All Headlines >>
The DC heard how, in December 2022, a labrador called Bella had been stolen from its owner.
That same month, someone who was involved in the theft presented Bella to Dr Kashiv, according to news reports telling him they'd taken the animal because it had been abused.
Dr Kashiv performed surgery to remove her microchip, so she could be re-homed without being traced.
Although there was no suggestion that Dr Khashiv had been involved in the theft, it was alleged that he knew the animal had been stolen.
In January 2024, after pleading guilty, Dr Kashiv was convicted of removing the microchip, contrary to section 5(3) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, at Stevenage Magistrates’ Court.
He was sentenced to a community order with an unpaid work requirement of 50 hours to be completed within 12 months, and ordered to pay a surcharge to fund victim services of £114 and costs of £85.
Dr Khashiv faced four charges at the RCVS disciplinary hearing, the first being that his conviction rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
The second charge was that in July 2024, at Stevenage Magistrates’ Court, Dr Kashiv had been made subject to a 5-year Criminal Behaviour Order (CBO) for failing to keep dogs he owned under control and failing to comply with previous orders.
The third charge was that Dr Kashiv’s conduct with regard to the microchip was dishonest, in that he removed it to conceal the labrador’s identity.
The final charge was that Dr Kashiv failed to keep adequate clinical records for the labrador and his conduct was thereby i) misleading and/or ii) dishonest.
From the outset, Dr Kashiv admitted charges one and two and some aspects of charge four.
However, he initially denied that his conduct was at any stage misleading or dishonest and did not accept that his conviction rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon or that the admitted charges amount to serious professional misconduct.
In a later submission, Dr Kashiv no longer disputed that his conviction rendered him unfit to practise, or that his behaviour in charges two, three and four amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee considered that in respect of his conviction, Dr Kashiv had breached paragraphs 1.1, 1.3, 6.1, 6.4 and 6.5 of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons.
It then took into account mitigating and aggravating factors.
The Committee found no mitigating factors but found the following aggravating factors:
The Committee was satisfied that this conduct fell far below the standard expected of a registered veterinary surgeon and that this rendered him unfit to practise.
In deciding on whether his conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee again took into account submissions made both by representatives for the College and for Dr Kashiv, as well as the fact that Dr Kashiv no longer disputed the assertion that his conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.
The Committee found that Dr Kashiv had breached paragraphs 2.4, 2.5, 6.1, 6.4 and 6.5 of the Code in relation to charges two, three and four.
The Committee again did not find any mitigating factors but found the following aggravating factors:
With regards to charges three and four, Dr Kashiv performed a prohibited procedure on a labrador which was unjustified and resulted in a criminal conviction.
The Committee found that in carrying out the procedure he had acted dishonestly – he had removed the chip in order to conceal the identity of a pet that he knew had been taken from its home.
The dishonesty with regards to not completing any formal clinical records also related directly to his practice as a veterinary surgeon, as part of a cover-up so that nobody would know what had happened to the labrador at the practice.
The Committee was satisfied that Dr Kashiv’s conduct in relation to the labrador amounted to serious professional misconduct.
On deciding on a sanction, the Committee took into account all evidence and documents provided as well as testimonials together with submissions made on behalf of Dr Kashiv and matters of personal mitigation.
In terms of aggravating factors, it found all those already listed in findings for fitness to practise and serious professional misconduct, as well as previous convictions and adverse findings of the College and the fact that Dr Kashiv showed limited insight into his actions.
In terms of mitigating factors, it considered:
Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was of the view that the nature and seriousness of Dr Kashiv’s behaviour, which led to the conviction, was fundamentally incompatible with being registered as a veterinary surgeon.”
He added: “In light of these conclusions, the Committee decided that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case was removal from the Register.
"This would not be the case if the Committee were considering the CBO matter alone, when a lesser sanction would have been appropriate.
"However, his actions with regard to the labrador, his limited insight and the fear that he could repeat such behaviour meant that removal was necessary in this case.
“In reaching this decision the Committee recognised the negative impact this would have on Dr Kashiv.
"The Committee had considered with great care all the mitigating factors and the positive statements made about him in the testimonials provided.
"However, the need to protect animal welfare, the reputation of the profession and thus the wider public interest, outweighed Dr Kashiv’s interests and the Committee concluded that removal was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.”
www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15069309/Vegan-vet-Animal-Rebellion-activist-steal-pet-dog.html
PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vet nurses.