Suffolk-based veterinary nurse Bronwyn Anne Nicholls has voluntarily agreed to remove herself from the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Register after she faced allegations relating to clinical failures and dishonesty.

74-year-old Ms Nicholls, who retired over two years ago, faced three charges against her regarding the surgical removal of a microchip from a cat in December 2021, the failure to disclose the procedure to her employer and associated accusations of dishonesty.

At the outset of the hearing Ms Nicholls made an application to adjourn the hearing while undertaking to voluntarily remove herself from the Register, to never seek to reapply to join the Register and to supply a witness statement in respect of a separate RCVS investigation into the conduct of a veterinary surgeon.

Her application was made on the basis of her age, the fact that she had a 40-year unblemished career in veterinary nursing, that she has retired, that she had referred herself to the College and engaged with the investigation process, that she had undertaken the procedure under the direction of a veterinary surgeon, that there was no financial gain and that the alleged misconduct related to a single animal.

The RCVS did not oppose the application.

Dr Kathryn Peaty MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee noted that the respondent has a long and unblemished career, also that she had self-referred and cooperated with the College and was prepared to act as a witness in other proceedings.

"However, it regarded those matters as going to the proper conduct of a professional and not of particular weight in the application.

“Although the Committee noted that the evidence tended to show that the respondent had acted at the direction of a veterinary surgeon, it considered that this did not outweigh the respondent’s own professional obligations in the relevant events.

"Further, this factor did not touch on the dishonesty allegation.

“The Committee did, in the respondent’s favour, place weight on the fact that this had been a singular event of clinical failing during the course of a long career.

"Further, the associated dishonesty the Committee assessed at being at the lower end of the scale, on the face of the College’s evidence.

"It considered that the expectation that veterinary nurses act with honesty in working with others was important, and so the lack of financial benefit did not have a great deal of impact, given the circumstances.\

“However, the Committee noted that the respondent had eventually corrected the understanding of her employer and admitted what she had done.

"Importantly, it was clear that the respondent had admitted her failings to the College in her subsequent dealings with the College.”

She added: “Taking all matters into consideration and in particular the singular nature of the clinical event and dishonesty at the low end of the scale, the Committee placed weight on the fact that removal of the respondent’s registration together with an undertaking to never re-apply exceeded the potential sanction which could be imposed, following any hearing.

"The Committee also brought into the balance the respondent’s own interests, in not continuing to be subject to the proceedings.

"The Committee also noted that the College did not oppose the application.

“The Committee considered that an informed member of the public, if aware of the full facts of the case and the application, would not be alarmed or concerned if the application is granted and public confidence in the profession would not be undermined.

"The Committee decided to accede to the application and accept the respondent’s undertakings.”

www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

The RCVS is looking for a vet nurse to join a new engagement group tasked with raising awareness of the importance of CPD for vets and nurses.

The group will also be supporting members in how to reflect on their CPD as a way of consolidating learning, and considering plans for how the benefits of CPD and the VetGDP can be communicated to the professions.

RCVS Council member Dr Olivia Cook MRCVS will be chairing the group.

She said: “The Engagement Group has been set up in recognition that, although the majority of the professions are engaged with meeting their CPD requirements and completing the VetGDP, there are still those who feel confused about the requirements or remain uncompliant for other reasons, and we would like very much to help them.

“Therefore, this is an exciting opportunity for anyone who wants to play an active part in advancing veterinary standards by ensuring that as many members of the professions as possible have the benefits of lifelong learning in their own practice and their ongoing work for animal health and welfare. In doing so they will help grow public confidence in the professions.

“From the VetGDP perspective, we’re particularly keen that there’s a strong peer-to-peer element, so that those who are doing the VetGDP, or have just recently completed it, are using their recent experience and understanding to evolve the policy and drive engagement.”

Applicants who are interested will have until Friday 30 August to apply to become members of the CPD and VetGDP Engagement Group and are invited to send a concise email to CPD@rcvs.org.uk explaining their experience and how they feel that can contribute to work of the committee.

Retired Plymouth-based vet Edmund Shillabeer has had his application to be removed from the Register approved by the RCVS, and will therefore not have to face multiple charges that he failed to provide adequate care for his patients in 2021. 

Mr Shillabeer faced five charges which largely related to his alleged prescription of contra-indicated NSAIDs and corticosteroids.

He was also charged with prescribing frusemide to a pregnant dog when there was no evidence of a benefit of so doing. 

He was also charged with performing inadequate spay surgery.

Mr Shillabeer did not admit to any of the charges, engaged with the College and responded to all requests for information, as well as being present in-person at the hearing.

He made an application to the Committee to dispose of the matter by way of adjournment, subject to the Committee accepting his written undertaking to remove his name from the Register and never to apply to be restored to the Register.

In support of his application, Mr Shillabeer’s legal counsel referred to his client’s witness statement, which set out that he had previously attempted to sell his practice but had been unsuccessful and that he had since closed it.

His legal counsel also asked the Committee to consider the fact that Mr Shillabeer is almost 85 years old and has had an unblemished 60-year career, has had no previous disciplinary findings against him, had put his practice up for sale and made efforts to guide his previous clients to ensure continuity of care elsewhere, and that he deeply regrets anything he has done, which has failed to protect the welfare of animals, or has caused concern or upset to his clients and fellow members of the profession.

Mr Shillabeer's counsel also asked the Committee to take into consideration that his undertakings would have the effect of protecting the welfare of animals and uphold the reputation of the profession as Mr Shillabeer is no longer in practice.

He stated it would be not proportionate, or in the public interest, for there to be a lengthy contested hearing resulting in substantial costs for both the RCVS and Mr Shillabeer.

The College’s legal representative stated that the RCVS did not oppose the application, and that it took a neutral stance.

She highlighted that Mr Shillabeer’s removal from the Register, together with his undertaking never to apply for restoration, would go far beyond anything the Committee could direct by way of sanction after a full enquiry, that Mr Shillabeer retired from practice on 23 July 2024 and does not intend to return, that a full enquiry would take a significant amount of time and expense, that the complainant supports the case being dealt with in the manner proposed by Mr Shillabeer, and that there are no previous findings against Mr Shillabeer.

Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Taking into account the undertaking never to practice again, in conjunction with all of the circumstances and context set out, the Committee considered that by allowing the application, such an outcome would be sufficient to uphold the public interest, confidence in the profession and the RCVS as regulator, and protect the welfare of animals.

“As a result of all the factors set out, the Committee decided that this is not a case in which the public interest or the welfare of animals demands that there be a full hearing.

“Taking into account proportionality and weighing in the balance all the circumstances of the case, the interests of justice, the public interest, the need to uphold proper standards of conduct and performance, and the need to protect the welfare of animals, the Committee decided to grant the respondent’s application.”

Mr Shillabeer was removed from the Register with immediate effect.

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

In her inaugural address as RCVS President for 2024-25, Linda Belton said she wants to focus on the core remit of the RCVS as a regulator, and the importance of good regulation for public trust and keeping pace in areas such as artificial intelligence (AI).

Linda gave her address at the Royal Institute of British Architects, venue for the RCVS Annual General Meeting last Friday.

Linda, an equine vet and director of the Wiltshire-based George Veterinary Group, said: “A Royal College and a regulator – it’s a challenge but this combined role is also an opportunity for us.

“In the time I’ve served the RCVS, I’ve definitely learnt some of what it takes to fulfil these roles under the remit of both the Veterinary Surgeons Act and our Royal Charter; to think not just from personal perspective and experience, and also to try to look beyond the needs of the profession today and consider what tomorrow might bring.

“Vets are not just one thing.

"The roles we fill in our working lives are many and varied, and I would argue that the MRCVS is the best placed arbiter of animal health and welfare.

"As such, keeping the MRCVS at the heart of decision-making around how veterinary care and services are provided is essential both to safeguard animal health and welfare and also to retain public trust in our work.

“Cultivating trust is a big part of what many of us do, day in and day out – trust in us from within our teams, from our clients and perhaps even from our patients.

“The RCVS with its two hats does a tough job for both the professions and the public.

"In many cases, the interests of the professions and the public align and there is no conflict.

"Of course, as a regulator where the interests don’t align, the RCVS regulates in the wider public interest and this, too, is a positive for us as a profession.

“Working in a regulated environment is a strength for us.

"The landscape in which we work has changed and the regulatory environment needs to change too. Now we are the other side of the general election, work can continue on legislative reform seeking parliamentary time for a new Veterinary Surgeons Act.”

As the 13th female President of the RCVS, Linda will lead an Officer Team comprising the now Senior Vice-President Dr Sue Paterson FRCVS, Junior Vice-President Professor Tim Parkin FRCVS and Treasurer Dr Tshidi Gardiner MRCVS as well as VN Council Chair Belinda Andrews-Jones RVN, who attends Officer Team meetings as an observer.

Jamie Rushton has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after being convicted of sexual assault and jailed for 18 months.

Mr Rushton was convicted of sexual assault after pleading guilty at Wood Green Crown Court in December 2022.

He was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, made subject to a restraining order and a 10-year sexual harm prevention order as well as being placed on the Sex Offenders Register for 10 years.

He was also ordered to pay £3,000 costs and a £140 victims’ surcharge.

Mr Rushton did not attend the RCVS hearing, where the facts of the charge were proven by the certificate of conviction and the judge’s sentencing remarks.

In considering whether the conviction rendered Mr Rushton unfit to practise veterinary medicine, the Committee considered that the case involved the sexual assault of a vulnerable woman who was also a professional colleague, and was a serious abuse of trust, reflected in the custodial sentence.

Dr Neil Slater MRCVS, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “It was evident from the judge’s sentencing remarks that [the victim] had been seriously affected by the knowledge of what had occurred on that evening.

"That knowledge was bound, in itself, to be very distressing and according to the victim’s impact statement had a long- lasting impact on the victim’s self-esteem, resilience and relationship with others.

"The victim’s level of distress can only have been increased by the knowledge that the respondent had filmed and/or photographed his activity while she was unconscious and that the images were included on a memory stick which contained a number of other voyeuristic images.”

"The Committee was satisfied that the respondent’s behaviour had caused [the victim] significant psychological injury and carried with it a risk of causing such injury.

“The Committee was also satisfied that [the victim] was especially vulnerable because of the significant quantity of alcohol that she had consumed.

"In the circumstances that evolved, she was in the respondent’s care.

"The respondent abused the position of trust and responsibility that he occupied.

"He was a senior colleague, at a professional conference.

"Instead of taking appropriate steps to secure the welfare of [the victim], he used the position in which he found himself to engage in predatory sexual misconduct.

"Furthermore, his behaviour was opportunistic and, as the judge said, “clearly driven by [his] sexual desires."

Taking into account these factors, the Committee found that Dr Rushton was unfit to practise and next considered the sanction.

The Committee found no mitigating factors regarding the conviction but did take into account the fact there had been no previous regulatory findings against him.

In deciding the sanction, the Committee also noted that there was little evidence before them that Dr Rushton had shown serious insight into the impact of his offending.

Neil added: “In this context the Committee also noted that the respondent maintained a plea of not guilty until three days before a rearranged trial was due to take place, and subsequently advanced an account of what he said was his relationship with [the victim] which the judge found to be false.

“Taking all of these factors into account, the Committee is satisfied that removal from the register is the only proportionate outcome to this case.

"This sanction is necessary to declare and uphold appropriate standards of conduct for members of the veterinary profession and to maintain public confidence in the profession.”

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

The RCVS has launched a consultation about how the profession should, in the future, be governed.

The consultation is open to veterinary surgeons, nurses, students, and the public.

One of the main - and most controversial - proposals in the consultation, which was unveiled by RCVS President Sue Patterson at BVA Live last week, is that the elected councils would be replaced by an independent merit-and-skills appointment-based system. 

Sue discussed the main benefits of an appointment-based system at BVA Live: 

• An appointment-based system is more accessible - anyone can apply and the process is less daunting and potentially off-putting than the 'hell' of elections by social media, which are causing the College to 'miss out on so much talent.'
• People are currently elected to Council on a bit of a false premise: that with their opinion-based manifestos, they are able to represent the electorate. They are not. They are there to be representative of the profession.
• An appointment based system allows the College to select a more representative group on Council, including people from all over the UK and people who are representative of different areas of the profession, such as new graduates, production animal vets and people from the public health centre.
• Appointed candidates, selected for their skills and experience, should be more able to hit the ground running when they start on Council, where currently it can take time to get new Council members up to speed.

Other proposed changes include:

• to have parity or near parity of laypeople and members of the profession on Council, to assure the public that the RCVS, as the regulator, is not ‘setting and marking its own homework’.
• to build in flexibility to allow veterinary paraprofessionals which have been identified as requiring regulation by the RCVS, such as veterinary technicians, musculoskeletal therapists, clinical animal behaviourists and equine dental technicians and cattle foot trimmers to be members of RCVS Council.
• to separate the Chair of RCVS Council from the presidency, so that the Chair of Council, also selected for their skills and ability, would remain in post for longer than the presidential term, offering greater continuity.
• to remove Veterinary Schools Council appointees and instead ensure there is an appropriate level of educationalist expertise on the RCVS Education Committee and on RCVS Council via the independent appointment process.
• to reduce the size of VN Council from 14 to 12 members in line with regulatory norms and to ensure that there is a focus on strategy and governance while maintaining a broad range of knowledge and experience.  

The good governance proposals are part of the College’s overall legislative reform agenda in which it is seeking to replace the 1966 Veterinary Surgeons Act with new and more modern, flexible and forward-looking legislation, which would expand the regulatory remit of the College to encompass veterinary practice premises and paraprofessionals, while empowering veterinary nurses and creating a new fitness to practise system.

Sue said: “The current governance structure of the RCVS is set by the VSA and updating our governance systems is a vital prerequisite to getting new primary legislation, as the outdated and out-of-step nature of our current arrangements will be clear to see.

“Governance may not be the most exciting topic, but it is the foundation on which all other aspects of the College’s work rests.

"As a professional regulator with animal health and welfare at our heart, the RCVS has a duty to ensure that our arrangements best serve the public on whose behalf we are entrusted to regulate and uphold veterinary standards, while still maintaining veterinary input in all our decision-making processes.

“We believe these good governance proposals help us meet this mission, ensuring that we are bringing our governance in line with regulatory norms, while still recognising our unique role as a dual regulator and royal college.

"The proposals would also help us get the best talent with the right skillsets and experience to serve on RCVS Council, VN Council and our committees, drawing on both laypeople and the broad sweep of the veterinary professions.

“We acknowledge that there has been some disquiet over the fact that, under these proposals, we would no longer be holding the annual elections to either RCVS Council or VN Council.

"However, we believe that an independent, fair and skills-based appointment process would be a superior way of selecting the membership of RCVS Council and VN Council than the elections which, unfortunately, the vast majority of the veterinary professions do not currently engage in, and which risk creating the impression that the RCVS is some sort of representative organisation.

“We look forward to hearing the considered views of the professions and public regarding our good governance proposals and will carefully review the feedback we receive.”

Belinda Andrews-Jones RVN, current Chair of VN Council, added: “In many ways VN Council is ahead of the curve in terms of governance reform with a smaller number of members and two independently-appointed veterinary nurse members – of which I am one – as well as appointed lay members.

“I can personally vouch for the robust nature of the application and independent appointment process for VN Council and how it took into account what I had to offer to the role in terms of my skills, my knowledge and my experience.

“I would like to thank my fellow members of VN Council, including my elected peers, for their positive engagement with the good governance proposals and their recognition that these reforms aren’t about reducing scrutiny of the College or the amount of challenge to its decisions, but about improving outcomes for the public, their animals and the professions at large.”

The good governance recommendations have been drawn up on the basis of the Law Commission’s 2014 Report ‘Regulation of Health and Social Care Professionals’, the recommendations from which were adopted by the UK government as being the ‘regulatory norm’.

The College says any future appointment processes for RCVS Council and VN Council would also be based on the Professional Standards Authority’s appointment principles of merit, fairness, transparency and openness and having a process that inspires confidence.

The deadline for completing the consultation is Monday 22 July 2024.

https://www.rcvs.org.uk/news-and-views/our-consultations/ensuring-good-governance/ 

The College will also be presenting the proposals at a Zoom webinar called being chaired by Sue between 7pm and 8pm tomorrow evening, Tuesday 11 June 2024: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/ensuring-good-governance-tickets-920243973497 

RCVS CEO Lizzie Lockett has outlined the College's likely approach to regulating artificial intelligence (AI) in the veterinary sector at a roundtable event it hosted last week.

At the roundtable, Liz Barton MRCVS, Head of Communications at Vet.CT, spoke about the application of AI in clinical practice, including in preventative medicine, diagnostics, treatment and prognostics.

Liz highlighted how the use of AI tools in clinical practice for tasks such as pattern recognition had led to many unforeseen and unexpected benefits, for example by picking up things that humans may not.

Dr P-J Noble, Senior Lecturer in Small Animal Science at the University of Liverpool, explained how AI tools had proven useful in processing, assessing and annotating qualitative data gathered through the university's Small Animal Veterinary Surveillance Network (SAVSNET) once they were programmed to recognise certain patterns, saving lots of research time and costs.

Dr Chris Trace MRCVS, Head of Digital Learning at the University of Surrey, spoke about AI use in higher education and how it has already started to be used beneficially both as a teaching and learning aid, as well as for assessment and feedback. 

In the afternoon session, groups of delegates were asked to discuss practical questions over AI use in the veterinary professions and how it might be regulated.

There were discussions on how to help vet and VN students make the most of AI in learning and assessment, responsible use of AI in clinical settings, the risks of not using AI, how veterinary professionals can work with animal owners and keepers to ensure the safe and productive use of AI, and whether AI-led devices should be regulated.

Lizzie said: “This was a really positive and exciting event that involved a heady mix of trepidation over the risks and implications of AI now and into the future, and optimism over the beneficial impact it could have for education, diagnosis, treatment and patient outcomes.

"The discussions have certainly given us at the College a lot of food for thought on how we can put in place guardrails and guidelines on the appropriate use of AI in the veterinary sector.

“This is an area of technology that is evolving so rapidly that it would not be effective for us to put in place specific guidance for the use of AI tools, but instead we will be looking at how we can regulate the use of AI in the round and ensure our principles are sufficiently future-proofed to keep up with the pace of change.

“Any regulation will start with first principles, such as transparency and honesty around the use of AI in veterinary practice, the minimisation of potential risks, and the continuing importance of professional accountability for decision-making, even where such decisions may have been heavily influenced by the use of AI tools and AI-generated data.”

The input gathered from the roundtable will now be considered by a range of RCVS committees over the coming months.

A full report of the event will be published this summer.

Cambridge-based Nebojsa Petrovic MRCVS has been suspended by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee for six months for dishonestly providing false information related to the export of horses.

Nebojsa Petrovic faced eight charges, although charge four was withdrawn at the start of the hearing.

At the outset of the hearing, Dr Petrovic admitted a number of allegations, including:

Charge 1 - that in November 2021, he falsely represented to the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) that blood samples he submitted in respect of four horses were from the same horses as the samples he submitted on 1 November 2021.

Charge 2 – that in November 2021, he told APHA’s Veterinary Head of Border Control that he had checked the microchips and/or passports of the four horses when he hadn’t done so;

Charge 3 – that in November 2021, he signed Export Health Certificates for the four horses, in which it was stated that blood samples taken from these horses on October 2021 had been submitted to the Veterinary Laboratories Agency laboratory, Weybridge, with a negative result for Leptospirosis when in fact those samples had tested positive;

Charge 5 – that he failed to send the APHA’s Centre for International Trade, within seven days of signing, certified copies of the export health certificates;

Charge 7 – that in January 2022, he told an APHA officer that he was satisfied that he had properly identified the horses for which you had submitted the two samples when he had not done so;

Charge 8c – that he risked undermining government procedures designed to promote animal health and international relations in relation to the charges he admitted; and

Charge 9 – that in February 2022, he failed to have in place any or any adequate Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII).

Dr Petrovic, who was at the time of all the allegations carrying his duties as an Official Veterinarian on behalf of the APHA, denied charge 6 – that in November 2021, he failed to take sufficient steps to prevent the four horses being exported to Serbia, when he had been informed that there were concerns and/or doubts about whether those horses had tested negative for Leptospirosis.

He also denied charge 8 – that in relation to the allegations relating to his submitting the blood samples to the Veterinary Laboratories Agency on 8 November 2021, certification of the Export Health Certificates on 16 November 2021 and his subsequent conversations with members of APHA staff regarding both sets of documentation he had acted in a misleading (Charge 8a) and/or dishonest (Charge 8b) way.

The Committee considered evidence presented by the College including hearing from APHA staff witnesses called by the College and also hearing from a witness and character evidence presented by Dr Petrovic. Dr Petrovic also gave evidence to the Committee.

It found most charges proven with the exception of Charge 6, and also found that Dr Petrovic had not acted dishonestly in submitting the blood samples or certifying the EHC’s as alleged in charges 1 and 3.

The Committee concluded that Dr Petrovic had acted in a dishonest and misleading way in his conversations with the APHA staff as detailed in charges 2 and 7.

The Committee then considered whether the individual proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, determining that, with the exception of charges 3 and 5, all proven charges amounted to disgraceful conduct.

Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “In the Committee’s judgement, the respondent’s position as an Official Veterinarian also meant that he had a responsibility to ensure that the trust which was delegated to him was not breached.

"In his role, the respondent was acting in a position of trust, as a representative of the government, and the Committee found that he had breached that trust…. It took these matters into account when determining that the respondent’s behaviour cumulatively amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”

Regarding the sanction for Dr Petrovic, the Committee considered his request that it consider suspension, rather than removal, from the Register.

In terms of aggravating factors – the Committee found that Dr Petrovic had acted without integrity, recklessly and without regard for the APHA’s systems relating to the export of animals.

In mitigation, it took into account: the fact that no animal was harmed by his conduct, albeit there was risk of harm; his long and unblemished career in the UK since 1994; admissions he had made to the APHA and Disciplinary Committee at the first day of the hearing; had remediated his lack of professional indemnity insurance by putting in place a retrospective policy; the significant amount of time that had elapsed since the conduct; and six positive character references from experienced fellow veterinary surgeons who held him in high regard.

Paul Morris added: “The Committee took into account that the respondent had continued to work as a veterinary surgeon with no subsequent complaints and that he had a previous long and unblemished record and there was support by several positive character references.

"The Committee also took into consideration the pressures of Brexit and the pandemic which the respondent had faced at the time, but which were unlikely to occur again.

“The Committee had concluded that the respondent was unlikely to repeat similar behaviour or to pose a risk to animals, particularly because he was no longer involved in certifying animals for export.

"Furthermore his admissions to most of the matters it had found proved showed that he had some insight.

"The Committee was also satisfied that the respondent had a genuine concern for the welfare of animals and it noted that the Respondent did not require any further training to continue in practice as a veterinary surgeon.

 “The Committee therefore concluded that a suspension from the Register was the proportionate sanction in this case taking into account the seriousness of the conduct it had found proved but also all of the mitigating factors.”

The Committee recommended that Dr Petrovic be suspended for six months to reflect the seriousness of the conduct and the damage it could do to public confidence in the profession, while meeting the public interest and sending a clear message of deterrence.

www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

Kirsty Young and Susan Howarth have been elected to VN Council, after a voter turnout of 7.4%, the lowest in the history of the RCVS VN Council elections.

Kirsty and Susan scored 995 and 923 votes respectively.

The unsuccessful candidate, Stuart Miller, scored 669 votes. 

In total, 1,710 RVNs cast their vote, narrowly beating the previous record low turnout of 7.5% in 2012.

By comparison, the largest turnout was 17.1% in 2020.

Kirsty and Susan will take up their post at the RCVS Annual General Meeting, which is open to all vet nurses to attend on Friday 5th July at the Royal Institute of British Architects.

www.rcvs.org.uk/vnvote24

The RCVS Veterinary Nurse Disciplinary Committee has decided to take no further action against Kai Murray, a veterinary nurse who had been convicted and imprisoned for affray before becoming an RVN.

Mr Murray was charged that he had been convicted of affray at Birmingham Crown Court in 2021 - to which he had pleaded guilty - and given nine months in prison.

Mr Murray applied for anonymity at the start of the disciplinary hearing, which was refused when the Committee decided there were no special circumstances which would justify anonymity.

The Committee considered whether or not the charge rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse.

Counsel for the RCVS submitted that the conviction was for a serious public order offence in relation to an incident in which another person was left seriously injured.

Although Mr Murray was not directly responsible for the injury, RCVS Counsel submitted that he had brought the profession into disrepute and that his conduct therefore left him unfit to practise.

The Committee took into account that Mr Murray’s involvement in the public order incident was not premeditated, that it took place before his registration as a veterinary nurse, that no injury was caused directly by him nor was he carrying an offensive weapon and that the offence was not gang-related.

However, it did consider that his role in the incident was serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence and that serious physical injuries were sustained by an individual during the incident.

Hilary Lloyd, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee assessed the incident to be serious, taking into account its nature and circumstances as set out above.

"It led to serious physical injuries inflicted by a sword in a public place.

"Children were present at the scene at one point, as remarked upon by the Judge.

“The Committee considered the wider public interest.

"Taking into account the view of the reasonable member of the public who is well-informed of all the facts and evidence in the case, the Committee was satisfied that the Respondent’s behaviour and conviction brings the veterinary nursing profession into disrepute.

"To find otherwise would undermine public confidence in the profession and fail to uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour.”

Having found serious professional misconduct, the Committee then considered the most appropriate sanction for Mr Murray.

In terms of aggravating factors, it found that Mr Murray’s conviction involved recklessness and the risk of injury to a human being.

In mitigation, it considered that: there was no risk or actual harm to an animal; that no concerns had been raised about his competence or the quality of his practice; his relative youth at the time of the incident; the fact he had both pleaded guilty to the charge and had disclosed the conviction to the RCVS at the first opportunity; his cooperation with the regulatory process and the fact that he had shown insight and made efforts to remediate the past offending and avoid repetition of the offending behaviour.

The Committee also considered a positive testimonial from the practice where he was employed which attested to his integrity, as well as from a mental health prison chaplain who had supported him during his time in custody and with whom he continued to work to support other young offenders on their release from custody.

Taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, the Committee decided that it would be most appropriate to take no further action against Mr Murray.

Hilary added: “This was not a case involving any risk to animals.

"The risk of repetition of the offence is minimal.

"The Committee therefore considered the demands of the public interest, namely the need to uphold proper standards of conduct and behaviour and to maintain confidence in the profession and in the regulatory process.

"The Committee considered that in light of the significant insight and remediation shown, and the minimal risk of repeating the behaviour which led to the conviction, the Committee was not satisfied that the public interest required a sanction to protect it.

"The Committee decided that the demands of the public interest were adequately marked and served by the finding already made that the conviction rendered the respondent unfit to practise.”

www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

An unnamed veterinary nurse has been struck off by the RCVS VN Disciplinary Committee for claiming to be a veterinary surgeon and for making offensive and discriminatory remarks on the social media platform X (Twitter).

The individual, referred to as Mrs D throughout the hearing and who was granted anonymity by the Committee on grounds relating to her health, faced three charges against her.

The first charge was that she posted the tweets from her Twitter/X account.

The second charge was that in a number of tweets (Schedule 1 below), she falsely stated or implied that she was a veterinary surgeon, and that, in some tweets, while falsely holding herself out to be a veterinary surgeon, she used language that was offensive and/or unprofessional.

The third charge was that in a number of tweets (Schedule 2 below) she made statements that were offensive, discriminatory and brought the veterinary professions into disrepute.

At the outset of the hearing Mrs D admitted all the facts of the charges against her, and also admitted that her conduct amounted to disgraceful conduct in a professional capacity.

The Committee considered that there were a number of aggravating factors in Mrs D’s behaviour, including a lack of probity and integrity, as well as dishonesty, in holding herself out as a veterinary surgeon.

Her conduct was also premeditated and took place over a lengthy period of time, involved abuse of her position, and demonstrated discriminatory behaviour, as a large number of her tweets were highly offensive towards various minority groups.

In mitigation, the Committee heard from the respondent that she had a number of difficulties in her personal life which led to inappropriate use of social media, though she did not suggest these factors excused her behaviour.

The Committee also considered that Mrs D had a long and previously unblemished career of 15 or so years, had made early admissions (albeit she had initially denied being responsible for the tweets) and shown considerable remorse.

However, in terms of the sanction, the Committee considered that removal from the Register was the most proportionate sanction it could impose.

Paul Morris, who chaired the Committee and spoke on its behalf, said: “For a registered veterinary nurse to pretend to be a veterinary surgeon on a public platform is itself an extremely serious matter.

"When that presentation is associated with the highly offensive language of the tweets in this case, extending over a period of years, the conduct is in the view of the Committee fundamentally incompatible with continued registration.

“The Committee has concluded that removal from the register is the only sanction which is sufficient to satisfy the public interest in maintaining proper standards of behaviour for registered veterinary practitioners and public confidence in the profession and its regulation.”

www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary

The Tweets

Schedule 1

1. “@cbbc really disappointed that you don’t highlight the work that registered vet nurses do too! A vet practice couldn’t run without us!” 
2. “As a vet nurse she needs more education on foxes! This is scaremongering” 
3. “Funny listening to a teacher, who had brought her poorly cat in, moaning about schools opening next week, to me.. a vet.. who has worked in practice alongside our fantastic nurses and office staff throughout lockdown” 
4. “In my experience as a vet I would take your pup along to your local vets free nurse clinics and they will give you all the correct advice you need” 
5. “Tell u what I worked as a vet nurse whilst I trained to be a vet plus worked at local Beefeater to save what we’ve got-it’s called bloody hard work!” 
6. “I was paid 6k a year working 42 hours a week as a trainee vet nurse in 1996 whilst waiting for opportunity to get into vet school” 
7. “Please give my RVN colleagues the professionals respect they deserve by stating salary range” 
8. “No one claps for us, we don’t get discounts or great pensions… we are there 24/7 for your fur babies… perhaps we should strike?... I don’t know a single vet nurse or vet that would put animal lives in danger to do this though” 
9. “Yeah we’re driving round in Ferraris and doing snow angels in our cash. There’s no NHS for pet which is why twits like you don’t understand costs to run a vet practice” 
10. “My clients are lovely thanks, so are their pets. You’re an obvious pathetic trolling Karen and I feel sorry for your dog (and your vet if you have one, I’m sure you’re very popular there)” 
11. “I’m a vet dear I deal with the aftermath of horse cruelty weekly- considering you’re a minority, traveller horse cruelty is a huge problem!” 
12. “As a vet, and I think I speak for the entire profession, the Tories can feck off” 

Schedule 2 

1. “I’m a vet dear I deal with the aftermath of horse cruelty weekly- considering you’re a minority, traveller horse cruelty is a huge problem!” 
2. “Black people kill more black people than any other race… perhaps they should practice what they preach” 
3. “She stop ALL this woke and immigration crap and return the UK to its indigenous citizens” [In response to question about what Margaret Thatcher would do if she returned to power] 
4. If White British moved to African nations (let’s be honest they’ll be empty soon) and rebuilt towns/cities you can bet all the illegal grimmigrants will flood there… lazy entitled scroungers” 
5. “The #WEF want population control but are happy for feral African men to flood Europe?! I don’t get it” 
6. “Ha ha funny how the #BLM lot are all ‘ard until the pickeys come after them” [In response to a post about a rally staged near traveler homes] 
7. “I bet I know what religion the taxi driver was…” [in respect to an article about a taxi driver who refused to pick up a blind person] 
8. “Kent is a shithole mainly thanks to bottles of piss from lorries being chucked out the window as they travel from ports! Plus the feral being dumped here by London borough councils”
9. “@UK Labour you happy to let this one in too? @refugeecounsel… I think you and yours should be held accountable for each and every crime these ferals commit!!” [In response to a post about a crime committed by an asylum seeker]
10. “Black black black black racist racist racist blah blah blah” [In response to a post about King Charles and Harry/Megan] 
11. “Literal animals” [In response to a post of a picture apparently showing one Muslim woman on top of another- the original post said “was this some kid of modernised Islamic prayer”] 
12. “Import the third world become the third world” [In response to a post about conviction of Somali men on drug charges] 
13. “Feral #BLM” [In response to a post about “cultural decline”] 
14. “Import feral expect feral” [In response to a video apparently showing a school principal stopping a gang attacking a pupil] 
15. “Does he feel as strongly for the underage girls groomed by Pakistani men right under our noses” [In response to a BBC Question Time post of a black audience member’s comments on the case of Shamina Begum]
16. “We know who is responsible and it’s not British Christian’s!! Why has the @Conservatives allowed this to happen to our country?!” [In response to a post about a dead sheep found in Brook in Birmingham]
17. “These aren’t genuine refugees you blinkered melon and that’s why London is a third world s**thole” [In response to post by Sadiq Khan about violence against asylum seekers and refugees] 
18. “Minorities do not want to integrate with anyone and they all hate each other too- Kent is a multicultural sh*t hole” 
19. “Import feral expect feral” [In response to a report about a stabbing incident next to an asylum centre in Ireland] 
20. “Like a swarm of locusts” [In response to a post of a photograph of a small boat apparently carrying migrants off Florida Keys in the United States] 
21. “When you’re in control we are flooded with African freeloaders” [In response to a post about crime in Labour run areas] 
22. “Happy to ban it [the Quran] in the UK- they can move” 
23. “Probably fed up with clearing up [poo emoji] and detritus by the ferals” [In response to a post about a Kerry hotel housing migrants not renewing its contract] 
24. “@SuellaBraverman you’re literally importing thousands of rapists” [In response to an article about an asylum seeker convicted of rape] 
25. “Seriously why do you live here?? There are plenty of predominantly black nations where you won’t suffer hate or violence… oh wait…” [In response to celebrity criticism of Jeremy Clarkson statements on Megan Markle] 
26. “Stop Islamification of this country- ban Halal, 2nd wife benefits & burkas should do it.” 
27. “You are allowing the UK to be turned into a third world country complete with an antiquated homophobic, misogynistic, animal abusing, pedophilic religion dictating law and order.” 
28. “@Conservatives when will you actually ask UK taxpayers if THIS is acceptable for the UK? Misogyny, homophobia, animal abuse, pedophilia is not welcome in civilized society” [In response to a report about building of a mosque] 

Hampshire-based Robert Russell has been struck off by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee after he was convicted of possessing indecent images of children and extreme animal abuse.

Dr Russell, 64, who waived his right to attend the hearing, was convicted in 2023 of three offences: making indecent photographs of a child, possessing 2,280 prohibited images of a child and possessing 109 extreme pornographic images that included moving images that were grossly offensive.

After pleading guilty to making indecent photographs/pseudo-photographs of a child, possessing a prohibited image of a child, and possessing extreme pornographic image/images portraying sexual acts with an animal, Dr Russell was sentenced at Winchester Crown Court to a two-year community order, a 30-day Rehabilitation Activity Requirement, 150 hours of community service and a forfeiture and destruction order of Seagate Drive, Toshiba hard drive and Lenovo tablet.

In addition, he was required to register with the police for 5 years and made subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for five years.

He was also required to pay prosecution costs of £425 and £60 victim surcharge.

Counsel for the College submitted to the Disciplinary Committee that the nature and circumstances of the offences rendered Dr Russell unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.

The Committee considered there to be several aggravating factors including, actual (albeit indirect) injury to an animal or child; the risk of harm to an animal or child; sexual misconduct; premeditated conduct; and, that the offences involved vulnerable children and animals.  

Neil Slater, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee has reached the conclusion that Dr Russell’s behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon, namely grave offences of a sexual nature.

"Dr Russell’s behaviour was so serious that removal of professional status and the rights and privileges accorded to that status is considered to be the only means of protecting the wider public interest and of maintaining confidence in the profession.

“The Committee has not taken this decision lightly, and, lest it be misinterpreted, it has not taken it in order to satisfy any notional public demand for blame and punishment.

"It has taken the decision because, in its judgment, the reputation of the profession has to be at the forefront of its thinking and ultimately this is more important than the interests of Dr Russell.

"The decision is not simply based on the fact that these offences were of a sexual nature but because they were repeated over a significant period of time and at a time when Dr Russell must have known, on his own plea of guilty, that what he was doing was wrong.

"Further, the Committee can discern no evidence that Dr Russell has insight into the gravity of the offence he has committed.

"The Committee has therefore directed the Registrar to remove his name from the Register forthwith.”

Dr Russell has 28 days from being notified of his removal from the Register to lodge an appeal with Privy Council.

Bristol-based Jemma Louise Francis RVN has been found not guilty of serious professional misconduct by the RCVS Veterinary Nurse Disciplinary Committee after she was cleared of a number of charges relating to the removal of buprenorphine from her practice. 

Ms Francis faced two charges, the first of which had three elements:

The first was that in January 2021 she took one box of buprenorphine from the practice where she worked.

The second was that in early June 2022 she took another 15 boxes of buprenorphine together with an unspecified number of vials of the drug.

The third was that later that month, she took another box of the drug.

The second charge was that her behaviour was dishonest, was not acting in accordance with instructions from a veterinary surgeon or a valid prescription and she failed to record the amount of the drug taken from the practice.

At the outset of the hearing Ms Francis admitted taking the one box of buprenorphine at the end of June 2022, but denied the other elements of the charge. 

After interviewing witnesses, the Committee decided that on the basis of the evidence presented, the allegations that Ms Francis had taken a box of buprenorphine in January 2021, or that she had taken vials of buprenorphine in June 2022, were unproven.

With regard to the allegation that she had taken 15 boxes of buprenorphine in June 2022, the Committee determined that Ms Francis had no case to answer, due to insufficient evidence.

This meant that the second charge, of dishonest behaviour, was only considered in respect of the element of the first charge that Ms Francis had admitted to (the one box of buprenorphine she admitted taking in late June 2022).

Here, the Committee found that Ms Francis’ conduct was not dishonest, but found it proved that she did not act in accordance with instructions from a vet or a valid prescription, and found it proved that she failed to record the amount of the drug taken from the cupboard on the internal stock sheet.

Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The respondent had removed a box of buprenorphine from the drugs cupboard before she had received a prescription for that medication.

"She intended to seek such a prescription from the vet, who was in the practice at the time and from whom she had just received prescriptions for other pain-relieving medications.

"As it happened the vet issued the prescription for the buprenorphine which the respondent sought.

“The respondent has acknowledged her fault in removing the box of buprenorphine before the vet had issued a prescription.

This appears to have been the result of a momentary decision on her part that Vetergesic would be of benefit to her dog.

"She also omitted to sign the relevant log.

"The evidence which the Committee heard suggested that this omission was commonplace at the practice.

“In acting in this way, as the respondent acknowledges, she fell below appropriate standards.

"The Committee has concluded, however, that in all the circumstances her conduct did not fall far below those standards and could not realistically be described as disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”

www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary