Disciplinary Committee takes no further action against VN over previous spent convictions

Abbie Town RVN appeared before the Committee on Wednesday 3 and Thursday 4 June 2026, in relation to 15 charges against her, all of which concerned previous criminal convictions dating between 2008 and 2020. The convictions (which can be found in the full list of charges) comprise theft and public order offences, all of which are now spent and none of which resulted in an immediate custodial sentence. 

Miss Town had declared all the offences to the RCVS when she joined the Register of Veterinary Nurses in 2025, and, at the outset of the hearing, admitted to all the charges against her. 

The Committee considered whether the admitted convictions affected Miss Town’s fitness to practise and amounted to serious professional misconduct, taking into account both aggravating and mitigating factors arising from the charges. 

The Committee heard that, although Miss Town was not required to declare spent convictions with the RCVS upon joining the Register, she had decided to do so in order to be open and honest with her regulator and take responsibility for her previous actions. 

In considering aggravating factors, the Committee took into account that her convictions involved dishonesty, financial gain and that there was a sustained pattern of criminal offending over a number of years. However, in terms of mitigation, the Committee found there was no actual harm or risk of harm to animals evident in her previous offending, and that no concerns had been raised about her competence or the quality of her practise since joining the Register. 

However, while the Committee recognised that the offending had taken place before she joined the Register of Veterinary Nurses, it found that the crimes she had committed constituted serious professional misconduct and undermined public confidence in the profession. 

In considering the most appropriate sanction for Miss Town, the Committee took into account a number of additional mitigating factors, including: the fact she demonstrated insight and remorse into her offending; the difficult personal circumstances at the time of offending; efforts to avoid repeating the offending; her frank personal statement to the RCVS prior to registration; significant lapse of time since the last offence; and positive character testimonials.

Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee took into account the significant insight and remediation shown, and the minimal risk of repeating the behaviour which led to the criminal offences. The last criminal offence took place in 2020, there has been no repetition, and the offences are spent. The respondent has been open and honest with the RCVS since prior to her registration, a fact which was in fact acknowledged in a letter from the RCVS to the respondent.”

He added: “In all the circumstances, the Committee was not satisfied that the public interest required a sanction to protect it. The Committee decided that the demands of the public interest were adequately marked and served by the findings already made that the convictions rendered the respondent unfit to practise and that she had been guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.

“As a result, the Committee decided that it would be appropriate and proportionate to impose no further action in this case.”

The full facts and findings regarding the hearing can be found on our Disciplinary Committee hearings webpage.