The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has decided 'no further action' in a case against Bristol-based Nikolay Kirilov Radev MRCVS.

The committee considered 5 separate charges against Dr Radev, relating to his treatment of a Yorkshire Terrier and Shih Tzu cross called Pickles at a Vets4Pets veterinary practice in Oxford between 5 October 2015 and 1 November 2015. The charges related to Dr Radev failing to provide adequate and/or appropriate care to the animal and failure to keep detailed clinical records. 

After hearing the evidence from Dr Radev and the complainant, the College submitted that it wished to withdraw charges 1(i) and 1(ii) on the basis of insufficient evidence. In addition, Dr Radev had already admitted charges: 1(iii)(b), 1(iv)(d), 1(v), 4(i)(a) and 4(ii)(a) but denied the remaining charges. Of these remaining charges the Committee found charges 1(iv)(a), 2(i), 2(iv), 3(i) and 3(ii) proven with the rest not being proven. 

The charges admitted or found proven were that Dr Radev:

(1) On 5 October 2015, failed to provide adequate and/or appropriate care and/or treatment to Pickles, more particularly in that he:

(iii) Failed to offer and/or undertake adequate investigations into Pickles’ condition, more particularly in that he failed to offer and/or undertake:

(b)   urine tests;

(iv) Failed to put in place and/or document an adequate management plan for Pickles, more particularly in relation to:

(a) adequate direction and/or advice regarding a review of Pickles’ condition within a clearly defined number of days;

(d) collection of urine at home for analysis on review at the practice;

(v) Having noted that he suspected renal disease, prescribed meloxicam when the same was contraindicated for dogs with renal disease; 

(2)   On 28 October 2015, failed to provide adequate and/or appropriate care and/or treatment to Pickles, more particularly in that he:

(i) Failed to take and/or record an adequate history from Mrs Pancott in relation to Pickles’ condition and/or clinical signs since 5 October 2015;

(iv) Failed to provide adequate direction and/or advice regarding a date for a review of Pickles’ condition within a clearly defined number of days;

(3) On 30 October 2015, having been informed that Mrs Pancott had telephoned the practice with concerns about Pickles, including blood in the faeces;

(i) Failed to note the matter in Pickles’ medical records;

(ii) Failed to take sufficient steps to obtain more information from Mrs Pancott or to ensure that Mrs Pancott was advised to seek veterinary attention for Pickles in relation to her concerns;

(4) On 1 November 2015, failed to provide adequate and/or appropriate care and/or treatment to Pickles, more particularly in that he:

(i) Failed to interpret the blood tests adequately and/or take appropriate and adequate action in relation to the results of those blood tests, more particularly with regards to:

(a) blood glucose;

(ii) Failed to offer and/or undertake adequate investigations into Pickles’ condition, more particularly in that he failed to:

(a) offer and/or undertake urine tests.

In considering these charges the Disciplinary Committee found that only charge 4(ii)(a) – namely the failure to correctly interpret and act upon the results of a blood glucose test – amounted to serious professional conduct with the rest not passing the threshold of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect. The Committee did not consider that in addition the cumulative effect of all the proven charges taken together amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In relation to the cumulative effect of all the proven charges Professor Alistair Barr, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The Committee noted that Dr Radev had made errors in relation to one patient but on four separate occasions. These were, for the most part, individual failures at the lower end of the scale of seriousness. Taking into account all of the failings, the Committee in its judgement did not consider that the nature and number of errors and the period of time over which they took place justified a cumulative finding of disgraceful conduct."

In considering the sanction for Dr Radev the Committee took into account a number of mitigating circumstances including the fact that Dr Radev had undertaken suitable training and development in the areas in which he made mistakes, had demonstrated good insight into his conduct and had made some open and frank admissions early on in proceedings. It also considered that the one charge that was found to be serious professional misconduct was a single, isolated mistake linked to Dr Radev’s inexperience.

Professor Barr said: "The Committee considered that taking ‘no further action’ was appropriate and proportionate having considered the history of the case, the Committee’s overall findings and the good reports of Dr Radev’s performance in the two years since the matter which had led to the finding of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect."

The decision to take no further action was also influenced by the length of time it had taken the charges to be heard by the Committee, the positive character references about Dr Radev from professional colleagues and the fact he was unlikely to repeat such conduct in the future.

The RCVS has set out a new methodology and timeline for its review of its guidance to the profession on ‘under care’ and 24/7 out-of-hours emergency cover.

The review, which had been due to start in late 2019, will now start in April 2020. 

Melissa Donald, Chair of the RCVS Standards Committee (pictured right), said: "Regretfully, as the scope and complexity of the review became clearer following Council’s approval of the project, it was also apparent that the original methodology, and the timetable set for it, was not going to be suitable to the task.

"Therefore, over the past few months, the Standards Committee and College staff have been working hard with the external research agency to revise the methodology and we have now reached the stage where we are confident we have got it right, and can now proceed with the review. 

“While we regret the delay, as this review relates to fundamental principles about the provision of veterinary care, it is vital we get it right and that the process is as comprehensive as possible. It is better that it is right than rushed.”

Under the new methodology the review has been split into the following stages:

• An evidence-gathering stage comprising focus group discussions across the UK. For this stage the external research agency will be inviting a wide range of vets from across different sectors and practices to give their views. There will also be a separate focus group discussion for veterinary nurses. The outcome of these discussions will inform the format of and questions to be included in the second-stage survey. Stakeholders, including representative bodies and other veterinary groups, will also be asked for their input at this stage.
• Following the analysis of the focus group discussions, an online survey for the veterinary professions will be launched in summer and will be live for six weeks. Informed by the views arising from the focus groups, this survey will invite views and feedback from the professions.
• Any proposed changes to the Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance on the concept of ‘under care’ and 24/7 emergency cover arising from the survey will be the subject of public consultation. 

Melissa added: “Invitations to our regional focus group discussions, which will be selected randomly from amongst the professions by our research agency, will be going out soon and I would urge anyone who receives an invitation to come along and share their views and ideas.”

For further information, see: www.rcvs.org.uk/undercare

The RCVS has published its Strategic Plan for 2017 to 2019, a major component of which is to identify the extent to which a 'blame' culture exists in the veterinary profession, the role that the College may play in it, the impact that that it may have on the welfare of veterinary surgeons, nurses, owners and their animals, and how the profession can move towards a culture that has a greater focus on learning and personal development.

The Strategic Plan was developed throughout the course of 2016 with input from a number of stakeholders including RCVS Council and Veterinary Nurses Council, key committees and College staff. Most importantly, the evidence for change came from the wide and deep consultations that took place within Vet Futures, the joint RCVS and British Veterinary Association project that aims to help the veterinary profession prepare for and shape its future.

The other four ambitions described in the plan are:

• Leadership and innovation: to become a Royal College with leadership and innovation at its heart, and support this creatively and with determination.
• Continuing to be a First-rate Regulator: continuing to build on the foundations that have already been laid, we will work to ensure that the legislation and regulations that support us are not only fit for purpose today, but enable us to make the UK veterinary professions, and those allied professionals who work alongside them, the best that they can be into the future
• Global reach: in part a response to Brexit and the need to be more externally-facing but with an emphasis to improve animal health and welfare on an international basis by raising veterinary standards overseas, contributing to the One Health agenda and ensuring that our regulation keeps pace in a global market.
• Our service agenda: to continue to build on our service agenda to ensure that people not only find interactions with us to be efficient and fair, but seek out and take up opportunities to engage further.

Nick Stace, RCVS CEO, said: "The hallmark of our 2014 to 2016 Strategic Plan was getting the basics right by clarifying our identity, improving our core functions, setting out our service agenda and strengthening our foundations. The plan gave us a firm foundation to build upon and improved levels of confidence in the College from stakeholders which has allowed us to be more ambitious and outward-looking with this new plan.

"Within the new plan there are challenging ambitions and stretching objectives that address some of the big issues affecting the veterinary team, whether that’s playing a more global role post-Brexit, the importance of embracing new technology, or the pressing need to consider culture change within the profession to ensure it continues to grow and learn.

"I would ask each member of the profession to take a look at the Strategic Plan and I am very happy to receive comments and feedback on the plan by email at nick@rcvs.org.uk."

To download the Strategic Plan, visit www.rcvs.org.uk/publications

The RCVS has published Fitness to Practise - A Guide for UK Veterinary Schools and Veterinary Students, and is now working to produce an equivalent for veterinary nurse students.

The guide is designed to introduce students to the concept of fitness to practise and help prepare them for professional life. 

Fitness to Practise - A Guide for UK Veterinary Schools and Veterinary Students was developed by an RCVS working party in conjunction with the UK's seven veterinary schools that currently offer an RCVS-approved veterinary degree. 

The guide is split into two parts: the first part provides guidance for veterinary schools on how to recognise and address fitness to practise concerns; the second part sets out the broad principles of fitness to practise that students should follow and which veterinary schools should uphold.

Laura McClintock, an Advisory Solicitor from the RCVS Professional Conduct Department, said: "While we don't regulate veterinary students themselves, we hope that this guidance will prepare future vets for the requirements and standards that we expect from members of a regulated profession and for adhering to our Code of Professional Conduct and its supporting guidance.

"The guide also recognises that each university will have its own specific disciplinary guidelines and procedures, but we hope that this will help promote consistency in their fitness to practise regimes.

"Although we expect any adverse findings made in university fitness to practise proceedings to be declared to us upon application to register, we would take into account the fact that a student is not a fully-fledged professional and would therefore make some allowance for any mistakes and poor judgement when considering whether or not they should join the Register."

The guide can be downloaded for free from www.rcvs.org.uk/studentguide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perdi Welsh, Director of School of Veterinary Nursing at the RVC has been given the RCVS VN Golden Jubilee Award for her dedication to professional development for veterinary nurses.

The RCVS VN Golden Jubilee Award is the highest individual award that can be made to a veterinary nurse.

It recognises veterinary nurses with a distinguished career, who demonstrate leadership within the profession and act as ambassadors for the value of veterinary nurses and their work.

As an RVC graduate herself, Perdi founded the UK’s first veterinary clinical skills training centre at the university, as well as developing several graduate and postgraduate veterinary nursing qualifications.

Perdi received the award for the work she did to create opportunities for nurses of diverse educational backgrounds to upskill, and for her commitment to professional development and support for nurses in practice.

Her nomination described Perdi as “an exemplary ambassador for the veterinary nursing profession, epitomising qualities that make her a beacon of inspiration and leadership. Her unwavering commitment to advancing education in veterinary nursing, particularly through the creation of the Level 6 Graduate Diploma and advanced certification programmes, showcases her dedication to raising the standards and profile of the profession.”

Perdi said: “I’m deeply honoured to receive this award, and my sincere gratitude goes to my wonderful colleagues; their encouragement has meant everything to me.

"I first started at the RVC 35 years ago, and throughout the years, I’ve had the privilege of working with dedicated and enthusiastic people across all areas of the RVC.

"Collaboration has played a key role in every step of my journey, so this recognition reflects not just my efforts, but the contributions of everyone I’ve worked with.

"I’m proud to share this honour with them all.”

The RCVS is inviting comment on its proposed Return to Veterinary Nursing Practice course for veterinary nurses returning to the Register following a break of five years or more.

The non-statutory Register for Veterinary Nurses was introduced in September 2007. Registration is compulsory for those VNs listing after 1 January 2003, and voluntary for others. Registered Veterinary Nurses (RVNs) signal their commitment to professionalism by agreeing to maintain their competence and skills by means of continuing professional development and abiding by the Guide to Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses. From 2010, a disciplinary framework for veterinary nurses will be introduced.

Veterinary Nurses who have deregistered for a period of five years or more are required to complete a 17-week Period of Supervised Practice (PSP) before rejoining the Register. This ensures they have the opportunity to update their knowledge and skills under the mentorship and supervision of other registered practitioners (veterinary or veterinary nursing).

To support nurses undertaking the PSP, the RCVS is developing a voluntary Return to Veterinary Nursing Practice course, which will lead to a Certificate in Current Veterinary Nursing Practice. The proposed time commitment for the course is 100 hours, including 30 "contact hours", which may be taught traditionally in a classroom or via online learning. The cost of the course will be determined by course providers.

In order to ensure the course is fit for purpose, the College invites comment on its proposed structure from course providers, veterinary nurses and employers by 29 February 2008.

Hard copy consultation documents have been issued to key stakeholders, but all are welcome to comment. The documentation is available to download from RCVSonline (click here) or by email from vetnursing@rcvs.org.uk. The College reserves the right to publish selected comments, together with its responses.

The RCVS has announced the launch of a consultation on the new proposed list of 'day-one' clinical skills needed by veterinary nurses when they first enter practice.

The College says it welcomes comments on the new list from veterinary nurses, veterinary surgeons and all those involved in veterinary nurse training and education.

The current Day-One Skills document was developed by RCVS Awards, the College's awarding body, in 2010 and provides a list of those skills student veterinary nurses are expected to have gained by the end of their training, and to be competent and confident in when they first go into practice.

As RCVS Awards will be closed by the end of this year, the RCVS is taking the opportunity to review the Day One Skills to bring them closer into line with our recently revised Day One Competences, and to reduce the number of required skills in order to make it more relevant to clinical practice.

Julie Dugmore, Head of Veterinary Nursing, said: "The current document was developed from an awarding body perspective and not that of the regulator, so it specifies a large number of non-clinical skills, for example, handling and moving equipment safely, which, while important, are somewhat out of our regulatory remit.

"Given the wide variety of veterinary practice settings to which student veterinary nurses are exposed, it is important that we, as the industry regulator, define the required day-one skills and ensure that these align with the required day-one competences. We need to review the skills list to ensure consistency, that it reflects current practice, and that it only includes those skills deemed necessary for registration purposes. A clearer focus on safe and effective clinical skills would support our primary regulatory role: that of protecting animal welfare and the public interest."

The consultation sets out the proposed Day-One Skills, grouped according to the corresponding day-one competences, and asks for feedback on their relevance, accuracy and completeness. Comments would be welcomed from higher education institutions, awarding organisations, centres, and training practices, as well as veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons.

The consultation is available via the RCVS website at www.rcvs.org.uk/consultations and the deadline for responses is 5pm on 29 July 2015.

Dr Gerhard Schulze Allen has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after failing to declare a conviction for petty theft in the USA both to a Notary Public in California and to the College.

The Disciplinary Committee heard four charges against Dr Schulze Allen.  

The first charge related to the original criminal conviction in the County of San Bernardino in California dating from September 2013, where Dr Schulze Allen pleaded guilty to petty theft for which he was fined US $435 and ordered to pay a fee of US $35.

The second charge related to the fact that, on or around 3 December 2013 in a written application for restoration to the Register, Dr Schulze Allen was dishonest in representing that he did not have any cautions or criminal convictions.

The third charge related to the fact that on or around 4 December 2013 in a sworn affidavit before a Notary Public in Riverside, California, he dishonestly and falsely represented that he had, at no time, been convicted of a criminal offence in the UK or elsewhere.

The final charge was that, in an email to the RCVS in June 2016, he dishonestly and falsely represented that he had "no criminal record whatsoever". 

Having found Dr Schulze Allen guilty of all four charges the Committee then considered whether the conviction rendered him unfit to practise veterinary surgery and whether the remaining charges amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

The Committee noted that the conviction was for a minor matter but had regard to all the evidence before it and considered that as an offence of dishonesty it represented a breach of one of the fundamental tenets of the profession. It further considered that Dr Schulze Allen’s dishonesty toward the College and his completing a legal document which he knew would be relied upon by the College was conduct that fell far short of the standard expected of a member of the profession.

With regard to the final charge, the Committee considered this a "clear attempt to deliberately misrepresent the fact that he had a conviction for a criminal offence." The Committee considered that Dr Schulze Allen’s conduct had been aggravated by the fact that it was protracted and repeated over a period of time.

Ultimately the Committee considered that the conviction rendered Dr Schulze Allen unfit to practise veterinary surgery and the remaining charges amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

Ian Green, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "His conduct represented a blatant disregard of the role of the RCVS and the systems that regulate the veterinary profession. The Committee also remained particularly concerned at Dr Schulze Allen’s very limited insight into his conduct."

He added: "In mitigation the Committee noted that this is not a case where harm was caused to any animals or humans. It noted that prior to these matters which are before the Committee that Dr Schulze Allen had an unblemished career and that he had been of good character. In respect of purely personal mitigation the Committee noted that Dr Schulze Allen is the main breadwinner of the family."

However, the Committee considered that Dr Schulze Allen’s conduct had fallen significantly short of standards expected of a veterinary surgeon.

Ian Green concluded: "The Committee considered that the only appropriate sanction is that of removal from the Register. Such a sanction is required to send a clear message to Dr Schulze Allen and to veterinary surgeons of the unacceptability of being dishonest to the RCVS. Such conduct undermines public confidence in the profession and fails to uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.

"Accordingly, the Committee has decided that removal from the Register is appropriate and proportionate in this case. The Committee will direct the Registrar to remove the respondent’s name from the Register forthwith."

Dr Schulze Allen has 28 days from the date of the decision to appeal the Committee’s decision.

The Committee’s full findings and decision is available at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary.

The RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council has agreed to continue its trial of giving newly-qualified veterinary nurses e-certificates in place of paper certificates, when they join the Register.

The trial, which was launched last November, will now continue until May, when Council will decide whether to provide e-certificates to new registrants as a standard practice. 

Newly qualified nurses who have been taking part in the trial have been able to download their e-certificate from the RCVS website, although they are also able to request a printed hard copy.

Robert Hewes, RCVS Head of Insight and Engagement, said: “Thank you to all those newly-qualified veterinary nurses who took part in the trial and especially to those who provided their feedback and thoughts on the e-certificate.

“From those that have completed the survey, it is clear that there is still a great deal of pride and meaning attached to having a hard copy certificate which is why we will continue to offer these to all our newly-qualified veterinary nurses.

"However, the feedback from the vet nurses overall regarding the e-certificates were that they appreciated that there was a benefit from an environment and sustainability point of view, as well as the practicalities of having immediate and easy access to their proof-of-registration.”

E-certificates for newly-qualified veterinary surgeons was trialled in early 2021 and rolled out as standard practice to all new veterinary registrants from summer 2021. 

Robert added: “We would like to take this opportunity to make clear to prospective employers of both newly-qualified veterinary surgeons and veterinary nurses involved in the trial, that the e-certificates are now a legitimate form of identification of registration and that they no longer require a hard copy.

"However, if they are in any doubt about an individual’s registration status, they shouldn’t hesitate to contact the Registration Team on registration@rcvs.org.uk or 020 7202 0707.”

Matthew John Makepeace has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after a conviction for assaulting his ex-partner.

Mr Makepeace faced five charges.

The first charge was that in 2022 Mr Makepeace was convicted at Scarborough Magistrates Court of assaulting by beating his ex-partner.

He was sentenced to a community order and a curfew order and was ordered to pay a £95 surcharge and £85 in costs.

It was alleged that the conviction rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.

The second was that in August 2022, Mr Makepeace submitted a character reference which purported to have been written by his ex-partner saying that they "still live happily together", when this was untrue. It was also alleged that the reference purported to have been signed by Mr Makepeace's ex-partner when he knew that was not the case.

The third charge alleged that Mr Makepeace had sent WhatsApp messages to his ex-partner which were offensive, insulting, abusive, threatening and/or intimidating.

The fourth charge  was that was a repetition of the second. 

The fifth and final charge was that in relation to charges 2 and 4, that Mr Makepeace’s conduct was misleading and/or dishonest; and that it is alleged that in relation to charges 2,3,4 and/or 5, whether individually or in any combination, that Mr Makepeace was guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

The first charge was proven by virtue of a certified copy of the memorandum of an entry in the Magistrates’ Court register.

Mr Makepeace also admitted the facts of all the other charges, meaning they were found proven by admission.

In terms of the conviction, the Committee assessed the incident to be serious – the assault was prolonged, involved strangulation and biting which led to physical injuries, and involved a pursuit.

This was found by the Committee to bring the reputation of the profession into disrepute.

The Committee therefore found that the conviction rendered Mr Makepeace unfit to practise.

With regard to the remaining charges, the Committee found Mr Makepeace’s behaviour serious, saying that it showed a blatant and wilful disregard of the role of the RCVS and the systems that regulate the veterinary profession, and that his actions were intended to dishonestly subvert that process.

The Committee considered that his actions fell sufficiently below the standards expected in terms of honesty and integrity, as well as in terms of the behaviour expected of a registered professional.

All this constituted disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

When making a decision on the appropriate sanction, the Committee took into account evidence from Mr Makepeace, two character witnesses, and a document bundle including evidence of training, continuing professional development (CPD) and other testimonials.

Aggravating factors taken into account were:

• that Mr Makepeace’s actions in relation to the assault were premeditated, in that he pursued his ex-partner;
• that there was an increased position of trust between partners and co-habitants, and that his ex-partner was entitled to trust him;
• that his conduct in relation to the assault was exacerbated by alcohol consumption;
• that, in relation to the WhatsApp messages there was a course of coercive, intimidating, and abusive behaviour over a significant period, despite Mr Makepeace’s abstention from alcohol at that time and the prior completion of an anger management course and therapy;
• that there was a blatant and wilful disregard of the role of the RCVS and the systems that regulate the profession in that his actions in charges 2, 4, and 5 were intended to subvert that process and were dishonest towards the RCVS;
• that his dishonesty towards his regulator was for personal gain in order to present himself in a more favourable light before his regulator;
• and that he demonstrated inadequate insight into his actions.

Mitigating factors taken into account were that Mr Makepeace made full admissions at the start of the hearing; he expressed remorse; was shown to be of previous good character; that there had been a significant lapse of time since his conviction; he had made subsequent efforts to avoid repetition of the behaviour which led to the conviction; the financial impact upon Mr Makepeace if he was prevented from being able to practise; and the testimonials.

Neil Slater, Chair of the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee’s view was that the demands of the public interest in this case were high, and in light of all of the circumstances, removal from the register was the only means of upholding the wider public interest, which includes the need to uphold proper standards of conduct and performance, and to maintain confidence in the profession and its regulation.

“The Committee therefore decided to direct that the respondent should be removed from the Register.

"In coming to this decision, the Committee carefully applied the principle of proportionality and took into account the impact of such a sanction on the respondent’s ability to practise his profession, as well as the financial impact upon him, taking into account his evidence in this regard.

“However, the Committee determined that the need to uphold the wider public interest outweighed the respondent’s interests in this respect.

"In light of the gravity of the conduct, and all of the factors taken into account, any lesser sanction would lack deterrent effect and would undermine public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.

"Removal was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction.”

https://www.rcvs.org.uk/concerns/disciplinary-hearings 

RCVS Council has elected Dr Christopher (Kit) Sturgess to be Junior Vice-President of the College for 2020-21.

Kit, who has served on Council as an elected member since 2013, is currently the Chair of the RCVS Finances & Resources Committee and has been RCVS Treasurer for the past three years.

He is also a member of a range of committees and project groups across the RCVS including: the Audit and Risk Committee; the PIC/ DC Liaison Committee; the Certification Subcommittee; the Estate Strategy Project Board; the RCVS Knowledge Board of Trustees; and the Advanced Practitioners Panel.

Since 2003 Kit has been working as an internist (he is an RCVS-recognised Specialist in Small Animal Medicine) in private referral practice. In 2006 he became a founding partner in a multidisciplinary referral centre that he saw grow from five to 65 members of staff within five years.

His interests include workforce issues, communicating the diverse clinical and non-clinical skills of veterinary surgeons to the general public and government, and facilitating life-long learning through achievable further professional qualifications and effective CPD.

Kit said: "It was a great honour to be elected as the next Junior Vice President by my fellow council members. I feel that I can make a positive contribution to the work that the RCVS is already undertaking in ensuring the veterinary team remains healthy and respected. In particular I am keen to look at how the RCVS can help find solutions to our workforce issues - improving retention as well as encouraging and facilitating vets and nurses back into the profession."

In addition to Kit being elected as JVP, the current holder of that office, Dr Mandisa Greene, was confirmed as President for 2020-21 and current President, Dr Niall Connell, was confirmed as Senior Vice-President for this period.

Professor Susan Dawson was voted in as RCVS Treasurer, and she will be formally invested in this role at Royal College Day on Friday, 10 July.

Professor David Argyle has been elected as Chair of Advancement of the Professions Committee for a second year, Dr Susan Paterson has been elected as Chair of Education Committee for her second year, and Dr Melissa Donald has been elected Chair of Standards Committee for her second year.

Kit and Melissa's positions are subject to their successful re-election in the 2020 RCVS Council Elections

More information on the RCVS Council and its members can be found on the RCVS website: https://www.rcvs.org.uk/who-we-are/rcvs-council.