One VN cleared and another reprimanded in case concerning treatment of an animal without veterinary direction and supervision

The RCVS Veterinary Nurse Disciplinary Committee has reprimanded a Greater Manchester-based veterinary nurse following a finding of serious professional misconduct, while clearing his colleague, in a hearing in December 2025.

George Aspey RVN and Susan Howarth RVN, both of them lecturers in veterinary nursing at Harper Adams University with the latter also being a member of the RCVS Veterinary Nurses Council, appeared before the Committee from Monday 15 to Thursday 18 December 2025.

The charges against Mr Aspey were that, on 18 February 2023 at a practice in Leigh, Greater Manchester, he:

• anaesthetised and/or monitored the anaesthetic of a dog called Nessa, belonging to Susan Howarth, without direction of and/or supervision by a veterinary surgeon;
• prescribed and/or dispensed meloxicam (Metacam oral suspension), a prescription only medicine, to Nessa without direction or supervision by a veterinary surgeon;
• made entries in the clinical records for his own dog, Chester, when those entries related to a procedure and/or medication given to Nessa; and,
• that in relation to the above he had been dishonest and/or misleading.

The charges against Mrs Howarth were that, on the same day, she:

• allowed her dog to be anaesthetised and/or have her anaesthetic monitored by Mr Apsey without the direction and/or supervision by a veterinary surgeon;
• placed a cannula in Nessa without the direction of and/or supervision by a veterinary surgeon; and,
• performed a descale and polish dental procedure on Nessa without the direction of and/or supervision by a veterinary surgeon.

At the outset of the hearing, Mr Aspey admitted in full all the charges against him. Mrs Howarth admitted the circumstances of the charges against her but denied the actions had occurred without the direction of and/or supervision by a registered veterinary surgeon.

“The Committee is clear that, as Mrs Howarth herself admitted, she should have ensured that they obtained suitable permission to have the procedure carried out. However, for all the reasons given above, the Committee finds that Mrs Howarth is not guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”

The Committee heard that Schedule 3 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, which sets out what acts of veterinary medicine veterinary surgeons can delegate to veterinary nurses, states that a task can only be delegated by a veterinary surgeon if they are satisfied to the RVN’s competence, that they must be on hand to assist and that veterinary nurses cannot independently undertake medical treatments or minor surgery without the direction and/or supervision by a veterinary surgeon.

In her evidence Mrs Howarth said that she had reasonably believed that Mr Aspey had obtained permission both for Nessa’s procedure and for her involvement in her care. However, the Committee, having heard evidence from witnesses, found that, although Mrs Howarth believed that Mr Aspey had obtained the relevant permissions, none of the veterinary surgeons on duty at the Practice on the 18 February 2023 had Nessa under their care, and Mrs Howarth’s belief was based on relying on actions she believed Mr Aspey had taken but had not. The Committee therefore found, in her case, the charges proved.

With Mr Aspey having admitted the charges against him, and the Committee having found the charges against Mrs Howarth proved, it next went on to consider whether the charges against each of them amounted to serious professional misconduct.

“Whilst all of these factors are serious in isolation or taken as a whole, the mitigatory factors and the complete insight shown by the respondent, including steps taken to prevent such behaviour recurring, were influential in the Committee’s reasoning. However, such practice as evidenced in the findings of fact remains out-with the current Code of Professional Conduct and must be avoided by the wider profession.”

In Mr Aspey’s case, the Committee took into account that he performed the procedures in the full knowledge he had not obtained the necessary permissions, and that, as an experienced RVN, he had been aware of the restrictions on what he could do without the direction or supervision of a veterinary surgeon. In particular it noted that there was a breach of the Veterinary Medicines Regulations in the case of him prescribing and dispensing a controlled drug without direction from a veterinary surgeon. Accordingly, serious professional misconduct was found for Mr Aspey in respect of all the charges he admitted.

For Mrs Howarth, the Committee found that though her actions fell below the standard required of a veterinary nurse, it did not fall far below the standard, therefore she was cleared of serious professional misconduct in respect of all the charges against her.

Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee had found that Mrs Howarth had relied on the necessary arrangements having been made by Mr Aspey. It found that Mrs Howarth’s error had been in her readiness to rely on Mr Aspey and not to have checked for herself that her dog had been properly booked into the practice and that Nessa was under the care of a veterinary surgeon.”

He added: “The Committee is clear that, as Mrs Howarth herself admitted, she should have ensured that they obtained suitable permission to have the procedure carried out. However, for all the reasons given above, the Committee finds that Mrs Howarth is not guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect.”

The Committee then went on to consider the most appropriate and proportionate sanction for Mr Aspey. No such sanction was needed for Mrs Howarth.

In deciding the sanction, the Committee took into account mitigating and aggravating factors for Mr Aspey.

In mitigation, it considered that terms of mitigation, the Committee took into account that no actual harm, or risk of harm to an animal was likely to arise from the incident and there was very little chance of repetition. Mr Aspey had not acted for any financial gain for himself, and Mrs Howarth had been unaware of the discounted fee. The misconduct also related to a single incident at the practice, carried out in the open and without concealment and that Mr Aspey had a long and unblemished career, with no previous adverse findings against him.

Furthermore, it took into account the fact that he had made open and frank admissions to both the practice concerned and the RCVS, that he had self-referred the matter to the College’s Professional Conduct Department, and had made apologies to all those involved.

The Committee ultimately decided that the most appropriate sanction for Mr Aspey was a reprimand. Paul Morris, summing up the reason for the decision, said: “The Committee recognises that in this case there were numerous factors which led to the ultimate compromise of the integrity of professional standards. Specifically, a failure to follow the necessary elements of the guide of professional conduct for both registered veterinary nurses and veterinary surgeons led to the inappropriate processes of consent and record keeping, lack of evidence of direction by a veterinary surgeon, and the subsequent use and dispensing of a prescription-only veterinary medicine.

“Whilst all of these factors are serious in isolation or taken as a whole, the mitigatory factors and the complete insight shown by the respondent, including steps taken to prevent such behaviour recurring, were influential in the Committee’s reasoning. However, such practice as evidenced in the findings of fact remains out-with the current Code of Professional Conduct and must be avoided by the wider profession.”

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