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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It also took into account the following aggravating factors:

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

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

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

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

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

Paul Morris, chairing the committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was of the view that the nature and seriousness of [the veterinary nurse]'s behaviour, which led to the conviction, was fundamentally incompatible with being registered as a veterinary nurse.

"The conduct represented a serious departure from professional standards, in that this was a serious offence of dishonesty.

"[The veterinary nurse] has not demonstrated any remorse for her behaviour and instead has sought to blame others; she has demonstrated a complete lack of insight, especially in regard to the impact of her behaviour on public confidence and trust in the profession.

"In light of these conclusions, the Committee decided that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case was removal from the Register."

“The Committee determined that it was important that a clear message be sent that this sort of behaviour is wholly inappropriate and not to be tolerated.

"It brought discredit upon [the veterinary nurse] and discredit upon the profession.”