Lancashire vet suspended over credit card misuse

A Lancashire-based vet who fraudulently spent thousands of pounds on a credit card linked to the practice he co-owned has been given a second one-month suspension.

Andrew Rutherford’s conduct was only referred to the RCVS three years after he had admitted what he had done to his fellow owners and directors.

But they chose not to report him at the time, arguing prosecution would not be “in anybody’s interest” because of the actions he took at that point.

Dr Rutherford admitted making multiple purchases, worth around £8,500 in total, while a co-owner and director of Farm Gate Vets in 2019.

Actions unreported

Documents published following a two-day disciplinary committee hearing last month revealed the purchases, which included garden items, building materials and an iPhone, were discovered and reported by the practice manager.

During cross-examination at the hearing, Dr Rutherford admitted the purchases were made to subsequently return the goods and obtain refunds to his personal account.

He admitted his actions and ceased to be a practice director following an internal disciplinary process in February 2020.

But while he continued to work at the practice as an employee for several more months, his actions went unreported to both the college and the police.

When asked why the police were not alerted, the practice insisted all options had been “carefully considered”.

But they added: “Given his immediate admissions and the remedial action that he had already taken, such as the reassurance he would repay the money and engaging with counselling, we did not see how a prosecution would be in anybody’s interest.”

Extensive mitigation

The report said the case was only referred to the college in the summer of 2023 by a vet to whom Dr Rutherford had spoken about his actions during an event in Somerset.

The committee also heard he had faced previous disciplinary proceedings when he was suspended along with two others in 2022 over dishonest bovine mobility score assessments.

But several character witnesses also gave evidence on Dr Rutherford’s behalf, including who praised him as a “moral and upstanding person who is honest in his business dealings”.

The committee described the mitigation provided as “extensive” and warned Dr Rutherford would have been likely to have faced a more longer suspension without it.