Vet nurse struck off following child grooming conviction

A veterinary nurse has been struck off by the RCVS after being convicted of communicating with someone they believed to be aged under 16 for the purposes of sexual gratification.

In a highly unusual step, the RCVS veterinary nurse disciplinary committee took the decision to grant anonymity to the RVN, who appeared before the committee on Wednesday 3 and Thursday 4 March 2021.

Security threat

In doing so, the committee accepted the evidence of a “real and immediate threat” to the individual’s security if their details were made public.

The committee decided that reference to the respondent’s name in the charge and in the course of the hearing should be anonymised to “X” to protect their safety and security.

Sexual gratification

In considering the facts of the case, the committee heard that the individual pleaded guilty in court in 2020 to intentionally and knowingly attempting to communicate with a person under 16 years for the purposes of sexual gratification.

Following this they were sentenced to a two-year probation order, ordered to register on the Sexual Offences Register for five years, and made subject to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order for five years.

15-year-old

The committee then considered whether the conviction amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In considering this, it set out the aggravating factors surrounding the case – these being:

• that there was the risk of actual harm to a minor
• that the misconduct was premeditated as the respondent had sent a number of messages via a number of online platforms over several days
• that the individual displayed predatory behaviour, including sending pictures and making comments of a sexual nature
• that it involved what the respondent believed to be a vulnerable individual, namely a 15-year-old child

Isolated incident

In mitigation, the committee considered there had been no actual harm caused to a human or animal in light of the fact the 15-year-old child, who the respondent believed they were communicating with, was not real.

It also took into account that the conduct related to a single isolated incident, and that the individual had made open and frank admissions at an early stage.

Unfit to practise

Cerys Jones, chairing the committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The committee was satisfied that the sentence imposed on X, which included X being subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order until 2025, resulted in the profession of veterinary nurses being brought into disrepute and, in the committee’s judgement, public confidence in the profession would be undermined if the committee did not find that the conviction rendered X unfit to practise as a veterinary nurse.”

The full findings for the case can be found on the RCVS website.