Hertfordshire based vet removed from Register for illegally removing microchip

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that our Registrar remove a Hertfordshire-based veterinary surgeon from the Register, following a conviction after he illegally removed a microchip from a labrador.

Dr Amir Kashiv first appeared before the Disciplinary Committee on Thursday 27 March. The hearing was then adjourned, resuming from Monday 18 August to Wednesday 20 August at the RCVS offices in Hardwick Street. There were four charges against him.

In summary, these were:

1. On 2 January 2024, at Stevenage Magistrates’ Court, Dr Kashiv was convicted, following a guilty plea, of carrying out a procedure which was prohibited by section 5(3) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, by removing a microchip from a labrador. In relation to this conviction, Dr Kashiv was sentenced to a community order with an unpaid work requirement of 50 hours to be completed within 12 months, and ordered to pay a surcharge to fund victim services of £114 and costs of £85. (Admitted) It was alleged that the conviction rendered Dr Kashiv unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.
2. On 17 July 2024, at Stevenage Magistrates’ Court, Dr Kashiv was made subject to a Criminal Behaviour Order (CBO) in relation to failing to keep dogs he owned under control and failing to comply with previous orders. The CBO was made for five years from 17 July 2024. (Admitted)
3. In relation to the conviction, Dr Kashiv’s conduct was dishonest, in that he removed the microchip in order to conceal the labrador’s identity. (Proved)
4. In relation to the conviction, Dr Kashiv failed to keep adequate clinical records for the labrador (Admitted) and his conduct was thereby i) misleading (Proved) and/or ii) dishonest (Proved).

On 7 December 2022, the labrador was stolen from her owner. There is no suggestion that Dr Kashiv was in any way involved in the theft. On 17 December 2022, someone who was involved in the theft presented Bella to Dr Kashiv, who performed surgery to remove her microchip, so she could be re-homed without being traced.

From the outset, Dr Kashiv admitted charges one and two and some aspects of charge four. In relation to charge four, he denied that his conduct was at any stage misleading or dishonest and did not accept that his conviction rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon or that the admitted charges amount to serious professional misconduct.

“The Committee was of the view that the nature and seriousness of Dr Kashiv’s behaviour, which led to the conviction, was fundamentally incompatible with being registered as a veterinary surgeon.”

In reaching a decision on the remaining facts, the Committee considered all the evidence put before it and found the remaining charges proved.

On deciding on Dr Kashiv’s fitness to practise, the Committee considered submissions made both by a representative for the College and a representative for Dr Kashiv. It also noted that Dr Kashiv no longer disputed that his conviction rendered him unfit to practise, or that his behaviour in charges two, three and four amounted to serious professional misconduct.

The Committee also took into account the fact that in respect of his conviction, Dr Kashiv had breached paragraphs 1.1, 1.3, 6.1, 6.4 and 6.5 of the Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Surgeons.  

It then took into account mitigating and aggravating factors.

The Committee did not find any mitigating factors but found the following aggravating factors:

• actual injury to an animal;
• risk of injury to an animal;
• psychological and emotional harm to the animal’s owner;
• recklessness in trusting people he should not have been trusting and a lack of due diligence;
• premeditated conduct in carrying out the procedure;
• abuse of professional position.

The Committee was satisfied that this conduct fell far below the standard expected of a registered veterinary surgeon and that this rendered him unfit to practise.

In deciding on whether his conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee again took into account submissions made both by representatives for the College and for Dr Kashiv, as well as the fact that Dr Kashiv no longer disputed the assertion that his conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct.

The Committee also found Dr Kashiv had breached paragraphs 2.4, 2.5, 6.1, 6.4 and 6.5 of the Code in relation to charges two, three and four. The Committee again did not find any mitigating factors but found the following aggravating factors:

• attempts made to cover up his dishonest conduct;
• the risk of harm to an animal or human by allowing the dogs in his care to repeatedly escape and roam the neighbourhood and to be on the highway;
• recklessness by failing to ensure his property was properly enclosed to ensure his dogs were unable to stray;
• a lack of integrity for a regulated professional to have behaved in such a way;
• misconduct sustained over a period of time;
• conduct contravening advice issued previously by the RCVS, including the Preliminary Investigation Committee and Professional Conduct Department, or other appropriate authority.

With regards to charges three and four, Dr Kashiv performed a prohibited procedure on a labrador which was unjustified and resulted in a criminal conviction. The Committee found that in carrying out the procedure he had acted dishonestly – he had removed the chip in order to conceal the identity of a pet that he knew had been taken from its home.

“The Committee was of the view that the nature and seriousness of Dr Kashiv’s behaviour, which led to the conviction, was fundamentally incompatible with being registered as a veterinary surgeon.”

The dishonesty with regards to not completing any formal clinical records also related directly to his practice as a veterinary surgeon, as part of a ‘cover up’ so that nobody would know what had happened to the labrador at the practice

The Committee was satisfied that Dr Kashiv’s conduct in relation to the labrador amounted to serious professional misconduct.

On deciding on a sanction, the Committee took into account all evidence and documents provided as well as testimonials together with submissions made on behalf of Dr Kashiv and matters of personal mitigation.

In terms of aggravating factors, it found all those already listed in findings for fitness to practise and serious professional misconduct, as well as previous convictions and adverse finding of the College and the fact that Dr Kashiv showed limited insight into his actions.

In terms of mitigating factors, it considered:

• some admissions to the matters alleged both at Court and to the College
• expressions of remorse to the labrador’s owner, the Committee and the profession;
• in relation to the criminal behaviour order, the action he had since taken to maintain fencing and no incidents since 2023;
• very positive testimonials.

Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee was of the view that the nature and seriousness of Dr Kashiv’s behaviour, which led to the conviction, was fundamentally incompatible with being registered as a veterinary surgeon.”

He added: “In light of these conclusions, the Committee decided that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case was removal from the Register. This would not be the case if the Committee were considering the CBO matter alone, when a lesser sanction would have been appropriate. However, his actions with regard to the labrador, his limited insight and the fear that he could repeat such behaviour meant that removal was necessary in this case.

“In reaching this decision the Committee recognised the negative impact this would have on Dr Kashiv. The Committee had considered with great care all the mitigating factors and the positive statements made about him in the testimonials provided. However, the need to protect animal welfare, the reputation of the profession and thus the wider public interest, outweighed Dr Kashiv’s interests and the Committee concluded that removal was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case.”

Please note: this news story is a summary of the hearing to assist in understanding the case and the Committee's decision. The full documentation about the hearing can be found on our disciplinary webpage.