Baby’s death has ‘no bearing’ on RVN’s work, panel rules

An RVN who admitted being in charge of a dog that fatally attacked her baby daughter will remain on the RCVS register following a disciplinary committee hearing.

Lawyers for the college argued Karen Marie Alcock should be deemed unfit to practise to maintain the profession’s public standing.

But a newly published report shows the panel concluded the case had “no bearing” on her professional capabilities and was “a tragedy to all concerned”.

Ms Alcock was sentenced to eight months in prison, suspended for two years, plus 80 hours’ unpaid work, at Lincoln Crown Court in August last year.

She had previously pleaded guilty to being in charge of a dog that was dangerously out of control and that had caused fatal injuries to her three-month-old daughter, Kyra, in March 2022.

Ms Alcock admitted the conviction when she appeared before the disciplinary panel on 26 March.

Contribution

But, giving evidence, she said she wanted to return to the profession and felt she had a “great deal to contribute” to it.

She also told the committee she had been in what she now recognised as “an abusive and controlling relationship” at the time of the tragedy and had been referred to a local domestic abuse charity.

The report, published on the college’s website, further stated that her then partner had previous convictions for earlier and similar behaviour, which Ms Alcock had not been aware of at the time.

College counsel Nicole Curtis acknowledged the “powerful mitigating circumstances”, but said they did not constitute a defence to the offence Ms Alcock had admitted in court and for which her sentence was still live.

She said convictions did not need to be a matter of professional conduct to render an offender unfit to practise and highlighted the case of a dentist who was struck off over unrelated criminal offences after his initial suspension was deemed too lenient.

Ms Curtis also argued the offence involved a matter of animal husbandry and was “of such a grave nature that it has the potential to bring the profession into disrepute”.

But Adam Jamieson, for Ms Alcock, said his client had practised “without deficit” for more than 20 years and reasonable members of the public would consider her case “with sympathy, rather than condemnation”.

Behavioural assessment

A behavioural assessment also found “no cause for concern” in the behaviour of the dog involved in the case, which was said not to pose “any obvious and immediate danger to public safety”.

In its conclusions, the committee said the profession would only be brought into disrepute if a conviction established “scandalous or shocking behaviour” on Ms Alcock’s part, adding: “That is not the case here.”

The report went on: “It is not a case about a failure to take proper charge of a dog known to be dangerous or potentially out of control.

“It is not a case about animal husbandry in respect of the dog in question. It is not a case about Ms Alcock’s practice as a veterinary nurse.”

The panel also stressed it was “anxious not to overstate” the relevance of domestic abuse to the case, but said the fact Ms Alcock was not barred from keeping animals indicated it was “an unforeseeable tragic accident”.