RCVS Disciplinary Committee takes no further action against vet convicted of indecent assault

Dr Craig Kirby MRCVS initially appeared before the Committee on 5 and 6 November 2025, and later on 24 and 25 September 2026 in relation to the fact that on 22 January 2025, following a guilty plea, he was convicted of four counts of indecent assault on a man aged 16 or over. He was subsequently sentenced to a total of 18 months’ imprisonment suspended for 18 months, a 60-day rehabilitation activity requirement and a 12-month mental health treatment order, notified of a 10-year requirement to register with the police and directed to pay compensation.

Initially, Dr Kirby made an application that his case should be heard in private but the application was refused.  Dr Kirby sought a judicial review of that decision, which led to the matter being adjourned until the conclusion of that review. The High Court refused Dr Kirby’s application  and the matter was then resumed.  The Committee agreed, however, that all matters relating to Dr Kirby’s health would be held in private.

In November 2025, the Committee found the charge proved on the basis of Dr Kirby’s admission to the College, which was supported by evidence - namely the copy extract of the Memorandum of Conviction from the Crown Court at Basildon.

In determining Dr Kirby’s fitness to practise, the Committee took into account the submissions of the College and of Dr Kirby together with the supporting information he provided. The Committee also accepted the advice of the legal assessor and took into account the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons.

The Committee found that Dr Kirby had breached part 6.5 of the Code, that: veterinary surgeons must not engage in any activity or behaviour that would be likely to bring the profession into disrepute or undermine public confidence in the profession.

It also found the following aggravating factors: actual injury to a human, predatory behaviour towards a client or colleague, the involvement of a vulnerable client (here a 16-year-old work experience student), any relevant increased position of trust or responsibility, and conduct exacerbated by drug or alcohol use. 

In addition, it took into account that, while the suspended period of Dr Kirby’s prison sentence came to an end in July 2026, he will remain on the Sex Offenders’ Register until 2035. It also noted the fact that his actions had caused serious and lasting harm to another individual.

The Committee therefore found that his conviction rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.

When deciding on a sanction, the Committee took into account all the evidence before it as well as aggravating and mitigating factors.

It found the same aggravating factors as when considering fitness to practise, while mitigating factors included: no previous adverse disciplinary findings, a long and unblemished career, open and honest with the court process and the College, subsequent significant efforts to avoid the repetition of such behaviour, subsequent efforts made to remediate past behaviour, significant time lapse since the incident, significant demonstration of insight into the offences committed, and a number of impressive personal character references and testimonials.

The Committee noted that the judge overseeing Dr Kirby’s case thought he was at low risk of re-offending and didn’t feel the need to make a Sexual Harm Prevention Order and also felt able to suspend the prison sentence. It also recognised that had these matters been dealt with at the time of the offences (in the 1990s), Dr Kirby would no longer be on the Sex Offenders’ Register. The Committee agreed with the judge that Dr Kirby was unlikely to reoffend now, as demonstrated by the past 24 years without any further offending. It therefore decided that the fact Dr Kirby had been placed on the Sex Offenders’ Register did not influence its decision on a sanction, as it was only linked to risk and no perceptible risk had been identified.    

Neil Slater, Chair of the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee is in no doubt that Dr Kirby is a most valued member of the profession, working in a particularly challenging field that does not attract many who join the profession. As a result, he is rather uniquely experienced, and it was clear that any time spent off the Register could have a seriously detrimental impact on this particular area of the profession.

“The Committee was satisfied that Dr Kirby does not, and never has, represented any risk of harm to the welfare of animals, indeed quite the opposite, he could not do more to protect the welfare of animals, but that is not what this case is about. This case is about the need for registered veterinary surgeons to not engage in any activity or behaviour that would be likely to bring the profession into disrepute, or undermine public confidence in the profession.

“Clearly he has failed in this regard, as reflected in the Committee’s finding on unfitness to practise. Looking ahead, the Committee had to decide whether allowing Dr Kirby to remain on the Register would continue to undermine public confidence in the profession. That meant considering whether a fully informed member of the public, knowing all that this Committee knows, would conclude that removal from the Register, either by way of suspension or removal is the only way to ensure public confidence is maintained. For all the reasons referred to, the Committee did not believe this to be so, as demonstrated by many of the comments made by his professional colleagues.”

The Committee took into account the College’s guidance on sanctions, which indicates that in certain cases, where a person is found guilty of serious professional misconduct or a conviction renders them unfit to practise, it is sufficient to protect animals and the wider public interest without a reprimand or warning as to future conduct. In such cases, the Committee can close the case with ‘no further action’.

Having taken all the evidence into account, the Committee decided this was the case.

Neil Slater added: “Although the Committee has not imposed a sanction in this case, Dr Kirby should be in no doubt that any finding of unfitness by his regulatory body is a serious matter and he should not take this finding lightly.”

The full facts and findings of the Committee can be found on  Disciplinary Committee hearings webpage.