Stage 2 Preliminary Investigation Committee (PIC)

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 

1. Protecting the public from professionals who are not fit to practise (because of competence, integrity, or health) 

2. Maintaining reputation and public confidence in the profession by ensuring serious concerns are fully and fairly investigated 

3. Safeguarding vet professionals, who may be vulnerable to, and damaged by, unwarranted allegations against them 

Stage 3 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:

1. Very poor professional performance with serious departures from the RCVS Code of Professional Conduct  

2. Causing or risking serious harm to animals or the public, particularly where there is a breach of trust 

3. Sexual offences  

4. Offences involving violence and/or loss of human life 

5. Evidence of a harmful, deep-seated personality or attitude problem 

6. 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 unlikely to suceed. The Stage 2 PIC can decide not to refer such cases. However, if there is a realistic prospect of serious professional misconduct, the case must be referred for a DC decision.

While the list below is not exhaustive, the Stage 2 PIC:

1. Should bear in mind that the DC applies a high standard of proof, close to the criminal standard (“sure”) 

2. Assess the weight of the evidence, while recognising its role is not to decide or resolve conflicts of evidence  

3. Exercise caution when making decisions based solely on documents and investigation reports, as the Committee does not hear witnesses directly.

4. Exercise caution when closing a case to avoid inconsistency with decisions made by other authorities 

5. Can consider whether the vet professional is still practising – public interest is greater if they are 

6. Should bear in mind that generally it is more appropriate to take a medical approach to cases involving medical problems 

7. Should only refer to the veterinary professional’s health or poor professional performance if the case has a realistic prospect of proving serious professional misconduct
8. Should balance protecting vet professionals from harassment from unfounded concerns with referring cases that have a realistic prospect of serious professional misconduct to the DC.

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 

1. 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). 

2. The veterinary surgeon has made misleading representations to the RCVS (RCVS v Mr S (03.05-C016), RCVS v Dr E (05.04-C026). 

3. 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). 

4. 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). 

5. The veterinary surgeon has failed to communicate with clients on a prolonged and continual basis (RCVS v Mr T (11.03-C002). 

6. The veterinary surgeon has used unnecessary physical force towards animals (RCVS v Mr C (03.03-C107). 

7. The veterinary surgeon has used aggression or violence towards the client or staff (RCVS v Mrs C (09.98.20C). 

8. The veterinary surgeon has failed to provide [take steps to provide] emergency treatment (RCVS v Mr F (12.00.27C; 01.01.14C). 

9. 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). 

10. The veterinary surgeon has poor practise standards despite numerous warnings (RCVS v Mr H (07.07-C017) 

11. The veterinary surgeon has allowed a non-veterinary surgeon to undertake veterinary procedures (RCVS v Mr L (06.02.C32). 

12. The veterinary surgeon’s certification could have caused undue animal suffering and put public health at risk (RCVS V Mr A (01.02.120C). 

13. 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 

1. 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). 

2. 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). 

3. The veterinary surgeon has undertaken procedures (tail docking) without clinical justification/legitimate reason to do so (RCVS v Mr M (06.05-C113). 

4. The veterinary surgeon has dishonestly recommended unnecessary treatments (RCVS v Mr S (12.06-C104). 

5. The veterinary surgeon has failed to provide proper anaesthesia to an animal undergoing surgery (RCVS v Mr P (07.00.111C) 

6. 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 

1. The veterinary surgeon has been convicted of an offence relating to animal welfare (RCVS v Dr O-G (08.11-C067). 

2. The veterinary surgeon has been convicted of an offence of a sexual nature (RCVS v Mr S (05.04-C130). 

3. The veterinary surgeon has been convicted of an offence involving violence (RCVS v Mr K (08.12-C171). 

4. The veterinary surgeon has multiple convictions demonstrating a disregard for lawful authority (RCVS v Mr K (06.01C122; 01.02.C62). 

5. The veterinary surgeon has been convicted of an offence relating to the dishonest appropriation of controlled drugs (RCVS v Mr K (07.98.121C). 

6. The veterinary surgeon has convictions for causing death by dangerous driving (RCVS v Mr H (01.07-C125). 

7. 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). 

8. 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 

Cases involving minor dishonesty may not need a DC hearing, as that would be disproportionate. Providing advice may be sufficient in these situations. 

The following issues are unlikely to result in a referral to the DC: 

1. 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. 

2. 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. 

3. 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 

1. Actual injury to an animal or human 

2. Risk of injury to an animal or human 

3. Dishonesty 

4. Recklessness 

5. Premeditated misconduct 

6. Financial gain 

7. Breach of confidentiality or client trust 

8. The involvement of a vulnerable client 

9. Sexual misconduct 

10. Abuse of a position of trust or responsibility 

11. Misconduct sustained or repeated over a period of time 

12. Ignoring advice from the RCVS or other authorities  

13. 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 

1. The circumstances of the incident, including the promotion of the health or welfare of an animal 

2. No actual harm or any risk of harm to an animal or human 

3. No financial gain 

4. Single and isolated incident 

5. 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. 

For details of any of the cases referred to in this document, please contact the Professional Conduct Team on 020 7202 0789 or email [email protected].