SIMON WOOD PORTSMOUTH VET STRUCK OFF OVER CHILD INDECENT IMAGES

In a significant disciplinary action, Simon Wood, a veterinarian based in Portsmouth, has been formally removed from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) Register following a conviction related to the possession of indecent images of children. The case, which drew considerable attention, culminated in a hearing before the RCVS Disciplinary Committee, where the severity of the misconduct was thoroughly examined.

Simon Wood was convicted in December 2017 at Portsmouth Magistrates’ Court on three separate charges involving the download of a total of 38 videos and 13 indecent images depicting children. The court sentenced him in January 2018 to a three-year Community Sentence for each of the offences, with all sentences running concurrently. Additionally, he was subjected to a five-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order, which restricts his activities and contact to prevent further harm.

As part of his punishment, Mr. Wood was fined £1,000, ordered to pay costs amounting to £340, and a victim surcharge of £85. The Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) also placed him on its barring list, effectively prohibiting him from working in certain regulated professions. Furthermore, under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, he was required to register with the police for a period of five years, reflecting the seriousness of his offences.

During the disciplinary hearing, Mr. Wood appeared before the Committee and openly admitted his conviction. He acknowledged that his actions rendered him unfit to continue practicing as a veterinary surgeon. The Committee considered various mitigating factors, including the fact that his offences did not involve any actual harm or risk to animals, and that there was no financial gain involved. They also noted that Mr. Wood had been forthcoming about his misconduct early on, and that he was experiencing mental health issues at the time of the offences. Importantly, he had taken steps afterward to prevent a recurrence of such behaviour and showed insight into the harm caused.

The Committee emphasized that the primary purpose of sanctions in such cases is to protect animal welfare, uphold public confidence in the veterinary profession, and maintain high standards of conduct. They concluded that a mere reprimand or warning would be insufficient given the gravity of the offences. A suspension was also deemed inappropriate because it could allow Mr. Wood to return to practice without a thorough review of his fitness to do so, potentially risking further harm or misconduct.

After careful deliberation, the Committee decided that the only appropriate and proportionate response was to remove Mr. Wood from the RCVS Register entirely. Ian Green, who chaired the Committee, stated, “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 perception, the reputation of the profession had to be at the forefront of its thinking and ultimately it was more important than the interests of the Respondent.”

He further explained that the offences were not only of a sexual nature but also involved repeated misconduct over a significant period, despite Mr. Wood’s own awareness that his actions were wrong. “Accordingly, the Committee had decided that removal from the Register is appropriate and proportionate in this case,” Green added. The Committee has instructed the Registrar to remove Mr. Wood’s name from the Register immediately.

Mr. Wood has 28 days to appeal the decision. If no appeal is filed within this period, the ruling will become final and enforceable, permanently barring him from practicing as a veterinary surgeon in the UK.