Hampshire-based vet removed from Register for indecent images offences

Please note that this news story contains references to child and animal abuse.

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that a Hampshire-based veterinary surgeon be removed from the Register after he was convicted by Southampton Magistrates’ Court and subsequently sentenced at Winchester Crown Crown Court of offences of possessing indecent images of children and 109 images of extreme animal abuse.

The hearing for Dr Robert Russell took place online on 12 and 13 March 2024. At the start of the hearing the RCVS applied for it to take place in the absence of Dr Russell, who had informed the Clerk to the RCVS Disciplinary Committee by email and telephone that he would not be attending the hearing.  The application was granted by the DC on the basis that Dr Russell had voluntarily waived his right to attend the hearing.  

Dr Russell has one conviction from 2023, relating to three offences of making indecent photographs of a child; possessing 2,280 prohibited images of a child and possessing 109 extreme pornographic images that included moving images that were grossly offensive.

After pleading guilty to making indecent photographs/pseudo-photographs of a child, possessing a prohibited image of a child, and possessing extreme pornographic image/images portraying sexual acts with an animal, Dr Russell was sentenced at Winchester Crown Court to a two-year community order, a 30-day Rehabilitation Activity Requirement, 150 hours of community service and a forfeiture and destruction order of Seagate Drive, Toshiba hard drive and Lenovo tablet. In addition, a requirement to register with the police for 5 years and made subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for five years. He was also required to pay prosecution costs of £425 and £60 victim surcharge.

During the sentencing of Dr Russell, the Crown Court Judge observed that Dr Russell was a man in his 60s and it was the first time, sadly, that he had come before the court. The judge added that Dr Russell will no longer be able to claim that he is a man of previous good character, and it had been rightly recognised on his behalf, that it was his own fault because of the activities he took part in, the internet searches, the internet behaviour that he carried out over a long period of time.

“The Committee has reached the conclusion that Dr Russell’s behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon, namely grave offences of a sexual nature. Dr Russell’s behaviour was so serious that removal of professional status and the rights and privileges accorded to that status is considered to be the only means of protecting the wider public interest and of maintaining confidence in the profession."

Counsel for the College submitted to the Disciplinary Committee that the nature and circumstances of the offences rendered Dr Russell unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon.

In its decision relating to Dr Russell’s fitness to practise, the Committee described Dr Russell’s behaviour which led to the conviction as ‘so inherently deplorable and shocking’, and ‘Members of the public would find it abhorrent for a veterinary surgeon to have acted in this way’. 

The Committee considered there to be several aggravating factors including, actual (albeit indirect) injury to an animal or child; the risk of harm to an animal or child; sexual misconduct; premeditated conduct; and, that the offences involved vulnerable children and animals.  

When deciding on the appropriate sanction, the Committee took into account all the evidence, including the mitigating factors it had identified. The Committee decided that Dr Russell’s behaviour was so serious that removal of professional status and privileges accorded to that status is considered to be the only means of protecting the wider public interest of maintain confidence in the profession.  

Neil Slater, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee has reached the conclusion that Dr Russell’s behaviour is fundamentally incompatible with being a veterinary surgeon, namely grave offences of a sexual nature. Dr Russell’s behaviour was so serious that removal of professional status and the rights and privileges accorded to that status is considered to be the only means of protecting the wider public interest and of maintaining confidence in the profession.

“The Committee has not taken this decision lightly, and, lest it be misinterpreted, it has not taken it in order to satisfy any notional public demand for blame and punishment. It has taken the decision because, in its judgment, the reputation of the profession has to be at the forefront of its thinking and ultimately this is more important than the interests of Dr Russell.

"The decision is not simply based on the fact that these offences were of a sexual nature but because they were repeated over a significant period of time and at a time when Dr Russell must have known, on his own plea of guilty, that what he was doing was wrong. Further, the Committee can discern no evidence that Dr Russell has insight into the gravity of the offence he has committed.

The Committee has therefore directed the Registrar to remove his name from the Register forthwith.”

Dr Russell has 28 days from being notified of his removal from the Register to lodge an appeal with Privy Council.

This news story is a summary of the hearing to help understand the case and the Committee's decision. The full documentation for the hearing can be found on the RCVS Disciplinary hearing webpage.

Please note: this news story is a summary of the Disciplinary Committee's inquiry and is intended to help in understanding the hearing and the Committee's decision.