Tyne and Wear-based veterinary surgeon suspended over ‘drug driving’ offence

A veterinary surgeon based in Tyne and Wear has been suspended from the Register for six months by the RCVS Disciplinary Committee, following a conviction for driving when the proportion of a controlled drug in his blood exceeded the specified limit.

Dr Razvan Georgescu appeared before the Disciplinary Committee between Monday 31 March and Thursday 3 April in respect of three sets of charges against him.

The first was that on 8 April 2024 at Newcastle Magistrates’ Court, he pleaded guilty to driving a car, on 20 June 2023, when the proportion of the controlled substance Benzoylecgonine exceeded the specified limit contrary to the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Road Traffic Offenders Act. For this offence he was disqualified from driving for 20 months, fined £634, ordered to pay £254 victim surcharge and £150 costs.

The second and third charges against him were that he was misleading and/or dishonest with the RCVS when he was asked to provide information regarding the circumstances leading to his conviction.

Namely, in correspondence with the RCVS, he claimed that the incident happened on his day off, when he was in fact due to work that day, and that he had submitted – or allowed to be submitted – a false staff rota for the day of his arrest that was purported to be from June 2023, but was in fact created in 2024.

The Disciplinary Committee found the charges against Dr Georgescu proven on the basis of the certificate of conviction, and admissions made by Dr Georgescu prior to the hearing that the information he had given was, in fact, false.

The Committee then considered whether the three charges amounted to serious professional misconduct both individually and cumulatively.

Regarding Dr Georgescu’s conviction, the Committee considered the fact that he was driving, and intending to work, while he was seven times over the prescribed proportion of Benzoylecgonine allowed to be in in his bloodstream.

Paul Morris, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “With regard to the impact this conduct would have on right thinking members of the public, Dr Georgescu himself said, when cross examined, that were he standing in the shoes of an owner of an animal he was going to treat that day with the knowledge that he had in his blood more than 7 times the prescribed limit of a prohibited drug he “would not be comfortable for sure” and would cause such persons to “lose trust”.

“Having regard to the above facts and matters the Committee has no hesitation in concluding that the facts relevant to his commission of the offence in Charge 1 were so serious and presented such prospective risks to other road users that it renders the respondent unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.”

Charges 2 and 3 were considered together, with the Committee again finding serious professional misconduct on the basis that Dr Georgescu had set out to lie to the RCVS and had continued and repeated the lie for a prolonged period of six months.

“The misconduct of the respondent is serious but his misconduct falls short of being fundamentally incompatible with remaining on the Register. He does have insight into the seriousness of his misconduct and there is, in the judgement of the Committee, no significant risk of repeat misleading behaviour. The Committee also considers that the respondent will be fit to return to practice after the period of suspension in question."

The Committee identified a number of aggravating features in his conduct including the fact it was premeditated, entailed sustained and repeated dishonesty, involved wilful disregard for the role of the RCVS as the veterinary regulator and that admissions were only made when he realised he couldn’t sustain his falsehoods any longer.

Finally, having found that all charges were proven and amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee went on to consider what the most appropriate and proportionate sanction would be for Dr Georgescu. It found that suspending Dr Georgescu from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons would be adequate to protect the welfare of animals, maintain public confidence in the profession, and declare and uphold proper standards of conduct.

Paul Morris added: “The misconduct of the respondent is serious but his misconduct falls short of being fundamentally incompatible with remaining on the Register. He does have insight into the seriousness of his misconduct and there is, in the judgement of the Committee, no significant risk of repeat misleading behaviour. The Committee also considers that the respondent will be fit to return to practice after the period of suspension in question.

“The Committee did consider striking the respondent from the Register but determined that this sanction would be unduly punitive and deprive the public and the profession of an otherwise competent veterinary surgeon.

“The Committee has reflected carefully on the question of how long the period of suspension should be and has determined that it should be a period which is not so long that it will result in the loss of the respondent to the profession which he professes to love and in which his referees assert he is a capable and caring veterinary surgeon.”

The full documentation for the case can be found on our Disciplinary Committee hearings webpage.