Veterinary surgeon receives reprimand and warning following driving conviction

Dr Tudor Herlea MRCVS was convicted on 15 January 2025 at the Cluj Court of Appeal, Romania, and was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment suspended for two years. In addition, he was made subject to probation/supervision during the period of the suspended sentence.

He appeared before the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons Disciplinary Committee at the RCVS offices in Hardwick Street, London, from Wednesday 4 to Friday 6 February. 

In considering Dr Herlea’s fitness to practise, the Committee took into account all the evidence before it, including the events leading up to the conviction. These were that, shortly after midnight on 5 February 2023, Dr Herlea was driving a vehicle when he was stopped by the police in a routine stop and tested for alcohol and he was over the limit. His licence had also previously been suspended as a result of a speeding offence in December 2022 constituting a traffic contravention, resulting in a three month “administrative” suspension from driving, ending on 27 February 2023.

It also considered aggravating and mitigating factors, as well as Dr Herlea’s statement made as part of the criminal proceedings, which indicated that he had been drinking at his home when his father arrived and became unwell. His father did not have his medication with him, so Dr Herlea then decided to drive to a nearby pharmacy when he was stopped by the police.

The Committee found that Dr Herlea’s conviction rendered him incompatible with paragraph 6.5 of the professions governing code not to engage in any behaviour that would likely bring the profession into disrepute or undermine public confidence in the profession and found him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.

When considering a sanction, the Committee again took into account aggravating and mitigating factors.

Aggravating factors, in summary were:

• his disregard of the legal prohibition against his entitlement to drive;
• the extent to which the alcohol levels in his blood exceeded the prescribed limit;
• the risk of injury to others;
• he knew he had been drinking and that his licence was suspended but still chose to drive which the Committee viewed as reckless;
• he must have known of the effect his consumption of alcohol would have on his ability to drive safely;
• he chose to drive at night when visibility was poor; and
• he chose not to consider safer alternative ways of getting the medicine.

Mitigating factors in summary, were:

• his frank and early admissions to his employer and his early decision to notify the RCVS of his convictions and sentence;
• the favourable report from his probation officer confirming his compliance with his community service and assessing a low likelihood of further offending;
• his genuine remorse, full acceptance of responsibility and insight into the offence; and
• the positive references from his colleagues who described him as a capable, caring and supportive veterinary surgeon who acts calmly under pressure, and that if he were unable to practise it would be a loss to the profession.

It was also noted that no actual harm was caused to any animal or human, that it was a single isolated incident, and that Dr Herlea has an unblemished record to date.

Hilary Lloyd, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The misconduct of Dr Herlea is serious but, considering the mitigating factors present in this case, the Committee concluded that a period of suspension was neither necessary nor proportionate.

“The consequence of a period of suspension is that the Registrar removes the veterinary surgeon’s name from the Register during the period ordered. It is then automatically restored to the Register at the conclusion of the period of suspension. Dr Herlea would be obliged to inform the Home Office that he was no longer able to comply with the terms of his work permit, as would his sponsor practice. It is not therefore unreasonable to assume that under current Home Office guidance, even a short period of suspension would result in Dr Herlea being unable to practise in the UK, with permanent effect, which would be disproportionate.

“The Committee concluded that a reprimand and warning as to Dr Herlea’s future conduct was the appropriate sanction. If Dr Herlea commits any future serious misconduct, whether personal or professional, he will in the light of this reprimand inevitably put his registration at risk.”

The full details of the hearing and the Committee’s decisions can be found on our disciplinary hearings webpage.