- News & views
- Help & advice
- Veterinary careers
- I want to raise a concern about a veterinary surgeon
- I want to raise a concern about a veterinary nurse
- Send us feedback
- Veterinary Client Mediation Service (VCMS)
- Accredited Practices
Glamorgan veterinary surgeon struck off for online sexual offences
11 August 2017
The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed the Registrar to remove a Glamorgan-based veterinary surgeon from the Register following his conviction for possession of four indecent images of children and an extreme pornographic image involving an animal and a female.
The Disciplinary Committee hearing for Carlos Egido Cortes took place on Monday 7 and Tuesday 8 August 2017. Mr Cortes had pleaded guilty to the above offences in January 2017 at Cardiff Crown Court.
In February 2017 Mr Cortes was sentenced to six months imprisonment suspended for two years with a requirement to complete unpaid work and rehabilitation activity and a victim surcharge. Following Mr Cortes’ conviction the matters were referred to the RCVS and Mr Cortes was subsequently referred to the Disciplinary Committee.
Mr Cortes did not attend at the Disciplinary Committee hearing and was not represented. The Disciplinary Committee, being satisfied that Mr Cortes had been served with the Notice of Inquiry and having considered and taken into account a number of separate factors, decided that it would be in the interests of justice to proceed with the hearing in his absence.
The Committee considered whether Mr Cortes’ convictions rendered him unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon. Chitra Karve, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee has reached the conclusion that the respondent’s possession of this material which has led to his convictions was so reprehensible as to merit the description disgraceful. It considers that by possessing this material, the respondent has brought disgrace on the profession and will have undermined confidence in it. It therefore finds that the convictions have rendered the respondent unfit to practise veterinary surgery.”
In considering the sanction the Committee decided that removing Mr Cortes from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons was the only available option. Ms Karve added: “The Committee has determined that the respondent’s behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with being a member of the veterinary profession. It therefore directs the Registrar to remove the respondent’s name… from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons.”
Mr Cortes now has 28 days from the decision being made to challenge the Disciplinary Committee’s decision.
NOTE: This summary is provided to assist in understanding the RCVS Disciplinary Committee’s decision. It does not form part of the reasons for the decision. The Committee’s full findings and decision is the only authoritative document.