2022-12-07 17:42:40
We have previously given you news of cases in which the courts have been asked to grant extensions of interim suspension orders imposed on healthcare professionals. Similar law applies across all the healthcare professionals. Most recent cases have not involved pharmacists. However, two recent applications to extend interim suspensions have been made by the General Pharmaceutical Council.
In General Pharmaceutical Council v Patel [2022] EWHC 2654 (Admin), the registrant had been accused of “a sexual assault during a professional engagement with a patient.” The allegations were described as so serious as to become the subject of criminal proceedings.
The case came before Mr CMG Ockleton (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court). The judge made it clear that he was not making any findings of fact in respect of the allegations. Following previous decisions, especially the case of GMC v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369, the judge looked at all the circumstances including, in particular, the gravity of the allegations and the what the judge saw as the very considerable risk of serious harm to patients if the allegations were true and the interim suspension was not extended. The criminal trial was not due to take place until January 2023 and the GPhC “very properly” had decided that it would not be right to conclude any fitness to practise proceedings before the end of the trial.
The judge granted the GPhC a 9-month extension of the interim suspension.
In GPhC v Haroon Khan, [2022] EWHC 3070 (Admin), Mr David Pievsky KC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court), the pharmacist, whilst employed as a locum, was suspected of removing drugs from the pharmacy at which he was working. An interim suspension was imposed in February 2020 while a police investigation took place. During this suspension, which was extended from time to time, the registrant was convicted by Magistrates of practising as a pharmacist whilst suspended and lying about being registered. He was fined and ordered to pay costs.
The police investigation into the allegation of removing drugs from the pharmacy took an extremely long time, apparently due in part to understaffing in the police force. During this time, the GPhC decided to wait for the completion of any criminal proceedings before progressing the fitness to practise case. On 22 September 2022, the police finally informed the GPhC that, as far as the police were concerned, the GPhC could progress the fitness to practise case against the respondent to a final hearing.
The judge said:
“the allegations in this case are serious. They involved the alleged removal of drugs from a pharmacy by a registered pharmacist, and associated deceptive conduct on his part. It is self-evidently of concern. It is also apparent that public confidence in the profession and in the applicant as regulator could be undermined if the respondent were permitted to practice unrestricted.”
The judge was concerned at the “remarkable slowness of the police” and the length of time the registrant had already been suspended. He was also concerned about the lack of any substantial explanation for the police change of mind, leading to the advice given to the GPhC that fitness to practise proceedings could proceed. The judge said:
“Overall, I am satisfied that any potential prejudice to the [pharmacist] is outweighed by the seriousness of the allegations and the significant risk of harm to patients or the public interest. I consider that the order continues to be justified. I am also satisfied that a suspension order is a proportionate one. I do not disagree with the Council’s position that there are no conditions which would be workable in this context.”
Despite the judge’s view that the interim suspension should be extended, he was not prepared to grant the 9-month extension the GPhC had asked for, and granted a 6-month extension, saying:
“six months is a realistic and reasonable timeframe for a substantive disposal of this case. The Council must now move with every possible expedition to arrange to resolve this case. I appreciate there may be a waiting list and there may be other difficulties, but this is a case which has been seriously delayed and the Council must make every reasonable effort to conclude it within six months if at all possible. If it cannot, it would have to explain, on a subsequent application, what precisely has been done and why it was not possible to achieve this objective, and it should expect full scrutiny of those points by a subsequent judge.”