A FORMER Williton vet has been struck off by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) after being found guilty of serious professional misconduct.

Marcus Hutber, who ran Epivet Ltd in Williton and Wiveliscombe in 2009, was investigated by the RCVS's disciplinary committee following "multiple complaints".

The committee considered Mr Hutber had shown no insight into the allegations and did not appreciate the significance or impact of his conduct upon his clients and their animals.

The complaints involved a series of allegations including lack of adequate professional care, failure to have regard to animal welfare, failure to make or maintain adequate clinical records or to provide them on request and failure to treat clients with courtesy and respect.

In the first case, Mr Hutber was found to have performed surgery on a dog inadequately, failed to provide adequate post-operative pain relief, failed to obtain informed consent for the surgery from the dog's owner and failed to keep adequate clinical records of the dog's treatment.

In a second case of inadequate professional care, Mr Hutber was deemed to have failed to ensure a cat's condition was monitored adequately, failed to ensure that the cat received appropriate fluid therapy and failed to keep adequate clinical records.

Mr Hutber was also found to have brought the profession into disrepute by speaking rudely to one of his clients.

On a separate occasion, a different client was found to have been treated without due courtesy or respect when Mr Hutber told her to come to the practice at once to get tablets and give them to her dog, otherwise the dog would die from a disease he had diagnosed without carrying out the necessary investigations.

He later repeated the demand, despite being told the dog was now being treated at a different practice.

One other complaint involved Mr Hutber's refusal to provide an animal's clinical records to a former client.

The disciplinary committee concluded that Mr Hutber's conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct, although members accepted he had been of previous good character.

But they ruled he had caused actual injury to an animal by subjecting it to unnecessary revision surgery and said he had demonstrated a lamentable lack of concern for animal welfare.

As a result, he had brought the profession into disrepute with his treatment of his clients and exhibited conduct that fell far short of that to be expected of a member of the veterinary profession.

Committee chairman Professor Peter Lees said: "[The committee] is not satisfied that there is a realistic prospect of the respondent having the ability or inclination to remedy his failings [and] remains unconvinced that there is a real possibility of a change in his attitude.

"The committee is fully conscious that the purpose of sanction is not to punish, but to protect animals and the wider public interest and to uphold the reputation of the veterinary profession.

"Having regard to the serious aggravating factors [in this case], the committee considers that the respondent's conduct, taken as a whole, is so serious that removal of his professional status is the only appropriate sanction."