Chanin & Anor v The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain

On an appeal limited to penalty, a professional disciplinary tribunal’s decision to erase a practitioner from the register may be upheld where sustained, serious misconduct demonstrates a lack of insight and creates a real risk of repetition. Professional standards may regulate the way pharmacists conduct their business, not merely their technical or clinical work. Personal mitigation and previous good character remain relevant, but have limited weight where erasure is necessary to protect the reputation of the profession. An apology that does not demonstrate genuine insight may carry little weight. The court may refuse fresh evidence which does not satisfy the principles governing fresh evidence on appeal.

The appellants, registered pharmacists, appealed under section 10 of the Pharmacy Act 1954 against their erasure from the register by a statutory committee of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. The committee had found proved a sustained course of offensive, threatening and abusive communications, publication of personal information and threatening material, and responsibility for similar conduct by an adviser acting on their behalf. The appellants no longer challenged the findings of misconduct. They argued that the penalty was excessive, that the conduct was extraneous to their professional role, that insufficient weight had been given to mitigation, and that fresh evidence should be admitted.

1. Fresh evidence. The appeal was confined to sentence. Statements which sought to challenge the findings of misconduct were outside the scope of the appeal. Fresh evidence was admissible only in accordance with the principles in Ladd v Marshall; the appellants had no unrestricted right to introduce new evidence.
2. Professional scope and seriousness. A pharmacist’s professional obligations extend to conduct in the carrying on of the pharmacy business. Sustained offensive, threatening and abusive conduct directed at business associates could properly constitute serious professional misconduct, even though it did not concern the dispensing of medicines. The committee was entitled to hold the appellants responsible for conduct undertaken by Mr Jones where they had supported, adopted and defended it.
3. Penalty. The conduct was aggravated by its persistence, threatening imagery and language, publication of personal information, use of professional stationery and the appellants’ continuing lack of insight. Previous good character and community support were relevant mitigation but could not reduce the gravity of conduct plainly justifying erasure. The apology was substantially an apologia and carried little weight.
4. Proportionality and outcome. Although the committee had not separately explained why lesser penalties were inappropriate, its decision as a whole showed that it had considered the relevant circumstances. The lack of insight meant that it could have no confidence that similar conduct would not recur if the appellants were again frustrated in business. No lesser penalty was appropriate. The appeal was dismissed. The respondent’s costs were summarily assessed, reduced by £2,500.

The judgment does not state the result of any earlier appeal. The appellants appealed to the High Court under section 10 of the Pharmacy Act 1954 against the statutory committee’s decision dated 21 October 2004.