provide manifestos, which often contained information that wasn't especially relevant to whether or not they should be elected to Council.
Now, they are asked to share their reasons for wanting to be elected, what they can bring to Council and what experience they have.
That should make it much easier for voters to pick the right candidates, which is no bad thing because there are 20 vets standing this year, a record since electronic records began in 1997 and 1 more than the previous best in 2014.
This year’s candidates are:
Louise Allum MRCVSSam Bescoby MRCVSAndrew Clemence MRCVSTshidi Gardiner MRCVSReginald Godwin MRCVSPaddy Gordon MRCVS Danielle Greenberg MRCVSGerard Henry MRCVSRichard Hillman MRCVSBenjamin Kennedy MRCVSDarren Partridge MRCVSMartin Peaty MRCVSAlison Price MRCVSPeter Robinson MRCVSJennifer Simmons MRCVSSadie Spencer MRCVS Mary Thomas MRCVSWilliam Wilkinson MRCVSLara Wilson MRCVS
and the inevitable Tom Lonsdale MRCVS.
The full biographies and election statements for each candidate are available to read at www.rcvs.org.uk/vetvote25.
The four candidates who get the most votes will take up their four-year terms on RCVS Council at the College’s Annual General Meeting on Friday 4 July 2025.
Simon Wiklund, Assistant Registrar and Returning Officer for both elections, said: “We are glad to see such a large number of veterinary professionals putting themselves forward as candidates for this year’s elections.
"It is worth noting that any future governance changes, including RCVS and VN Councils becoming all-appointed bodies, are contingent on new legislation and, until that happens, we will continue to hold our annual elections.
“You may have also noticed some differences with this year’s elections, particularly in terms of the candidate statements.
"This is thanks to a change to our election scheme, which provides greater flexibility about how we run our elections, and the information that we can ask the candidates to submit.
“This means that, rather than asking candidates for a broad manifesto statement, we’ve asked them to answer key questions that are relevant to the role of a Council member, including what skills and experiences they can bring to the table.”
Ahead of the elections, RCVS will be running its ‘Quiz the candidates’ initiative in which veterinary surgeons can submit questions to the candidates standing in their respective elections, in order to better understand them and their views.
However, due to the additional information now included in each of their statements, this year candidates will only answer one question of their choice each.
Before submitting questions to the candidates, please note the RCVS will only accept one question per person. Offensive, defamatory and inaccurate questions will be rejected by the Returning Officer and not be passed on to candidates.
Veterinary surgeons can submit a question to the RCVS Council candidates by emailing vetvote25@rcvs.org.uk.
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
Miss Johnson was convicted at North Somerset Magistrates’ Court following a guilty plea of the offence of theft by employee in December 2023, after she stole buprenorphine belonging to Yatton Vets earlier that year.
She was sentenced to a fine of £120, a surcharge of £48, and costs of £85.
There were four further charges against Miss Johnson.
Charge one related to Miss Johnson stealing 5ml of methadone in December 2022 from her employer, Vets4Pets in Bristol, and injecting herself with the methadone.
The police investigated the incident and Miss Johnson accepted a conditional caution for the theft, the condition being she should attend a drug awareness course.
Charge two related to Miss Johnson dishonestly taking a syringe of methadone in August 2023 from her employer, the Langford Small Animal Hospital, and injecting herself with it.
Charge three related to two dates in September 2023 when she dishonestly took methadone, gabapentin and buprenorphine from Yatton Vets, her then employer, injecting herself with the buprenorphine and then working when unfit to do so.
Miss Johnson was later convicted of theft in relation to the buprenorphine (charge five).
Charge four related to an incident in November 2023, when Miss Johnson dishonestly took a syringe of buprenorphine from Bristol PDSA, for the purposes of self-administration, and was dishonest both to other members of staff and in the clinical records about the circumstances of taking the buprenorphine.
Charge five was in relation to Miss Johnson’s criminal conviction.
At the outset of the hearing, Miss Johnson admitted all charges in their entirety.
Having reviewed all the evidence and taken Miss Johnson’s admissions into account, the Committee found each of the charges proved.
After the criminal proceedings had finished and had been reported to the College, Miss Johnson wrote a letter expressing her deepest apologies to both the RCVS and the profession.
Within this she also made it clear that she took full responsibility for her actions.
In a later statement, she added that she had tried to use the experience to learn and improve in every aspect of her career and life and did not want to defend her behaviour.
Within this statement she also retracted a previous request to resign from the register, stating that she would accept any outcome to the investigation.
In deciding whether the proved charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee took the following aggravating factors into account:
The Committee identified no mitigating factors and concluded that for each of the individual charges Miss Johnson’s conduct fell far short of the conduct expected of a member of the profession and that each of the charges one to four amounted to serious professional misconduct.
In relation to charge five, the criminal conviction, the Committee noted that the nature and the circumstances of the offence involved dishonesty, abuse of her professional position regarding access to controlled drugs, breach of her employer’s trust, and that the misconduct took place notwithstanding an investigation by the police for similar conduct in December 2022.
The Committee therefore concluded that charge five rendered Miss Johnson unfit to practise.
When deciding on a sanction, the Committee took into account mitigating factors, which included:
The Committee found no further aggravating factors at this stage.
Kathryn Peaty, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf said: “The Committee considered that the overall misconduct proved so serious and was incompatible with remaining on the register.”
She added: “The Committee accepted that Miss Johnson was currently likely to be drug-free on the basis of her evidence and that of her referee, but it noted that independent testing proving she had been drug free for any period of time was not available to it.
"Furthermore, Miss Johnson had been unable to demonstrate that she had worked without any incident recently as she had accepted she had been dismissed from her recent job.
“Having taken into account all of the aggravating and mitigating factors, and balancing the public interest and the need to uphold and maintain standards within the profession, and having decided that Miss Johnson’s insight was limited, the Committee concluded that the sanction of ‘removal’ was the only proportionate sanction it could impose in this case.
"It also decided that such a sanction maintained public confidence in the veterinary profession, safeguarded animal welfare and protected the public from any future risk of repetition of similar behaviour.
“The Committee therefore directed that the Registrar remove Miss Johnson’s name from the register of veterinary nurses forthwith.”
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.