All Headlines >>
During her two-day hearing, the RCVS Disciplinary Committee heard that Ms Vockert had been convicted under Animal Welfare Act 2006 at Bournemouth Magistrates Court in April for, by her own admission, failing to protect two dogs she owned from pain, suffering, injury and disease, by not adequately grooming them.
The prosecution had been brought by the RSPCA after one of her dogs, a Shih Tzu named Happy, was taken into care by the local Council in September 2014 as a stray.
The dog was examined by Chris Devlin MRCVS who reported at the time that the dog’s coat was in an "appalling state, with multiple mats of hair all over his body" and with "evidence of faecal and urinary soiling on the fur around the rear end", which constituted clear signs of neglect. The dog was anaesthetised and treated by Mr Devlin for an eye condition and was also given a full body shave. The dog made a full recovery after these operations.
Council employees discovered that Happy belonged to Ms Vockert and referred the matter to the RSPCA who started an investigation into his condition. When two RSPCA inspectors visited Ms Vockert’s home in September 2014 they observed a Cocker Spaniel named Millie which had severely matted fur. There were no concerns about any of the other dogs owned by Ms Vockert.
The two inspectors visited Ms Vockert’s home the next day by appointment and were told by Ms Vockert that Millie had been euthanased. Millie’s body was subsequently taken to Professor Kenneth Smith MRCVS and Claire Muir MRCVS for a post-mortem examination. In their report following the post-mortem, they observed Millie’s hair coat to be "extensively matted and given the growth of hair over the collar and claws, it is likely that the hair has not been clipped for an extremely long period... and is likely to have restricted the dog’s ability to walk. In addition, a large amount of faecal material has become matted within the hair coat and this finding strongly suggests that this dog was neglected."
As a result of her prosecution by the RSCPA, Ms Vockert was fined £620, ordered to pay costs of £300, a victim surcharge of £62 and a deprivation of animal ownership order was made under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
The Disciplinary Committee considered that the failure to groom extended over a period of months and that any conviction on the part of a veterinary surgeon relating to animal welfare was an extremely serious matter.
Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The College submitted that the conviction of a veterinary surgeon for an animal welfare offence, of necessity has the potential to undermine both the reputation of the profession and public confidence in the profession.
"In such circumstances, the respondent’s conviction fell far below the standard to be expected of a veterinary surgeon and therefore renders her unfit to practise veterinary surgery."
In considering Ms Vockert’s sanction, the Committee took into mitigation her long and otherwise unblemished career both in the UK and Germany, her guilty plea to the RSPCA conviction and the fact she made no attempt to challenge the College’s submissions in relation to her fitness to practise.
However, it also took into account a number of aggravating features, particularly the fact there was "actual neglect of the welfare of two animals, over a protracted period of time, which resulted in pain, suffering and discomfort. This aspect of the case is made more serious because the two animals in question belonged to the respondent, who is a practising veterinary surgeon with access to the drugs and equipment necessary to groom the dogs."
Ultimately, the Committee decided that the only appropriate sanction was to direct the Acting Registrar to remove Ms Vockert’s name from the Register.
Ian Green, summing up, said: "The Committee considers that the respondent’s conduct which led to the conviction, involved a departure from the most basic and pivotal principle of the Code [of Professional Conduct], which states that the first consideration when attending to animals is health and welfare.
"Accordingly, the Committee had decided that removal from the Register is appropriate and proportionate in this case."
PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vet nurses.