Lancashire-based vet suspended for one month for dishonest expense claims

Dr Andrew Rutherford MRCVS appeared before the Committee on Wednesday 10 and Thursday 11 June with two charges against him. 

The first charge concerned a number of purchases he had made using a practice credit card between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2019 which were actually intended for his personal use. The total amount of those purchases was £8,495.77. Purchases included: £134.92 on timber, limestone, sand and plywood; £139.99 on aluminium; £125 on calcium propionate; £571.60 on “Sheet Plastics” and £233.99 on an Apple iPhone. False invoices were produced to account for the spending. 

The second charge was that his conduct in relation to the first charge was dishonest. 

The Committee was of the view that using the practice credit card for personal purchases and creating false invoices to cover his tracks had breached the fundamental principles of honesty and integrity expected of the profession. This conduct also risked bringing the profession into disrepute with the public and eroding public confidence in the veterinary profession.”

 

At the outset of the hearing Dr Rutherford admitted all the charges against him and also admitted that, in his view, the conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.

With the facts of Dr Rutherford’s conduct having been found proved, the Committee went on to consider itself whether this amounted to serious professional misconduct.  

The Committee took into account that Dr Rutherford’s conduct involved a series of dishonest actions, sustained over a number of months, and that this was not a momentary lapse of judgement but had clearly involved time and thought, as demonstrated by creating false invoices. 

Neil Slater, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was of the view that using the practice credit card for personal purchases and creating false invoices to cover his tracks had breached the fundamental principles of honesty and integrity expected of the profession. This conduct also risked bringing the profession into disrepute with the public and eroding public confidence in the veterinary profession.”

He added: “The Committee decided that the conduct fell far below the expected standards, and further breached the fundamental principles of honesty, integrity and professional accountability. There was intentional and calculated misappropriation of practice funds with a deliberate attempt to cover his wrongdoing. The Committee determined that this was disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”

Having found Dr Rutherford guilty of serious professional misconduct, the Committee went on to consider the most appropriate and proportionate sanction for him, taking into account aggravating and mitigating factors. 

In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee considered that Dr Rutherford: had been reckless towards the potential impact on fellow professionals and the reputation of the practice; that the conduct was premeditated and sustained; that he had breached the trust placed in him by his employer and that the conduct was undertaken for financial gain. It also took into account that Dr Rutherford had a previous RCVS Disciplinary Committee finding against him for dishonesty regarding mobility score assessments for cattle for which he had previously been suspended from the Register. 

In mitigation, the Committee considered that Dr Rutherford had apologised for his behaviour, had admitted the allegations, had made frank admissions to his employer and to the RCVS during their respective investigations, and had remediated the conduct by undertaking psychotherapy and counselling as well as repaying his debt to the practice. The Committee also found there had been a significant lapse of time without further misconduct and that Dr Rutherford had demonstrated insight via personal reflection, acknowledging the potential of serious concern to public confidence.

Taking all this into account, the Committee decided that suspension for one month was the most appropriate and proportionate sanction to take.

Concluding, Neil Slater said: “In considering the period of suspension, the extensive mitigation and the insight demonstrated by the respondent, with no great risk of repetition of events given the salutary lesson that these proceedings have provided, has been taken into account by the Committee. 

“The Committee concluded that, in all the circumstances, the respondent’s disgraceful conduct in a professional respect was not so serious that it was fundamentally incompatible with continued registration. The Committee decided that the sanction of suspension was sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession as a whole, and to uphold proper professional standards. 

“Without the mitigation available, a much longer period of suspension would have been considered appropriate and proportionate. The Committee has determined that following a period of suspension that the respondent is safe to return to practice.”

The full facts and findings of the Committee can be found on the disciplinary hearings section of our website.