An RVN who admitted stealing animals she thought were suffering has been reprimanded and warned about her future conduct after an RCVS disciplinary hearing.

Committee members concluded there was “no useful purpose” in imposing a harsher penalty on Shakira Free Miles, due to the recognised low risk of further offending.

But newly published documents of the case also showed the panel rejected her submissions, which it felt “indicated a wish to provide ethical justification for her actions”.

The committee said it accepted people may have “deeply held personal convictions”, but insisted that didn’t “justify breaking the law in order to uphold those convictions”.

Crown Court

The disciplinary case was heard around a year after Miss Miles pleaded guilty to six charges of theft, plus one of attempted theft, at Reading Crown Court in October 2023.

She was subsequently given an 18-month community order, including unpaid work and rehabilitation activity, in February this year.

Giving evidence, she told the committee she had believed the animals were suffering at the time of the incidents and would either “die or continue to suffer without intervention”.

A report outlining the case acknowledged the sentencing judge’s remarks that Miss Miles and her co-defendants had been motivated by their personal beliefs, rather than personal gain.

Ethical veganism

But the committee still concluded that the convictions rendered her unfit to practise because of a “real risk of harm” to the animals involved and the potential for the offences to bring the profession into disrepute.

Later, in a separate document dealing solely with the question of sanction, Miss Miles was said to have told the committee she felt she had “never swayed from promoting animal welfare”.

The paper added: “The respondent also expressed that ethical veganism is a protected characteristic under the Equality act, and she should not be discriminated against, having already told the committee that she is a vegan.”

She added that, while she had not physically taken all of the animals involved, she had personally covered the cost of any veterinary care that had been required.

Animal welfare

But the panel said it “did not accept or see the relevance” of the comments relating to ethical veganism and warned that Miss Miles “gave the impression” of believing that intending to protect welfare justified her actions even while accepting she was wrong to have committed the offences.

However, it also stressed its function was not to “police” her views but to consider whether those views risked either animal welfare or public confidence in the profession.

The report said that despite Miss Miles’ profile, the committee had not been shown evidence of “any real risk” arising from her views in either area.

The warning and reprimand will remain on Miss Miles’ record indefinitely.