Bristol-based RVN removed from register after being convicted of stealing controlled drugs from practice

The RCVS Veterinary Nurse Disciplinary Committee has directed that a Bristol-based veterinary nurse be removed from the Register of Veterinary Nurses after she was convicted of stealing controlled drugs from a practice where she worked.

Miss Dayna Johnson was convicted at North Somerset Magistrates’ Court following a guilty plea of the offence of theft by employee on 5 December 2023, after she stole buprenorphine belonging to Yatton Vets on 26 September of the same year. She was sentenced to a fine of £120, a surcharge of £48, and costs of £85.

There were four further charges against Miss Johnson, who appeared before the Veterinary Nursing Disciplinary Committee online between Monday 10 and Wednesday 12 March 2025.

Charge one related to Miss Johnson stealing 5ml of methadone on 1 December 2022 from her employer, Vets4Pets in Bristol, and injecting herself with the methadone. The police investigated the incident and, on 10 July 2023, Miss Johnson accepted a conditional caution for the theft, the condition being she should attend a drug awareness course before 30 October 2023.

Charge two related to Miss Johnson dishonestly taking a syringe of methadone on 17 August 2023 from her employer, the Langford Small Animal Hospital, and injecting herself with it.

Charge three related to two dates in September 2023 when she dishonestly took methadone (20 September 2023), gabapentin and buprenorphine (26 September 2023) from Yatton Vets, her then employer, injecting herself with the buprenorphine and then working when unfit to do so. Miss Johnson was later convicted of theft in relation to the buprenorphine (charge five).

Charge four related to an incident on 24 November 2023, when Miss Johnson dishonestly took a syringe of buprenorphine from Bristol PDSA, for the purposes of self-administration, and was dishonest both to other members of staff and in the clinical records about the circumstances of taking the buprenorphine.

Charge five was in relation to Miss Johnson’s criminal conviction.

At the outset of the hearing, the charges were read to Miss Johnson, and she admitted all charges in their entirety. Having reviewed all the evidence and taken Miss Johnson’s admissions into account, the Committee found each of the charges proved.

After the criminal proceedings had finished and had been reported to the College, Miss Johnson wrote a letter expressing her deepest apologies to both the RCVS and the profession. Within this she also made it clear that she took full responsibility for her actions. In a later statement, she added that she had tried to use the experience to learn and improve in every aspect of her career and life and did not want to defend her behaviour. Within this statement she also retracted a previous request to resign from the Register, stating that she would accept any outcome to the investigation.

On deciding whether the proved charges amounted to serious professional misconduct, the Committee took aggravating and mitigating factors into account.

In terms of aggravating factors, the Committee found the following:

• Risk of injury to an animal or human
• Recklessness in carrying on working despite the risks to animals and colleagues
• Premeditated misconduct (for example obtaining keys/codes to the controlled drugs cabinet)
• Abuse of professional position
• Misconduct sustained or repeated over a period of time
• Conduct contravening advice issued by the RCVS, including the Preliminary Investigation Committee and Professional Conduct Department, or other appropriate authority (the police conditional caution)

The Committee identified no mitigating factors in respect of Miss Johnson’s conduct.

It concluded that for each of the individual charges Miss Johnson’s conduct fell far short of the conduct expected of a member of the profession and that each of the charges one to four amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In relation to charge five, the criminal conviction, the Committee noted that the nature and the circumstances of the offence involved dishonesty, abuse of her professional position regarding access to controlled drugs, breach of her employer’s trust, and that the misconduct took place notwithstanding an investigation by the police for similar conduct in December 2022. The Committee therefore concluded that charge five rendered Miss Johnson unfit to practise.

When deciding on a sanction, the Committee took into account mitigating factors, which included:

• There were no previous disciplinary findings against Miss Johnson
• Her criminal conviction was now a spent conviction
• Her misconduct appeared to be as a result of her drug addiction at the time
• She had made some efforts to avoid repetition by engaging with addiction recovery meetings and talking therapies
• She said she had been drug-free since December 2023

The Committee found no further aggravating factors at this stage.

Kathryn Peaty, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf said: "The Committee considered that the overall misconduct proved so serious and was incompatible with remaining on the register."

She added: "The Committee accepted that Miss Johnson was currently likely to be drug free on the basis of her evidence and that of her referee, but it noted that independent testing proving she had been drug free for any period of time was not available to it. Furthermore, Miss Johnson had been unable to demonstrate that she had worked without any incident recently as she had accepted she had been dismissed from her recent job.

"Having taken into account all of the aggravating and mitigating factors, and balancing the public interest and the need to uphold and maintain standards within the profession, and having decided that Miss Johnson’s insight was limited, the Committee concluded that the sanction of ‘removal’ was the only proportionate sanction it could impose in this case. It also decided that such a sanction maintained public confidence in the veterinary profession, safeguarded animal welfare and protected the public from any future risk of repetition of similar behaviour.

"The Committee therefore directed that the Registrar remove Miss Johnson’s name from the Register of Veterinary Nurses forthwith."

Miss Johnson has 28 days from being notified of her removal from the Register to lodge an appeal with the Privy Council.

Please note: this news story is intended to be a summary of the hearing to aid in understanding the case and the Committee's decision. The Committee's full decision can be found on our Disciplinary Committee hearings webpage.