Staffs vet removed from Register for dishonest and misleading certification

The RCVS Disciplinary Committee has directed that a Staffordshire-based veterinary surgeon be removed from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons after it found proved a number of dishonest and misleading failings relating to his certification of veterinary export health certificates (EHCs).

Mr Mpho Donald Lesolle appeared before the Committee between Tuesday 27 August and Friday 30 August 2024 in respect of one charge with eight sub-charges, all related to his professional conduct whilst in his official position as an Official Veterinarian (OV) with responsibility for signing export health certificates for animal products.

Sub-charges 1 (a) to (e) concerned five separate EHCs signed and certified by Mr Lesolle in his professional capacity as a veterinary surgeon and OV between May 2021 and September 2021 relating to a variety of different animal products and live exports and his failure to complete these properly and to the expected standards.

Sub-charge 1 (f) concerned him failing to send to the Animal Plant and Health Agency (APHA) copies of two other EHCs he had completed, despite requests.

Sub-charge 1 (g) concerned the fact that Mr Lesolle’s conduct had in 1(a) to (f) risked undermining procedures and regulations designed to protect animal health and welfare and public health.

The final sub-charge 1 (h) alleged that his conduct in relation to 1 (a) to (d) was both dishonest and misleading.

At the outset of the hearing Mr Lesolle admitted sub-charges 1 (a) to (g) in full, as well as admitting that his conduct was misleading in respect of some of the sub-charges. However, he completely denied that any of his conduct had been dishonest as alleged in 1(h). The details of the sub-charges found proven, as well as Mr Lesolle’s admissions, the charges he denied and the allegations that the College decided not to pursue, can be found in the full documentation available on our disciplinary hearings webpage. 

"Honest and accurate certification were responsibilities that were fundamental to the work of any veterinary surgeon, as was made clear by the Code [of Professional Conduct] and the 10 Principles of Certification. The respondent’s conduct in this respect had fallen far short of what was expected of any practitioner."

Having found the admitted sub-charges proven, and then ruling on which of the outstanding sub-charges (which related to whether his conduct was misleading and dishonest) were proven or not proven, the Committee then considered whether the proven charges amounted to serious professional misconduct.

In doing so the Committee took into account two of the fundamental principles of the profession: the protection of animal welfare and rules designed to protect animal welfare and public health; and honesty and integrity. As a result, it found him guilty of serious professional misconduct in relation to the proven charges.

Paul Morris, chairing the Disciplinary Committee and speaking on its behalf, said: “The Committee had made four findings of dishonest conduct against the respondent in relation to three EHCs that he had issued. Each one of these findings was in itself a very serious matter. Honest and accurate certification were responsibilities that were fundamental to the work of any veterinary surgeon, as was made clear by the Code [of Professional Conduct] and the 10 Principles of Certification. The respondent’s conduct in this respect had fallen far short of what was expected of any practitioner. It was an aggravating factor that this dishonest conduct had taken place in the context of the respondent’s work as an OV [official veterinarian], which was work that involved a special responsibility for the protection of animal welfare and human health.

“Further, the respondent’s approach to his work as an OV fell far short of what was expected of any practitioner. His repeated failures to read the Notes for Guidance, as well as his failures to undertake mandated inspections, arose, on his own account, from complacency. The practical consequence of this approach to his work was that he repeatedly failed to discharge his responsibilities properly. In so failing, he repeatedly risked undermining the system of rules and regulations designed to protect animal and avian welfare and public health. The chaotic way in which he had completed the EHC relating to live birds, which formed the subject of charge 1 (c), provided a stark illustration of the risks to which his conduct gave rise.”

The Committee then went on to consider what would be the most appropriate sanction for Mr Lesolle and, in doing so, took into account the aggravating and mitigating factors in the case.

In terms of aggravating factors, it considered that his errors of certification had been reckless, that they signalled a pattern of misconduct that was sustained and repeated over a significant period of time, and that his insight into the seriousness of his misconduct was limited.

It also took into account the fact that Mr Lesolle had appeared before the Disciplinary Committee on two previous occasions – in 2007 and 2015 – the latter case involving dishonesty which resulted in Mr Lesolle receiving a four-month suspension from the Register.

“The Committee regarded this case as a particularly serious case of false certification. It involved repeated dishonesty and occurred in the context of the respondent’s specific responsibilities as an OV. His approach to these responsibilities, which involved both dishonesty and carelessness, created a risk of serious harm to animals and the public."

As regards mitigating factors, the Committee considered that Mr Lesolle had cooperated with the APHA’s investigation, had made admissions during the proceedings, and accepted that 2021 was a stressful period for many OVs and veterinary practices due to the impacts of both Covid-19 and Brexit. It also considered a number of positive testimonials and character references submitted by professional colleagues and clients.

However, the Committee decided that the most appropriate and proportionate sanction was to direct the Registrar to remove Mr Lesolle’s name from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons.

Paul Morris added: “The Committee regarded this case as a particularly serious case of false certification. It involved repeated dishonesty and occurred in the context of the respondent’s specific responsibilities as an OV. His approach to these responsibilities, which involved both dishonesty and carelessness, created a risk of serious harm to animals and the public. His approach also involved putting his own interests before the health and welfare of animals and of the public. Against the background of the respondent’s previous regulatory history, it evidenced a serious attitudinal problem. In the Committee’s judgment the respondent’s conduct was fundamentally incompatible with remaining on the Register.”

The full details of the case can be found on the RCVS disciplinary hearings webpage.

Please note: this press release is a summary intended to assist in understanding the case and the Committee's decision.