RVN removed from Register following burglary conviction

The hearing for Mrs Claire Turner RVN took place online via Zoom on Tuesday 11 May and Wednesday 12 May. Mrs Turner wrote to the College prior to the hearing stating that she would not be attending and she was not represented. The College requested the Committee proceed with the hearing in Mrs Turner’s absence which it agreed to do so.

The charge against her was that:

1. On 8 August 2025, at Llandudno Magistrates’ Court, Mrs Turner was convicted, following a guilty plea, of burglary, contrary to section 9(1)(b) of the Theft Act 1968; And, in respect of this conviction, was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 18 months and to an order to carry out unpaid work for 140 hours within the next 12 months; was ordered to pay compensation of £761.20; and made subject to a restraining order until 7 August 2030.

The particulars of the offence, to which Mrs Turner originally pleaded not guilty before changing her plea to guilty, in summary were that between 20 January 2024 and 26 March 2024 at Colwyn Bay, Mrs Turner, entered the practice premises as a trespasser and stole veterinary medication of an unknown value, including ketamine.

The Committee found the charge proved on the basis of Mrs Turner’s admission to the College that she entered a guilty plea at court which was also supported by evidence from the Llandudno Magistrates’ Court.

The Committee noted that although she admitted entering a guilty plea, she had continued to deny taking ketamine, but the Committee accepted the court’s version of events and saw no need to investigate further. Other drugs taken, as listed in the police summary, included methadone, fentanyl patches, buprenorphine, and medetomidine.

In determining Mrs Turner’s fitness to practise, the Committee considered the submissions of the College and noted the Mrs Turner didn’t dispute the nature and circumstances of the offence leading to her conviction beyond claiming that she never took ketamine. It also found that she breached parts 1.5 and 6.5 of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses relating to the responsible administering of medicines and the fact that veterinary nurses must not engage in any activities that would likely bring the profession into disrepute.

It also took into account the following aggravating factors:

• committing a criminal offence that involves dishonesty;
• committing a criminal offence directly linked to her professional role;
• a serious abuse of trust placed in her by virtue of her professional position as a Registered Veterinary Nurse;
• allowing suspicion to fall on a junior member of the practice team;
• premeditated conduct involving an element of planning and deception - she entered the premises using a fob she had been given as an employee and, as part of the offence, she accessed the practice computer to order medication she wished to steal;
• an abuse of her professional position;
• the burglaries were repeated over a period of time on many occasions;
• potential impact on the welfare of animals brought to the practice if necessary medication were unavailable due to having been taken by Mrs Turner;
• financial gain, in that Mrs Turner obtained a significant quantity of medication without having to pay for it.

It was found that her conduct fell far below the standard expected of a registered veterinary nurse and that her conviction was serious enough to render her unfit to practise.

In deciding upon a sanction, the Committee took into account all written evidence before it. It also considered the same aggravating factors taken into account in the decision on fitness to practice (as stated above) as well as some additional factors: Mrs Turner showed a complete lack of insight; her lack of apology, remorse and the fact there was no evidence of remediation; and, her denials right up to the court date  as well as the fact she still denied taking ketamine and sought to place blame on the practice owner. In mitigation, the Committee considered that Mrs Turner had no previous adverse disciplinary findings against her.

Paul Morris, chairing the committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was of the view that the nature and seriousness of Mrs Turner’s behaviour, which led to the conviction, was fundamentally incompatible with being registered as a veterinary nurse. The conduct represented a serious departure from professional standards, in that this was a serious offence of dishonesty. Mrs Turner has not demonstrated any remorse for her behaviour and instead has sought to blame others; she has demonstrated a complete lack of insight, especially in regard to the impact of her behaviour on public confidence and trust in the profession. In light of these conclusions, the Committee decided that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case was removal from the Register…

“The Committee determined that it was important that a clear message be sent that this sort of behaviour is wholly inappropriate and not to be tolerated. It brought discredit upon Mrs Turner and discredit upon the profession.”

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