A veterinary nurse from Colwyn Bay has been removed from the Register by the RCVS Veterinary Nursing Disciplinary Committee after she was convicted of burglary involving the theft of veterinary drugs from her practice.

The nurse wrote to the College prior to the hearing to say that she would not be attending and she was not represented.

The College asked the Committee to proceed with the hearing, which it agreed to do.

The charge against her was that in 2025 she had been convicted, following a guilty plea, of burglary, contrary to section 9(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968.

She was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 18 months and to an order to carry out unpaid work for 140 hours within the next 12 months; and to pay compensation of £761.20; and made subject to a restraining order.

The particulars of the offence, to which the nurse originally pleaded not guilty before changing her plea to guilty, were that in 2024, she had entered the practice premises as a trespasser and stole veterinary medication of an unknown value, including ketamine.

The Committee found the charge proved on the basis of her admission to the College that she entered a guilty plea at court.

The Committee noted that although she admitted entering a guilty plea, she had continued to deny taking ketamine, but the Committee accepted the court’s version of events and saw no need to investigate further.

Other drugs taken, as listed in the police summary, included methadone, fentanyl patches, buprenorphine, and medetomidine.

In determining the nurse's fitness to practise, the Committee considered the submissions of the College and noted that the defendant didn’t dispute the nature and circumstances of the offence leading to her conviction beyond claiming that she never took ketamine.

It also found that she breached parts 1.5 and 6.5 of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses relating to the responsible administering of medicines and the fact that veterinary nurses must not engage in any activities that would likely bring the profession into disrepute.

It also took into account the following aggravating factors:

• committing a criminal offence that involves dishonesty;
• committing a criminal offence directly linked to her professional role;
• a serious abuse of trust placed in her by virtue of her professional position as a Registered Veterinary Nurse;
• allowing suspicion to fall on a junior member of the practice team;
• premeditated conduct involving an element of planning and deception - she entered the premises using a fob she had been given as an employee and, as part of the offence, she accessed the practice computer to order medication she wished to steal;
• an abuse of her professional position;
• the burglaries were repeated over a period of time on many occasions;
• potential impact on the welfare of animals brought to the practice if necessary medication were unavailable due to having been taken by the nurse;
• financial gain, in that she obtained a significant quantity of medication without having to pay for it.

It was found that her conduct fell far below the standard expected of a registered veterinary nurse and that her conviction was serious enough to render her unfit to practise.

In deciding upon a sanction, the Committee took into account all written evidence before it.

In addition to the aggravating factors, it also considered the nurse's "complete lack of insight", her lack of apology or remorse, her denials and the fact there was no evidence of remediation.

The only mitigating factor was that the nurse had no previous adverse disciplinary findings against her.

Paul Morris, chairing the committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was of the view that the nature and seriousness of [the veterinary nurse]'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, in that this was a serious offence of dishonesty.

"[The veterinary nurse] has not demonstrated any remorse for her behaviour and instead has sought to blame others; she has 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 in this case was removal from the Register."

“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 [the veterinary nurse] and discredit upon the profession.”

RCVS has published suicide prevention resources to help UK veterinary practices meet the now mandatory requirement to put workplace suicide prevention plans into place.

Since 1 April 2026, the RCVS has required all practices to implement a practice-specific suicide prevention plan.

The requirement includes assessing potential risks within the practice setting and putting in place measures to address and mitigate each identified risk.

The new resources include a suicide prevention guide for all practice staff, a suicide prevention plan checklist, and a practical step by step suicide prevention toolkit for veterinary workplaces.

Further resources, including a recorded webinar, will also be published in due course.

A "Suicide awareness fundamentals" course is also available via the RCVS Academy.

The course supplements the resources by looking at the contributing factors behind suicide in the profession, how to talk about it, reduce stigma, and support those in crisis.

Rapinder Newton, Mind Matters Initiative Lead, said: "These resources are comprehensive and will help veterinary practices not only create plans, but also implement and communicate them with staff, and regularly review them to ensure they're fit for purpose as well as adapt them if needed."

https://www.rcvs.org.uk/veterinary-professionals/mind-matters/resources-and-cpd/suicide-prevention-in-the-veterinary-workplace 

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has suspended a Cambridgeshire-based vet for six months for importing and supplying medicines from India without a VMD certificate, in a case which highlights the importance of compliance with medicines regulations.

The charge was that between June and October 2022, the vet imported or arranged for the importation of approximately 1950 to 2010 tablets of a medicine which purported to be norethisterone when there had been no Special Importation Certificate (SIC) issued by the VMD.

The vet was also charged with supplying or arranging the supply of the medicine to a number of greyhound trainers, with a view to the medicine being administered to greyhounds.

Finally, the vet was also charged that he knew there was no SIC, that the medicine contained substances other than norethisterone, that he had made no assessment of whether any or all of the other substances were appropriate for administration to the greyhounds, and that the Greyhound Board of Great Britain did not permit greyhounds to race with the other substances found in the medicine in their system.

The vet admitted all the charges against him at the start of the hearing. 

The Committee said aggravating factors included risk of injury to an animal or human, recklessness, and break of client trust.

It also noted that despite his practice being rated 4 out of 5 in a 2025 Veterinary Practice Premises Inspection Report in relation to the VMD’s most recent inspection of his practice, the report raised four matters relating to the issuing and labelling of medication.

In mitigation, the Committee accepted that the vet had imported the norethisterone from India with good intentions, in that he believed he was assisting the greyhounds to keep them racing.

It also noted that while this was not an isolated incident, he only ordered the norethisterone twice and supplied it over a five-month period in 2022.

He had also practised without incident since importing and supplying the norethisterone.

The Committee decided that the conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct, and that he had breached sections 1.5, 6.4 and 6.5 of the Code of Practice for Veterinary Surgeons in 2022.

Deciding the sanction, the Committee also noted that the vet had a previous disciplinary finding against him relating to findings of dishonesty regarding his communications with the Animal and Plant Health Agency in the taking of blood samples for horses due to be exported to Serbia, which resulted in a six-month suspension from the Register.

Neil Slater, chairing the committee, said a six-month suspension would allow the vet time to “develop insight and understanding of the importance of regulatory compliance” and reflect on his practice, while also signalling to the profession and the public that such compliance is essential.

He said the committee had considered whether removal from the register was warranted, particularly given a previous similar disciplinary finding, but concluded that this could be “career ending”. A longer suspension was also ruled out on the same basis.

However, the committee expressed significant concern that the case, alongside the earlier finding, demonstrated a “persistent disregard for regulatory legislation”. It said the sanction imposed was necessary to protect animal welfare and maintain confidence in the profession.

The vet will be suspended for six months following the expiry of the appeal period.

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

The Competition and Markets Authority has unveiled a package of veterinary transparency reforms that will require practices to publish prices, give written estimates and tighten complaints handling.

Although the regulator says the changes should impose only limited administrative costs, VetSurgeon.org estimates that implementation may still run to several thousand pounds for some practices.

Under the reforms, practices will need to:

• Update signage and marketing materials if part of a group to display the practice owner.
• Ensure marketing materials and signage clearly set out out-of-hours arrangements, staff qualifications and accreditations.
• Publish a standardised price list online and in-practice for consultations and a wide range of diagnostics, treatments and procedures defined by the CMA, for five standardised pet characteristic and weight categories.
• Publish prices for commonly sold flea, tick and worm products, plus a link to the VMD Register of online retailers, both online and in-practice.
• Publish full pet care plan details, including standalone prices and an explanation of any claimed cost savings.
• Submit practice information and pricing data to the RCVS for publication via an upgraded Find a Vet comparison platform.
• Provide written estimates for treatment pathways likely to cost £500 or more and update them if costs are likely to increase by 20% or £500.
• Provide itemised bills.
• Put written clinical freedom policies and processes in place.
• Give clients written information produced by the RCVS about prescriptions and buying medicines elsewhere, including via practice websites, posters and emails, and tell owners during consultations.
• Provide written prescriptions at the end of a consultation or digitally within 48 hours.
• When prescribing own-brand medicines, tell clients about the reference product alternative and identify it in writing.
• Provide additional information to owners receiving ongoing medication about their ability to request a written prescription and potential savings from buying medicines elsewhere.
• Check any out-of-hours contract to ensure notice periods do not exceed 12 months and no termination fee applies after that period.
• Offer a communal cremation service and publish clear information about cremation options and prices, including add-ons.
• Put a written complaints procedure in place, publish it and keep a complaint log.
• Take part in mediation in good faith when required.

In total, the CMA package introduces more than a dozen new operational requirements for veterinary practices.

Practices will also have to pay a new levy to the RCVS to fund its expanded role running the price comparison service, estimated at £450-£550 annually, after a £150-£250 setup charge.

Once the Order is made — currently expected in September 2026 — most of the transparency measures will need to be implemented within three months by larger veterinary groups and six months by smaller practices.

More operational changes, such as written estimates, itemised billing and the new prescription rules, follow later, with smaller practices typically given up to 12 months to comply.

The final stage will see practices submitting data to the RCVS for its upgraded Find a Vet comparison platform once the system has been built.

Prescription fees will be capped at £21 for the first medicine prescribed in a consultation and £12.50 for each additional medicine, with both figures rising annually in line with CPI, and practices will need to assess the impact on their business model.

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

The RCVS has launched a new website for veterinary professionals, practices, students/careers and animal owners, bringing information and services into one site.

It replaces the College’s previous website, which dated back to 2011.

The main change is consolidation of content, with resources previously spread across separate webpages now brought into a single structure.

As part of that, the College says the number of pages has been reduced from more than 1,500 to 600, with content reviewed and rewritten in plain English.

The site has also been redesigned to align with the new RCVS brand and visual identity.

RCVS Council member Linda Ford, who chaired the Website Project Board, said: “This project has been a major undertaking for the College team over the past 18 months… and the 500 or so veterinary professionals and animal owners who have helped us with testing along the way, to ensure the new site works for them.”

https://www.rcvs.org.uk/

The RCVS has published its response to Defra’s consultation on reform of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, urging vet nurses to back Option 1 and retain a ‘Royal College that regulates’.

The College response welcomes Defra’s incorporation of many of the College’s longstanding recommendations for legislative change in its proposed reform of the VSA.

This includes giving the RCVS statutory powers to regulate veterinary businesses and protection of title for veterinary nurses, alongside reforms that could allow VNs to take on more roles and responsibilities.

It also supports enabling statutory regulation of the wider veterinary team, including allied professionals such as equine dental technicians and behaviourists, and a modernised registration and licensing system.

The response also backs an updated, forward-looking, fitness to practise regime with a greater range of sanctions available and interim powers of suspension.

In terms of the future governance structure for the RCVS, its response strongly favours Option 1 in Defra’s proposals - the ‘Royal College that regulates’ model – rather than Option 2, which would see the RCVS shorn of its broader public interest and professional leadership objectives and left with a purely regulatory remit.

RCVS President Professor Tim Parkin said: “It is our strong belief that the ‘Royal College that regulates’ model retains the best of both worlds, because it takes a proactive and holistic approach to regulation and fitness to practise.

“For example, professional leadership projects such as the Mind Matters Initiative and our reasonable adjustments campaign have opened up conversations around mental and physical health, and how we can better support our registrants to continue to meet professional standards in the public interest, while the RCVS Academy helps our registrants understand and navigate their professional responsibilities via innovative learning content.

“Furthermore, given the importance of supportive, preventative approaches to modern professional regulation, there can be no clear or fixed dividing line between the College’s regulatory and Royal College functions.

"Not only would Option 2 not create clarity, it would also risk undermining and leaving in limbo, without funding, much of the good work we have done with projects in mental health, workforce, environment and sustainability, and through our Fellowship.

“If you want a balanced and holistic approach to regulation for the benefit of animal health and welfare, public health and wider society, then please make sure you support Option 1 when you complete the consultation.”

https://www.rcvs.org.uk/veterinary-professionals/consultations/vsa-reform-time-for-change 

There will be no election for Veterinary Nurses Council this year because only two candidates came forward for the two available elected places.

Meghan Conroy RVN and Lauren Hargrave RVN will take up their three-year terms at the RCVS Annual General Meeting on Friday 3 July 2026.

Meghan Conroy RVN and Lauren Hargrave RVN will take up their three-year terms at the RCVS Annual General Meeting on Friday 3 July 2026.

The RCVS has published both candidates’ biographies and statements.

https://www.rcvs.org.uk/who-we-are/vn-council/vn-council-elections-2 

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) has published an updated framework governing how veterinary nursing educators develop and deliver the Certificate in Advanced Veterinary Nursing (CertAVN).

The CertAVN was introduced in 2019 as a modular, more flexible postgraduate route for veterinary nurses, replacing the Diploma in Advanced Veterinary Nursing (DipAVN).

The RCVS says the update includes a new programme standard focused on creating a positive learning culture.

Julie Dugmore, RCVS director of veterinary nursing, said the standard is intended to ensure providers foster “inclusive, reflective and student-centred learning environments”, and that it strengthens expectations around academic support, how the qualification should advance knowledge, and the need for institutions to take student wellbeing into account.

For course providers, the changes signal clearer expectations not just around content and outcomes, but around the support structures and learning environment wrapped around the programme. For veterinary nurses considering the CertAVN, the framework highlights what providers are expected to put in place around academic support and student experience.

https://www.rcvs.org.uk/certavn 

The RCVS Veterinary Nurse Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded Manchester-based George Aspey RVN for treating an animal without veterinary direction, while clearing his colleague, Susan Howard RVN. 

Mr Aspey and Mrs Howarth, both lecturers in veterinary nursing at Harper Adams University, the latter also a member of the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council, appeared before the Committee last month.

Mr Aspey faced the following charges:

• he anaesthetised and/or monitored the anaesthetic of a dog called Nessa, belonging to Susan Howarth, without direction of and/or supervision by a veterinary surgeon
• he prescribed and/or dispensed meloxicam (Metacam oral suspension), a prescription only medicine, to Nessa without direction or supervision by a veterinary surgeon
• he made entries in the clinical records for his own dog, Chester, when those entries related to a procedure and/or medication given to Nessa
• that in relation to the above he had been dishonest and/or misleading.

The charges against Mrs Howarth were that, on the same day, she:

• allowed her dog to be anaesthetised and/or have her anaesthetic monitored by Mr Apsey without the direction and/or supervision by a veterinary surgeon
• placed a cannula in Nessa without the direction of and/or supervision by a veterinary surgeon
• performed a descale and polish dental procedure on Nessa without the direction of and/or supervision by a veterinary surgeon. 

Mr Aspey admitted all the charges.

Mrs Howarth admitted the circumstances of the charges against her but denied the actions had occurred without the direction of and/or supervision by a registered veterinary surgeon.

Under the Veterinary Surgeons Act, Schedule 3 tasks can only be delegated by a veterinary surgeon if they are satisfied to the RVN’s competence and they are on hand to assist; veterinary nurses cannot independently undertake medical treatments or minor surgery without the direction and/or supervision of a veterinary surgeon.

In her evidence Mrs Howarth said she had reasonably believed that Mr Aspey had got permission both for Nessa’s procedure and for her involvement in her care.

However, the Committee found that although Mrs Howarth believed that Mr Aspey had got permission, none of the vets on duty at the practice had Nessa under their care, and Mrs Howarth’s belief was based on relying on actions she believed Mr Aspey had taken.

The Committee therefore found, in her case, the charges proved.

The Committee then considered whether the charges against each of them amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In Mr Aspey’s case, the Committee took into account that he performed the procedures in the knowledge that he hadn't obtained the necessary permissions, and that, as an experienced RVN, he'd been aware of the restrictions on what he could do.

In particular it noted that he had breached the Veterinary Medicines Regulations by prescribing and dispensing a controlled drug without direction from a veterinary surgeon.

The Committee therefore found Mr Aspey guilty of serious professional misconduct.

For Mrs Howarth, the Committee found that though her actions fell below the standard required of a veterinary nurse, it did not fall far below the standard, therefore she was cleared of serious professional misconduct. 

Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee had found that Mrs Howarth had relied on the necessary arrangements having been made by Mr Aspey.

"It found that Mrs Howarth’s error had been in her readiness to rely on Mr Aspey and not to have checked for herself that her dog had been properly booked into the practice and that Nessa was under the care of a veterinary surgeon.”

He added: “The Committee is clear that, as Mrs Howarth herself admitted, she should have ensured that they obtained suitable permission to have the procedure carried out.

"However, for all the reasons given above, the Committee finds that Mrs Howarth is not guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”

The Committee then went on to consider the most appropriate and proportionate sanction for Mr Aspey. 

In mitigation, it considered that terms of mitigation, the Committee took into account that no actual harm, or risk of harm to an animal was likely to arise from the incident and there was very little chance of repetition.

Mr Aspey had not acted for any financial gain for himself, and Mrs Howarth had been unaware of the discounted fee.

The misconduct also related to a single incident at the practice, carried out in the open and without concealment and that Mr Aspey had a long and unblemished career, with no previous adverse findings against him.

The Committee also took into account the fact that he had made open and frank admissions to both the practice concerned and the RCVS, that he had self-referred the matter to the College’s Professional Conduct Department, and had made apologies to all those involved.

The Committee ultimately decided that the most appropriate sanction for Mr Aspey was a reprimand.

Paul Morris, summing up the reason for the decision, said: “The Committee recognises that in this case there were numerous factors which led to the ultimate compromise of the integrity of professional standards.

"Specifically, a failure to follow the necessary elements of the guide of professional conduct for both registered veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons led to the inappropriate processes of consent and record keeping, lack of evidence of direction by a veterinary surgeon, and the subsequent use and dispensing of a prescription-only veterinary medicine.

“Whilst all of these factors are serious in isolation or taken as a whole, the mitigatory factors and the complete insight shown by the respondent, including steps taken to prevent such behaviour recurring, were influential in the Committee’s reasoning.

"However, such practice as evidenced in the findings of fact remains out-with the current Code of Professional Conduct and must be avoided by the wider profession.”

www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

The RCVS has the results of research into why veterinary surgeons and nurses leave the profession and the most common reason veterinary nurses gave for their decision was 'pay and stress'.

The research took the form of a voluntary survey asking those voluntarily leaving their registers to explain why.

202 veterinary nurses took part.

The vast majority were white females under the age of 50. 

34% had been registered for between 15 and 19 years. 

31% had been registered for between five and nine years.

54% said they were leaving to work in an altogether different field. 

12% planned to retire.

The College says the free text responses were dominated by comments about financial stress.

Vicki Bolton, RCVS Research Manager, said: “Thank you to all those veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses who responded to these exit surveys.

"This data is invaluable to us in understanding the reasons why people choose to leave the RCVS Registers.

“The reasons given don’t always make for easy reading, especially when they are to do with dissatisfaction over the direction the professions are taking, physical and mental health and wellbeing, financial pressures and concerns about regulation and its costs.

“However, it is important to remember that, overall, relatively few veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses leave the professions each year.

"There is no mass exodus from the professions and the numbers joining the UK Register annually well exceed those leaving, as demonstrated by consistent year-on-year increases in the number of veterinary surgeon and veterinary nurse registrants.

“That being said, these results will form an invaluable part of our ongoing work on veterinary workforce and gives the RCVS food for thought about how and where we can better support veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses to stay in the professions rather than leave prematurely.”

https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/our-consultations/exit-survey-2022-2024 

Christopher Butterworth MRCVS and Melissa Bexon MRCVS have been reprimanded by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for dishonestly signing reports relating to non-existent tuberculosis advisory service (TBAS) visits to a farm.

Dr Butterworth’s practice was a member of TBAS, a Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs-funded (Defra) project administered by Farmcare Solutions Ltd which provides advice to eligible farmers via its veterinary partners. 

The farm to which the charges relate to was owned by Dr Bexon’s partner. It had no cattle on-site (though was still eligible for the TBAS).

Dr Butterworth was charged with signing a TBAS visit report, in which he was named as the TBAS advisor, relating to a visit to the farm in February 2023 which had, in fact, not taken place and then subsequently signed a report about a follow-up visit in July 2023 which also hadn’t taken place.

Dr Bexon was charged with signing the same two false reports as a representative of the farm in question.

Both faced a secondary charge that their actions were dishonest, misleading and risked undermining procedures relating to public health and animal welfare.

Dr Butterworth and Dr Bexon admitted all the charges against them and that these charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.

The Committee also found that their actions amounted to serious professional misconduct in that they had breached three of the five key principles in the Code of Professional Conduct relating to: honesty and integrity; client confidentiality and trust; and professional accountability.

The Committee also found that the actions of both veterinary surgeons had breached the ’10 principles of certification’ outlined in the supporting guidance to the Code.

Considering Mr Butterworth’s conduct, the Committee found that there were a number of aggravating factors including: the premeditated nature of the conduct as he was the driving force behind the deceit, the fact there was financial gain as his practice would have been paid for the non-existent visits, breach of confidentiality for the farmer, breach of client trust for Farmcare Solutions Ltd, and abuse of professional position as a TBAS advisor.

For Dr Bexon the aggravating factors were breach of confidentiality for the farmer, breach of client trust for Farmcare Solutions Ltd, and the fact that, as a TBAS advisor, she should have known that physical visits to farms within the scheme were mandatory.

Paul Morris, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee considered both respondents’ conduct was liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession and undermined public confidence in the profession and the TBAS process.

"The Committee considered that members of the public would be deeply troubled that registered veterinary surgeons had behaved in this way.”

At the hearing the Committee received a large number of positive testimonials for Dr Butterworth, including three given directly to the Committee – one from a veterinary surgeon colleague and two from farmer clients.

The Committee also considered his lack of previous disciplinary history and otherwise unblemished career, open and frank admissions at an early stage, insight into his misconduct, genuine remorse and positive reflection, efforts to avoid a repetition of behaviours and evidence of a more mature approach to management, lapse of time since the incident.

Taking everything into account the Committee decided reprimanding Dr Butterworth and warning him with regard to future conduct was the most appropriate and proportionate response.

Paul added: “The Committee did give serious consideration to suspending Dr Butterworth’s registration with the College.

"Such a sanction would have sent out a clear message that this sort of behaviour is absolutely not to be tolerated.

"However, in light of the extensive mitigation, his honesty and significant insight throughout these proceedings and the unlikeliness of behaviour of this type ever being repeated, the Committee considered the public would not be best served by suspending an otherwise exemplary veterinary surgeon and that such a sanction would be disproportionate and punitive.”

"In such circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that a reprimand and warning not to behave in this way again, would provide adequate protection to animals and would satisfy the public interest.

"The Committee was persuaded that Dr Butterworth would be most unlikely to make such a flawed set of decisions again.

"Notwithstanding the serious nature of Dr Butterworth’s conduct, the Committee was satisfied that a fully informed member of the public would not be shocked if he were allowed to continue to practise.”

The Committee also received a significant number of positive testimonials for Dr Bexon, with three veterinary surgeon colleagues giving oral evidence to the Committee.

The Committee also considered her lack of disciplinary history and hitherto unblemished career, her open and frank admissions, her insight, remorse and positive reflections, her efforts to avoid repetition of the behaviours and the lapse of time since the event.

Taking everything into account, the Committee decided to reprimand Dr Bexon.

Paul said: “This was not a case where she had been motivated by any financial gain.

"Indeed, everything the Committee had read and heard about her indicated the opposite and furthermore, it was apparent that she had nothing to gain by her actions beyond satisfying Dr Butterworth.

"As already stated, the Committee acknowledged that the role played by Dr Bexon was less than that played by Dr Butterworth.

"Moreover, there was a power imbalance at play and Dr Butterworth was able to take advantage of, albeit unknowingly, Dr Bexon’s lack of self-confidence.”

"The Committee has already indicated that it believed the likelihood of her repeating such behaviour to be non-existent.

"Her significant insight, together with the reflection and remedial work she has undertaken are as much as any person could do.

"She had truly learnt her lesson in the harshest of ways.

"In the Committee’s view she did not represent any risk to animals or the public, indeed quite the contrary as she is a very able vet, in high demand by her clients.”

www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

The RCVS has launched the nomination period for its 2026 Honours and Awards.

The RCVS Honours and Awards programme recognises veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses and laypeople, both in the UK and overseas, who are carrying out exemplary work across the breadth of veterinary endeavour.

This year, there's a new Collaboration Award to recognise best practice in collaboration – whether that’s bringing together veterinary professionals working in different organisations or disparate fields, or veterinary professionals working with human medics, scientists, lawyers, or law enforcement to improve the health of people, animals and the environment.

In addition to the Collaboration Award, the RCVS awards for which nominations can be made this year are:

• The Queen’s Medal – an award for a veterinary surgeon who has achieved a highly distinguished career with sustained and outstanding achievements throughout.
• The Veterinary Nursing Golden Jubilee Award - awarded to a veterinary nurse who has had a sustained and distinguished career, who can demonstrate a leadership role within the profession and who can act as an ambassador for the value of veterinary nurses and their work.
• The RCVS International Award - awarded to veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses or laypeople, i.e. those who are neither MsRCVS nor RVNs, who have made an outstanding contribution on issues that are in line with the RCVS mission.
• The RCVS Impact Award - awarded to veterinary surgeons or veterinary nurses, or a vet- or RVN-led team, that has recently made a considerable impact in terms of clinical or research work, that has led to a profound change in the professions at large, animal health or welfare, one health, or public health.
• The RCVS Inspiration Award - awarded to veterinary surgeons or veterinary nurses who have demonstrated the ability to inspire and enthuse others consistently throughout their careers.
• Honorary Associateship - awarded to laypeople who have made a special contribution to the veterinary sphere and could include, for example, scientists, lecturers, journalists, charity-workers, farriers, farmers and those involved in the commercial field.
• The RCVS Compassion Award - awarded to a veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse at any stage of their career who has demonstrated compassion towards fellow professionals and/or members of the animal-owning public. 
• The RCVS Student Community Award – awarded to a veterinary or veterinary nursing student who has made a real effort to support their fellow students and the wider veterinary/veterinary nursing school community. 

The deadline for submitting a nomination for the 2026 RCVS awards is Wednesday 7 January 2026.

https://www.rcvs.org.uk/how-we-work/rcvs-honours-awards 

https://www.rcvs.org.uk/forms/honours-and-awards-2026