Veterinary surgeon’s restoration application refused after previous removal for assault

The restoration hearing for Mr Matthew Makepeace was held online on Wednesday 11 and Thursday 12 February 2026.

In 2024 the Disciplinary Committee ordered that Mr Makepeace be removed from the Register after he was convicted of assaulting his ex-partner back in 2022. He then submitted a character reference to the RCVS without the consent of his ex-partner, the purported writer of the reference, stating they were “still happily together” when this was not the case. He also forged her signature on the character reference. It was also found that Mr Makepeace sent offensive, insulting, abusive and threatening messages to his ex-partner via WhatsApp between December 2022 and January 2023. 

The committee at the original hearing decided that removal from the Register was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction, determining that the need to uphold the wider public interest outweighed the respondent’s interests. It also noted that any lesser sanction would lack deterrent effect and would undermine public confidence in the profession and the regulatory process.

During the restoration hearing, the Committee was informed that, since being removed from the Register, Mr Makepeace has continued to hold himself out as a vet and emailed a veterinary practice seeking work experience, with the opening line stating, ‘I’m a vet’.

In considering Mr Makepeace’s application for restoration, the Disciplinary Committee took into account a number of factors including the stance taken by the College opposing the application based on the seriousness of the matter, the risk to the public interest and Mr Makepeace’s conduct since his removal from the Register. It also took into account submissions provided by both the College and Mr Makepeace, as well as evidence from witnesses.

The Committee noted the email sent by Mr Makepeace in search of work experience contained deliberate and careful wording which was not an error or poorly worded communication but a calculated attempt to mislead the practice. It concluded that the email and lack of transparency with potential employers provided further examples of dishonesty, in addition to the forgery of the character reference submitted in the original hearing. It noted the email provided information that was incomplete, omitted material fact (in that it did not mention his removal from the Register), and created a distorted impression of no disciplinary concerns. The Committee therefore found Mr Makepeace’s conduct both misleading and dishonest.

In respect to insight into his past conduct, the Committee considered the fact that Mr Makepeace understood that he had assaulted his ex-partner but was not convinced that he understood the impact of his previous manipulative and coercive behaviour. In terms of the protection of the public and the public interest, it noted that Mr Makepeace’s ex-partner is a member of the public and concluded that he was more likely to put his own interests first, as demonstrated through his provision of a false statement to the College, as well as in his recent communications stating that he was a vet.

The Committee found nothing to suggest that Mr Makepeace would be of harm to animals.

Kathryn Peaty, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “While the Committee recognises Mr Makepeace’s desire to advance his career and that his prospects would be enhanced by restoration of his name to the Register, that is not a factor relevant to his application. The Committee’s obligations and duties are to ensure that the interests of animal welfare are properly protected by ensuring that those whose names are on the Register are properly trained, knowledgeable and experienced in the treatment of animals and that public confidence in the standards of the profession is maintained.

“The Committee cannot restore someone to the Register who is not fit by virtue of their repeated dishonest and unacceptable conduct, without insight into the impact of the lack of probity by a vet.

“For all these reasons, the Committee is not persuaded that Mr Makepeace is fit to be restored to the Register and his application has been refused.”