Veterinary surgeon who practised at Hook Norton has been struck off

After a RCVS Disciplinary Committee hearing, Northamptonshire-based veterinary surgeon Joanna Wicksteed was removed from the professional register.

Hook Norton Veterinary Group said that Dr Wicksteed is no longer a locum veterinary surgeon with them, has no affiliation with the practice and made no disclosure of any pending investigations whilst providing services with them.

Dr Wicksteed represented herself in respect of the five charges against her, which date back to 2015 and include shoplifting and failing to declare a conviction to the RCVS when renewing her annual licence. In mitigation, she said she had suffered from ill-health and she also produced supportive statements and character references from professional colleagues and clients.

The first charge dates back to May 2021 and follows her conviction at Oxford Crown Court for one count of theft and two counts of fraud, for which she was sentenced to a two-year community order, 150 hours of unpaid work, and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £2,800.

She admitted this charge at the outset of the RCVS Disciplinary Committee hearing.

The second charge from October 2015 relates to Dr Wicksteed receiving an ‘adult restorative disposal’ (ARD) following the thefts from Tesco Extra stores.

This charge was found proven, with the committee citing as its evidence the fact that this had been admitted by Dr Wicksteed’s defence counsel during the criminal trial and Dr Wicksteed admitting in her evidence to the committee that she had signed an ARD at the time.

The third charge from January 2018 relates to when Dr Wicksteed stole from a Debenhams department store and received a formal police caution. This charge was also found to be proven by the committee.

The fourth charge was that, in her annual renewal declarations made each year with the RCVS from 2016 through 2021, she had failed to declare the ARD and the caution. Under the Code of Professional Conduct, veterinary surgeons are required to declare any convictions, cautions, or other adverse findings upon the annual renewal of registration.

Dr Wicksteed was cleared of failing to declare her ARD as it was determined by the committee that, under the college’s declaration protocol, this was neither a conviction, caution, nor adverse finding.

However, the committee found that, for her annual renewal declarations from 2018 through 2021, she had failed to declare the police caution.

The fifth and final charge against her was that in failing to make declarations upon renewing her registration, she was dishonest and misleading and had failed to take adequate steps to inform the college of the caution and the ARD.

The committee found this charge proven in respect of the caution only and not the ARD, as it had been previously established that the ARD did not fall under the RCVS declaration protocol.

Commenting on this charge, Judith Way, chairing the committee and speaking on its behalf, said: "The committee noted that the conviction concerned three elements of dishonesty: theft and two counts of fraud.

"It involved stealing from a junior colleague at work, and the fraudulent activity—the use of the colleague’s card—was carefully planned in that, when it was used, it was in respect of items that did not cumulatively cost in excess of £30 and therefore did not require knowledge of the card holder’s PIN.

"It was used twice in the Tesco Store. Between those times, Dr Wicksteed changed her appearance by taking off her coat and waited some 20 minutes.

"The committee accepted the college’s argument that members of the public would find it abhorrent for a member of the profession to have acted in this way – stealing from a junior colleague a card held under a Power of Attorney for her brother, and spending money using that card, deliberately keeping each transaction under the contactless limit to try to conceal the conduct. Honesty and integrity is one of the five key principles which must be maintained by members of the profession."

In terms of mitigation, the committee considered supportive statements and character references from professional colleagues and clients and accepted that there was no actual or potential harm to animals, that Dr Wicksteed had a hitherto unblemished career as demonstrated by the references, and that there had been a significant lapse of time since some of the elements of the charges, albeit she had not declared them.

The committee also accepted that Dr Wicksteed had suffered from ill-health, although had not seen evidence that directly connected her health with the dishonest behaviour.

Taking all of the factors into consideration, the committee determined that removal from the register was the appropriate and proportionate sanction, citing Dr Wicksteed's violations of serious departure from and reckless disregard for the professional behaviours outlined in the Code of Professional Conduct; serious harm to the public and breach of trust; persistent and concealed dishonesty; and persistent lack of insight into the seriousness of her conduct.