23 Feb 2022
RCVS disciplinary committee removes Walter Dingemanse from the register after he was handed an eight-month suspended jail term for possessing indecent images of children and extreme animal abuse.
Vet Times
Job Title
A vet has been struck off after being found guilty of possessing indecent images of children and extreme animal abuse.
Walter Dingemanse was handed an eight-month suspended prison term at Oxford Crown Court last October and had his name placed on the sex offenders register.
The court heard how police raided the home of 35-year-old Dr Dingemanse in Streatley, near Reading, after a tip-off he’d been swapping messages on the Kik app, boasting of sexually abusing a girl and saying he wanted to set up a group for “pervy dads”.
During the raid, police found a hard drive containing two category A indecent images of children, one category B picture and seven images in category C. He also had 22 extreme pornographic images showing people having sex with animals.
Following the conviction, the RCVS disciplinary committee held an online hearing last week (14 to 15 February), which Dr Dingemanse attended and was represented by his solicitor, Mr Primmer.
In relation to the charges, the committee was presented with evidence taken from the transcripts of Dr Dingemanse’s Crown Court sentencing hearing.
Counsel for the college submitted to the disciplinary committee that the nature of circumstances of the offences rendered Dr Dingemanse unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon. Mr Primmer indicated to the committee that Dr Dingemanse accepted this.
In its decision relating to Dr Dingemanse’s fitness to practise, the committee described Dr Dingemanse’s behaviour that led to the conviction as “inexplicable” and “abhorrent”, and that his possession of the images of children and animals was “disgraceful conduct of the most grievous and reprehensible kind”.
The committee did not consider that there were any mitigating factors in the case, but did consider there to be several aggravating factors, including: actual (albeit indirect) injury to an animal or child; the risk of harm to an animal or child; lack of integrity for a regulated professional to have behaved in such a way; premeditated conduct; and that the offences involved vulnerable children and animals.
Cerys Jones, chairing the committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Dr Dingemanse’s conduct was [also] liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession and to undermine public confidence in the profession.
“The fact that he was a veterinary surgeon was made clear at the Crown Court hearing. The committee considered that members of the public would rightly be appalled that a registered veterinary surgeon had committed offences of this nature.”
When deciding on the appropriate sanction, the committee took into account all of the evidence, including Dr Dingemanse’s expression of remorse and steps towards rehabilitation.
Mr Primmer invited the committee to consider suspending Dr Dingemanse from the register as his client’s sanction, but the committee did not feel that this was appropriate.
Cerys Jones added: “The committee considered that suspending Dr Dingemanse’s registration would not be sufficient to maintain confidence in the profession and that, therefore, for public interest reasons, as well as animal protection, a suspension would not be sufficient.
“The committee was of the view that the nature and seriousness of Dr Dingemanse’s behaviour, which led to the conviction, was fundamentally incompatible with being registered as a veterinary surgeon, and that all of the above matters listed were applicable in this case. The committee decided that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case was removal from the register.”
Dr Dingemanse has 28 days from being notified of his removal from the register to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.
The committee’s full findings can be viewed at www.rcvs.org.uk/disciplinary
