Dorset-based veterinary surgeon removed from Register for assault and drug driving offences

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has requested that a Dorset-based veterinary surgeon be removed from the Register following assault and driving convictions which he also failed to declare as part of his annual registration renewal.

Costin-Nicolae Ghinescu first appeared before the Disciplinary Committee in August when the case was adjourned, with the next hearing taking place on 22 and 23 December 2025 with three main charges against Mr Ghinescu.

The charges were:

1. That in July 2019 he was convicted, at Londonderry Magistrates Court and following a guilty plea, of one charge of threat to kill and two charges of assault against his partner. For the threat to kill he received a six month prison sentence, with two four month sentences for assault running concurrently.
2. In December 2022, at Poole Magistrates Court, he was convicted, following a guilty plea, of driving a motor vehicle when the proportion of a Class B controlled drug tetrahydrocannabinol exceeded the specified limit. The offence had taken place in July 2022 and following the guilty plea he was disqualified from driving for 12 months, and ordered to pay a fine of £160, a victim surcharge of £64, and costs of £85.
3. That Mr Ghinescu was (a) dishonest and (b) misleading for failing to declare that he had any criminal convictions when renewing his registration in April 2023.

At the outset of the hearing Mr Ghinescu admitted the facts of charges 1 and 2 but denied that this rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon, although Dr Ghinescu has had the status of a non-practising Member of the RCVS since May 2021.

Regarding Charge 3, Mr Ghinescu said that the failure to declare the conviction had been a genuine misunderstanding about whether he needed to declare a driving conviction as part of his annual renewal. The Committee found that while his position was ‘plainly unreasonable of him and wrong’, it could not be sure beyond all reasonable doubt that his mistaken beliefs were genuine or not – therefore it found it not proven that he had been dishonest.

However, the Committee found that Mr Ghinescu had been misleading by failing to declare his convictions, even if it was not intentionally so.

“There were two separate assaults on [his wife], one in the car and then a prolonged attack in the house, involving repeated punches to the face and kicks to the body, followed by threats to kill. The Committee considered this to be disgraceful conduct of the most grievous and reprehensible kind."

Having found Charges 1, 2 and part of Charge 3 proven, the Committee considered Mr Ghinescu’s fitness to practise, in particular taking into account the part of the Code of Professional Conduct that says 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 found that the convictions outlined in Charges 1 and 2 rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon, but did not consider that the part of Charge 3 found proven amounted to serious professional misconduct, though said it was a careless act.

Having found Mr Ghinescu unfit to practise, the Committee considered the most appropriate and proportionate sanction, taking into account mitigating factors. These included having had no previous disciplinary history with the RCVS, admissions at both court and to the College and developing insight into his behaviour, with an acceptance he had acted shamefully and had no mitigation for his behaviour.

Considering the gravity of the convictions, Hilary Lloyd, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, found that removal from the Register was the only appropriate sanction. She said: “The Committee was of the view that the nature and seriousness of Mr Ghinescu’s behaviour, which led to the convictions, particularly the assault on his wife, was fundamentally incompatible with being registered as a veterinary surgeon…. They are clearly serious offences as reflected in the prison sentence Mr Ghinescu was required to serve.

“There were two separate assaults on [his wife], one in the car and then a prolonged attack in the house, involving repeated punches to the face and kicks to the body, followed by threats to kill. The Committee considered this to be disgraceful conduct of the most grievous and reprehensible kind.

“The conduct represented a serious departure from professional standards; it was inexplicable, abhorrent behaviour, resulting in injuries to his wife. In light of these conclusions, the Committee decided that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case was removal from the Register.”

Mr Ghinescu has 28 days from being informed of his removal from the Register to appeal the Committee’s decision.

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