A former veterinary officer of the British Horseracing Authority, Miss Bethan Cook, has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after she forged communication from her GP as part of an internal BHA disciplinary process.

Miss Cook was charged that, while in practice at the BHA:

  1. She created a report purporting to be from her GP and submitted it to the BHA as part of an internal disciplinary process relating to her conduct.
  2. During a telephone call with the Head of Human Resources at the BHA, stated that her GP had provided the report to her when they hadn’t.
  3. She created another document purporting to be a letter from her GP and sent it to her head of HR in an email purporting to be from her GP.
  4. Her conduct was misleading and/or dishonest.

From the outset of the hearing Miss Cook admitted all parts of charges 1, 2 and 3, and that her conduct had been misleading. 

Having heard Miss Cook’s position, the Committee noted the allegation of dishonesty as being denied and proceeded with the hearing on that basis.

The Committee decided it was sure that Miss Cook had created both documents in the knowledge that they represented themselves as having been prepared by her GP, when she knew that was not the case.

The Committee was satisfied that this conduct would be regarded as dishonest and therefore found charge the charge of dishonesty proved.

On deciding whether Miss Cook’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee found that her conduct fell far below the standards expected of a veterinary surgeon and breached the fundamental principles of honesty, integrity and professional accountability.

It therefore found the proved charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.

Aggravating factors included:

  • Miss Cook had been reckless towards the potential impact on a fellow professional (her GP).
  • Her conduct has been premeditated in relation to her actions in charges 2 and 3.
  • Her actions had breached the trust of the BHA as part of the employment contract.
  • Her misconduct had been sustained in that she had created and forwarded the forged doctor’s report and had continued her dishonest conduct over the phone by creating and sending a further letter and covering email.

In mitigation, the Committee considered:

  • Miss Cook had no previous disciplinary findings against her in her long career history.
  • She had apologised for her conduct to the Committee and had admitted the factual allegations, bar dishonesty.
  • Her conduct had not been for direct financial gain: however, her purpose had been to return to practice, either by avoiding an internal disciplinary process, or minimising its outcome.

Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Miss Cook had placed her own interests, in seeking to avoid or influence the employment disciplinary process, above the principles of honesty, integrity and professional accountability.

"The Committee concluded that, in all the circumstances, her misconduct in a professional respect was so serious that it was fundamentally incompatible with continued registration.

“The Committee decided that no lesser sanction than removal was sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession as a whole, or to uphold proper professional standards, and therefore directed that Miss Cook’s name be removed from the Register.”

https://www.rcvs.org.uk/veterinary-professionals/conduct-and-guidance/concerns-for-veterinary-professionals/disciplinary-committee-hearings