11 Sept 2026
Members questioned whether a case of a VN voluntarily disclosing spent convictions warranted a DC hearing and whether students are suitably informed of fitness to practise requirements.
Chris Simpson
Job Title
Image © Chinnapong / Adobe Stock
Questions have been raised about RCVS’ disciplinary processes and whether enough is done to ensure prospective clinicians are made aware of its fitness to practise requirements.
In a VN council meeting on 8 September, members discussed a recent disciplinary committee (DC) hearing involving an RVN who voluntarily declared multiple theft and public order convictions on registration to the RCVS last year.
The nurse, who was not required to declare the convictions as they were spent, ultimately faced no further action and Vet Times made the decision not to publish the case.
Council member Susan Howarth, who was cleared of serious professional misconduct by the DC last December, questioned if the nurse was counselled that she could face a hearing.
In the hearing, the RVN faced 15 charges relating to a string of convictions dating between 2008 and 2020, none of which resulted in an immediate custodial sentence.
She had contacted the RCVS for advice on becoming a vet nurse in 2021 and was informed of the possibility of a disciplinary hearing if she did apply to join the register.
The VN told the DC she disclosed her convictions because she felt they should be discussed.
While the DC found they involved dishonesty, financial gain and demonstrated a sustained pattern of criminal offending, it found no harm or risk of harm to animals and observed no concerns about her competence or quality of practice.
The VN’s “open and honest” communication with the RCVS prior to registration was among the mitigating factors considered, alongside her remorse, steps taken to avoid reoffending, difficult personal circumstances she faced at the time and significant time lapse since the last offence.
Council member Bethan Pinhey said she was “quite surprised” the case went all the way through to a DC hearing and questioned whether it was appropriate.
She also highlighted the case was not anonymised, noting: “That’s quite a big thing. That’s a brand new nurse on the register and if we’re talking about workforce [issues] and finding jobs that could really be quite detrimental for somebody.”
Another member added: “Especially if they’ve turned their life around and made a career for themselves, and to go through something that can be very traumatic, I think questions should be asked.”
Mrs Howarth, the VN programme manager at Harper Adams University, said: “It got me thinking around the fitness to practise information that we ask from students…
“When thinking about accreditation visits we make sure that universities, when we go out, have got fitness to practise policies and things in place.
“But I don’t know how well we scrutinise that to try and prevent this sort of thing happening.”
She continued: “I just wondered if there was something more we could do for people [in this situation from an] education perspective… It’s still not a small thing to go through.”
Mrs Howarth concluded: “[Conduct and fitness to practise protocols are] not always internal to a university.
“The powers that be don’t always appreciate the knock-on consequences, and so sometimes you can feel a bit like a one-woman island holding that knowledge of which students have had what done.”
In response to the debate, VN Council chair Kirsty Young said: “We can perhaps take that back to that group, but obviously the discipline committee have got their processes.
“It needs to be a clear and transparent process, and they do have legal advice within that process, so they will have followed that advice very clearly.”