Former British Horseracing Authority veterinary officer removed from Register after creating false doctors’ note

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) Disciplinary Committee has directed that a former veterinary officer of the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) be removed from the Register, after she created a false communication from her GP as part of an internal BHA disciplinary process.

Miss Bethan Cook MRCVS appeared before the Committee online from Monday 16 to Thursday 19 February 2026.

The charges against her, in summary, were, that while in practice at the BHA:

1. In or around May 2024 and June 2024, Miss Cook: a) created a report purporting to be from her GP, b) submitted or caused or allowed the report to be submitted to the BHA as part of an internal disciplinary process relating to her conduct, thereby representing that report was from her GP when it wasn’t.
2. On 7 June 2024, during a telephone call with the Head of Human Resources at the BHA, stated that her GP had provided the report to her when they hadn’t.
3. On or around 10 June 2024, Miss Cook: a) created another document purporting to be a letter from her GP; b) created an email purporting to be from her GP, including an email address purporting to belong to her GP; c) forwarded said email to her head of HR with the letter attached, thereby representing that the email message and letter were from her GP when they weren’t.
4. Miss Cook’s conduct in relation to 1(a), 1(b), 2, 3(a), 3(b) and/or 3(c) above, whether individually or in any combination, was: a) misleading; and/or b) dishonest.

From the outset of the hearing Miss Cook admitted all parts of charges 1, 2 and 3 as well as charge 4a. In relation to charge 4b, that her conduct had been dishonest, the Committee having heard Miss Cook’s position noted the allegation as being denied and proceeded with the hearing on that basis. 

Taking all evidence into account, the Committee decided it was sure that Miss Cook had created both documents in the knowledge that they represented themselves as having been prepared by her GP, when she knew that was not the case. The Committee was satisfied that this conduct would be regarded as dishonest and therefore found charge 4 (b) proved.

On deciding whether Miss Cook’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct, taking all evidence into account, the Committee found that her conduct fell far below the standards expected of a veterinary surgeon and breached the fundamental principles of honesty, integrity and professional accountability. It therefore found the proved charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.

When deciding on a sanction, the Committee considered relevant aggravating and mitigating factors.

Aggravating factors included:

• Miss Cook had been reckless towards the potential impact on a fellow professional (her GP).
• Her conduct has been premeditated in relation to her actions in charges 2 and 3.
• Her actions had breached the trust of the BHA as part of the employment contract.
• Her misconduct had been sustained in that she had created and forwarded the forged doctor’s report and had continued her dishonest conduct over the phone by creating and sending a further letter and covering email.

In mitigation, the Committee considered:

• Miss Cook had no previous disciplinary findings against her in her long career history.
• She had apologised for her conduct to the Committee and had admitted the factual allegations, bar dishonesty.
• Her conduct had not been for direct financial gain: however, her purpose had been to return to practice, either by avoiding an internal disciplinary process, or minimising its outcome.

Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “Miss Cook had placed her own interests, in seeking to avoid or influence the employment disciplinary process, above the principles of honesty, integrity and professional accountability. The Committee concluded that, in all the circumstances, her misconduct in a professional respect was so serious that it was fundamentally incompatible with continued registration.

“The Committee decided that no lesser sanction than removal was sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession as a whole, or to uphold proper professional standards, and therefore directed that Miss Cook’s name be removed from the Register.”

Miss Cook has 28 days from being informed of her removal from the Register to appeal the Committee’s decision.