Stage 1 Preliminary Investigation Committee (PIC)
Learn more about the decision-making process and potential outcomes of the RCVS Stage 1 Preliminary Investigation Commit...
Stage 2 Preliminary Investigation Committee (PIC)
Learn how the Stage 2 Preliminary Investigation Committee reviews concerns about vets and vet nurses, deciding whether to close cases or refer them to the Disciplinary Committee.
On this page
The Stage 2 Preliminary Investigation Committee (PIC) determines whether to close an investigation into a veterinary surgeon or veterinary nurse, or refer the case to a Stage 3 Disciplinary Committee (DC).
For any queries relating to Stage 2 PIC decisions, contact the Professional Conduct Team on 020 7202 0789 or email [email protected].
What the Stage 2 PIC balances
- Protecting the public from professionals who are not fit to practise (because of competence, integrity, or health)
- Maintaining reputation and public confidence in the profession by ensuring serious concerns are fully and fairly investigated
- Safeguarding vet professionals, who may be vulnerable to, and damaged by, unwarranted allegations against them
What the Stage 2 PIC does
The Stage 2 Preliminary Investigation Committee (PIC) must decide whether there is a realistic prospect of proving that a veterinary professional has:
- Fallen far below the standards expected of a reasonably competent veterinary professional, potentially affecting their fitness to practise (i.e., serious professional misconduct), and/or
- Acted in a way that makes them unfit to practise.
The committee also considers whether it is in the public interest to refer the case to a Disciplinary Committee (DC) hearing.
In reviewing each case, the Stage 2 PIC examines the facts and applies its professional judgement, always within the framework of the law and the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct.
All reviews are conducted in private.
When a case is progressed to a Disciplinary Committee (DC)
A case may be referred to the DC if a veterinary professional’s alleged conduct or behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with their role. This could include, but is not limited to:
- Very poor professional performance with serious departures from the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct
- Causing or risking serious harm to animals or the public, particularly where there is a breach of trust
- Sexual offences
- Offences involving violence and/or loss of human life
- Evidence of a harmful, deep-seated personality or attitude problem
- Dishonesty, particularly where persistent or concealed
The Stage 2 PIC applies a “realistic prospect” test looking at:
- whether the facts of the case are likely to be proven,
- whether those facts would amount to serious professional misconduct, or
- in conviction cases, show the vet professional is unfit to practise.
It is not helpful for cases to be referred to the DC if they are certain to fail. The Stage 2 PIC can decide not to refer such cases. But if there is a realistic prospect of serious professional misconduct, the case must be referred to the DC for a decision.
The following is not exhaustive, but the Stage two PIC:
- Should bear in mind that the DC applies a high standard of proof, tantamount to the criminal standard (“so as to be sure”)
- Is entitled to assess the weight of the evidence, whilst recognising its role is not to decide or resolve conflicts of evidence
- Should proceed with caution given it makes decisions based on documents and investigation reports and does not hear from witnesses directly
- Should proceed with caution when closing a case to avoid inconsistency with decisions by other authorities
- Can consider whether a vet professional is still practising – public interest is greater if they are
- Should bear in mind that generally it is more appropriate to take a medical approach to cases involving medical problems
- Should only take action in relation to the vet professional’s health or poor professional performance if the case has a realistic prospect of establishing serious professional misconduct
- Should balance protecting vet professionals from harassment following unfounded concerns, and ensuring cases with realistic prospect of serious professional misconduct are referred to the DC
Potential outcomes of a Stage 2 PIC
When closing a case and deciding not to refer it to the Disciplinary Committee, the Stage 2 PIC may give advice to the vet professional.
The Stage 2 PIC may instead refer the case to the Charter Case Committee (CCC) if the concerns or conviction could amount to serious misconduct, but a DC hearing is not in the public interest.
It may also suggest health or performance protocols if the issues are serious but would be better dealt with through health or performance support rather than a DC referral.
Previous cases before the Disciplinary Committee
The issues listed below have led to cases being sent to the Disciplinary Committee. The references come from past DC cases, mostly involving veterinary surgeons, and are included here as examples.
Breaches of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct
- The veterinary surgeon has made dishonest representations to the owners of the animal (RCVS v Mr B (03.04-C076), RCVS v Mr S (12.04-C043), RCVS v Mr S (12.06-C104), RCVS v Dr E (08.12-C023), RCVS v Mr B (04.10-C018), RCVS v Mr B (11.11-C126).
- The veterinary surgeon has made misleading representations to the RCVS (RCVS v Mr S (03.05-C016), RCVS v Dr E (05.04-C026).
- The veterinary surgeon has been dishonest in professional practise particularly in relation to information provided to clients or third parties (insurance companies), certification and treatment of animals (RCVS v Mr B (03.03-C081), RCVS v Dr W (12.05-C092), RCVS v Mr P (07.07-C054), RCVS v Mr C (11.10-C149).
- The veterinary surgeon has been reckless in certification (RCVS v Mr L (07.09-C120, RCVS v Mr P (07.07-C054), RCVS v Mr W (01.07-C097).
- The veterinary surgeon has failed to communicate with clients on a prolonged and continual basis (RCVS v Mr T (11.03-C002).
- The veterinary surgeon has used unnecessary physical force towards animals (RCVS v Mr C (03.03-C107).
- The veterinary surgeon has used aggression or violence towards the client or staff (RCVS v Mrs C (09.98.20C).
- The veterinary surgeon has failed to provide [take steps to provide] emergency treatment (RCVS v Mr F (12.00.27C; 01.01.14C).
- The veterinary surgeon has unreasonably refused to provide emergency first-aid and pain relief (RCVS v Mr B (04.05-C081), RCVS v Mr K (07.11-C183).
- The veterinary surgeon has poor practise standards despite numerous warnings (RCVS v Mr H (07.07-C017)
- The veterinary surgeon has allowed a non-veterinary surgeon to undertake veterinary procedures (RCVS v Mr L (06.02.C32).
- The veterinary surgeon’s certification could have caused undue animal suffering and put public health at risk (RCVS V Mr A (01.02.120C).
- The veterinary surgeon has failed to treat a client with proper courtesy and respect (RCVS v Mr H (07.09-C055), RCVS v Mr B (04.10-C018).
Breaches of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct
- The veterinary surgeon has failed to provide adequate veterinary or professional care (RCVS v Mr H (07.07-C017), RCVS v Mr S (02.04-C087), RCVS v Mr B (03.03-C081).
- The veterinary surgeon has carried out unnecessary or inappropriate treatment for financial gain or other reasons (RCVS v Mr S (02.04-C087), RCVS v Mr S (12.06-C104), RCVS v Mr H (10.09-C179), RCVS v Mr B (05.11-C060), RCVS v Mr H (08.09-C040).
- The veterinary surgeon has undertaken procedures (tail docking) without clinical justification/legitimate reason to do so (RCVS v Mr M (06.05-C113).
- The veterinary surgeon has dishonestly recommended unnecessary treatments (RCVS v Mr S (12.06-C104).
- The veterinary surgeon has failed to provide proper anaesthesia to an animal undergoing surgery (RCVS v Mr P (07.00.111C)
- The veterinary surgeon has failed to provide treatment in emergency circumstances (RCVS v Mr B (04.05-C081).
Other matters including criminal convictions and cautions
- The veterinary surgeon has been convicted of an offence relating to animal welfare (RCVS v Dr O-G (08.11-C067).
- The veterinary surgeon has been convicted of an offence of a sexual nature (RCVS v Mr S (05.04-C130).
- The veterinary surgeon has been convicted of an offence involving violence (RCVS v Mr K (08.12-C171).
- The veterinary surgeon has multiple convictions demonstrating a disregard for lawful authority (RCVS v Mr K (06.01C122; 01.02.C62).
- The veterinary surgeon has been convicted of an offence relating to the dishonest appropriation of controlled drugs (RCVS v Mr K (07.98.121C).
- The veterinary surgeon has convictions for causing death by dangerous driving (RCVS v Mr H (01.07-C125).
- The veterinary surgeon was fraudulently entered on the RCVS Register of veterinary surgeons (RCVS v Mr N (03.08-C080) (RCVS v Mr O (12.07-C034).
- The veterinary surgeon was convicted of offences of fraud by abuse of position relating to pet insurance claims (RCVS v Mr C (04.12-C203), RCVS v Mr M (06.13-C138).
Cases unlikely to result in referral to the Disciplinary Committee
Some cases involving minor dishonesty don’t need to go to a DC hearing, as that would be too serious. Giving advice may be enough in these situations.
The following issues, for example, are unlikely to result in a referral to the DC:
- Convictions of a less serious nature, which would not impact on a vet professional’s fitness to practise. This might include minor domestic disturbances or minor road traffic offences, unless there are exceptional aggravating features. Some minor offences may result in a referral if they have been numerous and there are aggravating circumstances.
- One-off drink/driving offences where the Stage 2 PIC is satisfied there are no underlying health concerns. If there are health concerns, we recognise that sometimes it will be in the public interest to deal with vet professionals suffering from adverse health without referring a case to the DC for a formal hearing. More information about the RCVS Health Protocol can be found in chapter 15 of the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct and Supporting guidance.
- Veterinary fees and charges, unless so extreme as to constitute serious professional misconduct.
Aggravating and mitigating factors
The Stage 2 PIC may take into account factors that make the case more or less serious.
Aggravating factors
- Actual injury to an animal or human
- Risk of injury to an animal or human
- Dishonesty
- Recklessness
- Premeditated misconduct
- Financial gain
- Breach of confidentiality or client trust
- The involvement of a vulnerable client
- Sexual misconduct
- Abuse of a position of trust or responsibility
- Misconduct sustained or repeated over a period of time
- Ignoring advice from the RCVS or other authorities
- Blatant or willful disregard of the role of the RCVS and the systems that regulate the profession
This is not a complete list of aggravating factors. For example, failing to follow any promises made to the PIC or DC could be considered serious and might be enough on its own to trigger a referral to a DC hearing.
Mitigating factors
- The circumstances of the incident, including the promotion of the health or welfare of an animal
- No actual harm or any risk of harm to an animal or human
- No financial gain
- Single and isolated incident
- Decision taken without the opportunity for full reflection
We can distinguish between two types of mitigation:
- Circumstantial mitigation – related to the specific events that happened.
- Personal mitigation – related to the vet’s character, career, or personal situation.
Get more information
For details of any of the cases referred to on this page, please contact the Professional Conduct Team on 020 7202 0789 or email [email protected].
Related Content