The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) Disciplinary Committee has moved to remove a vet from the register following his sentencing for possession of incident images of children and extreme animal abuse.

Dr. Walter Dingemanse was sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment, suspended for 24 months (with rehabilitation activity and unpaid work requirements); directed to sign the sex offenders register for 10 years; subject to the forfeiture and destruction of a computer hard drive; and ordered to pay a total of £560 for prosecution costs and a victim surcharge by Oxford Crown Court.

The charges brought against him – one conviction – related to offences committed in 2019 of making indecent photographs of a child (Category A, B and C) and possessing 22 extreme pornographic images.

Portrayed among the 22 images was a person – in an explicit and realistic way – performing an act of sexual intercourse/oral sex with a live or dead animal, namely a dog. These were deemed grossly offensive, disgusting and otherwise of obscene character.

In relation to the charges, the RCVS Disciplinary Committee was presented with evidence taken from the transcripts of Dr. Dingemanse’s Crown Court sentencing hearing.

The transcript outlined that Dr. Dingemanse used an online messaging service to engage in conversations about child sexual abuse under a pseudonym. His IP address was traced, and he was arrested on suspicion of possessing indecent images of children.

The Committee described this behavior as “inexplicable” and “abhorrent” and that the possession of images of children and animals was “disgraceful conduct of the most grievous and reprehensible kind”.

During the sentencing of Dr. Dingemanse, the Crown Court Judge observed that Dr. Dingemanse was a man of high intelligence who had trained as a vet and had successfully undertaken a PhD. The judge added that he could not understand how someone with such ability and intelligence could engage in such behaviour.

The Committee did not consider that there were any mitigating factors in the case, but did consider 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; lack of integrity for a regulated professional to have behaved in such a way; premeditated conduct; and, that the offences involved vulnerable children and animals.  

Counsel for the College submitted to the Disciplinary Committee that the nature of circumstances of the offences rendered Dr. Dingemanse unfit to practise as a veterinary surgeon. Mr. Primmer, Dr. Dinemanse’s solicitor, indicated to the Committee that Dr. Dingemanse accepted this.

When deciding on the appropriate sanction, the Committee took into account all of the evidence, including Dr. Dingemanse’s expression of remorse and steps towards rehabilitation. Mr. Primmer invited the Committee to consider suspending Dr. Dingemanse from the register as his client’s sanction, but the Committee did not feel that this was appropriate.

Cerys Jones, chairing the Committee and speaking on its behalf said:

“The Committee considered that members of the public would rightly be appalled that a registered veterinary surgeon had committed offences of this nature.

“The Committee considered that suspending Dr. Dingemanse’s registration would not be sufficient to maintain confidence in the profession and that therefore, for public interest reasons, as well as animal protection, a suspension would not be sufficient.

“The Committee was of the view that the nature and seriousness of Dr. Dingemanse’s behaviour, which led to the conviction, was fundamentally incompatible with being registered as a veterinary surgeon and that all of the above matters listed were applicable in this case.

“The Committee decided that the only appropriate and proportionate sanction in this case was removal from the register.”

Dr. Dingemanse has 28 days from being notified of his removal from the register to lodge an appeal to the Privy Council.