DC reprimands farm vets for dishonesty over TB advisory service visit reports

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded two farm vets for dishonestly signing reports relating to non-existent tuberculosis advisory service (TBAS) visits to a farm.

The hearing for Dr Christopher Butterworth MRCVS and Dr Melissa Bexon MRCVS took place from Wednesday 1 to Tuesday 7 October 2025, and each of them had two charges against them.

For Dr Butterworth the first charge was that he had signed a TBAS visit report, in which he was named as the TBAS advisor, relating to a visit to a farm on 23 February 2023 which had, in fact, not taken place and then subsequently signed a report about a follow-up visit on 10 July 2023 which also hadn’t taken place. The second charge was that the actions outlined in the first charge were dishonest, misleading and risked undermining procedures relating to public health and animal welfare.

For Dr Bexon the first charge relates to the fact that she signed the same two false reports as a representative of the farm in question. Similarly, the second charge was that her actions were dishonest, misleading and risked undermining procedures relating to public health and animal welfare.

The circumstances of the case relate to Dr Butterworth’s practice’s membership of the TBAS, a Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs-funded (Defra) project administered by Farmcare Solutions Ltd which provides advice to eligible farmers via its veterinary partners. The farm to which the charges relate to was owned by Dr Bexon’s partner, had no cattle on-site (though was still eligible for the TBAS) and the false reports were made without the farmer’s consent or knowledge.

Prior to the start of the hearing both Dr Butterworth and Dr Bexon admitted all the charges against them and that these charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.

“The Committee considered both respondents’ conduct was liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession and undermined public confidence in the profession and the TBAS process. The Committee considered that members of the public would be deeply troubled that registered veterinary surgeons had behaved in this way,” Paul Morris, DC Chair. 

The Committee also found that their actions amounted to serious professional misconduct in that they had breached three of the five key principles in the Code of Professional Conduct relating to: honesty and integrity; client confidentiality and trust; and professional accountability. The Committee also found that the actions of both veterinary surgeons had breached the ’10 principles of certification’ outlined in the supporting guidance to the Code.

Considering Mr Butterworth’s conduct, the Committee found that there were a number of aggravating factors including: the premeditated nature of the conduct as he was the driving force behind the deceit; the fact there was financial gain as his practice would have been paid for the non-existent visits; breach of confidentiality for the farmer; breach of client trust for Farmcare Solutions Ltd; and abuse of professional position as a TBAS advisor.

For Dr Bexon the aggravating factors were breach of confidentiality for the farmer, breach of client trust for Farmcare Solutions Ltd, and the fact that, as a TBAS advisor, she should have known that physical visits to farms within the scheme were mandatory.

Paul Morris, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee considered both respondents’ conduct was liable to have a seriously detrimental effect on the reputation of the profession and undermined public confidence in the profession and the TBAS process. The Committee considered that members of the public would be deeply troubled that registered veterinary surgeons had behaved in this way.”

Having found misconduct proven for both veterinary surgeons, the Committee then went on to consider the most appropriate sanctions for Dr Butterworth and Dr Bexon, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors in each of their conduct.

“In such circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that a reprimand and warning not to behave in this way again, would provide adequate protection to animals and would satisfy the public interest," Paul Morris, DC Chair. 

At the hearing the Committee received a large number of positive testimonials in respect of Dr Butterworth, including three given directly to the Committee – one from a veterinary surgeon colleague and two from farmer clients. In addition to the previously cited aggravating factors, the Committee considered the following in mitigation: his lack of previous disciplinary history and otherwise unblemished career; open and frank admissions at an early stage; insight into his misconduct; genuine remorse and positive reflection; efforts to avoid a repetition of behaviours and evidence of a more mature approach to management; lapse of time since the incident; and positive testimonials.

Taking everything into account the Committee decided reprimanding Dr Butterworth and warning him with regard to future conduct was the most appropriate and proportionate response.

Paul Morris said: “The Committee did give serious consideration to suspending Dr Butterworth’s registration with the College. Such a sanction would have sent out a clear message that this sort of behaviour is absolutely not to be tolerated. However, in light of the extensive mitigation, his honesty and significant insight throughout these proceedings and the unlikeliness of behaviour of this type ever being repeated, the Committee considered the public would not be best served by suspending an otherwise exemplary veterinary surgeon and that such a sanction would be disproportionate and punitive.”

He added: “In such circumstances, the Committee was satisfied that a reprimand and warning not to behave in this way again, would provide adequate protection to animals and would satisfy the public interest. The Committee was persuaded that Dr Butterworth would be most unlikely to make such a flawed set of decisions again. Notwithstanding the serious nature of Dr Butterworth’s conduct, the Committee was satisfied that a fully informed member of the public would not be shocked if he were allowed to continue to practise.”

Considering the sanction for Dr Bexon, the Committee also received a significant number of positive testimonials, with three veterinary surgeon colleagues giving oral evidence to the Committee. In mitigation the Committee considered: her lack of disciplinary history and hitherto unblemished career; open and frank admissions; insight, remorse and positive reflections; efforts to avoid repetition of the behaviours; lapse of time since the event; and positive testimonials.

Taking everything into account, the Committee decided to reprimand Dr Bexon. Paul Morris commented: “This was not a case where she had been motivated by any financial gain. Indeed, everything the Committee had read and heard about her indicated the opposite and furthermore, it was apparent that she had nothing to gain by her actions beyond satisfying Dr Butterworth. As already stated, the Committee acknowledged that the role played by Dr Bexon was less than that played by Dr Butterworth. Moreover, there was a power imbalance at play and Dr Butterworth was able to take advantage of, albeit unknowingly, Dr Bexon’s lack of self-confidence.”

He added: “The Committee has already indicated that it believed the likelihood of her repeating such behaviour to be non-existent. Her significant insight, together with the reflection and remedial work she has undertaken are as much as any person could do. She had truly learnt her lesson in the harshest of ways. In the Committee’s view she did not represent any risk to animals or the public, indeed quite the contrary as she is a very able vet, in high demand by her clients.”

Please note: this news story is intended to help with understanding the case and the Committee's decision. The full decision of the Committee can be found on our disciplinary hearings webpage.