Ashby, R (on the application of) v Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain

On an appeal from a professional disciplinary decision, the court will intervene only where an error occurred in the proceedings or in the decision. It accords appropriate respect to the specialist tribunal’s assessment of fitness to practise and sanction. A procedural protocol does not displace the statutory timetable unless its terms require that result. Fairness and expedition must be assessed in the circumstances, including the practitioner’s knowledge of the allegations and any demonstrated prejudice. Delay alone does not prevent disciplinary proceedings where a fair hearing remains possible and important public interests are engaged. A tribunal is not required to adjourn for medical evidence where no adequate medical evidence has been produced and the circumstances do not require an inference of illness. Serious, admitted professional misconduct may justify removal from the register.

The appellant, a pharmacist, challenged the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s decision to remove his name from the register following disciplinary inquiries concerning misconduct in several employments. Most allegations were admitted; an allegation of assault was disputed. The grounds included inadequate preparation time, the decision to hear the inquiries together, delay, apparent bias, insufficient consideration of health, and disproportionate sanction.

The Administrative Court considered whether the Statutory Committee had acted unfairly or unlawfully and whether its decision to remove the appellant from the register could be impugned.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellant failed to show any error in the proceedings or in the Committee’s decision. The court was required to accord due respect to the Committee’s specialist judgment on professional fitness, public protection and sanction.
2. The statutory timetable required at least 28 days’ notice of the inquiry. The protocol governing service of evidence was a practical framework intended to promote fairness and expedition. It did not require separate hearings merely because some inquiries pre-dated the protocol. The appellant had long known the allegations, had sought to have them heard together, and failed to demonstrate material prejudice.
3. Delay did not invalidate the proceedings. The appellant had admitted most of the allegations and was able to address the incidents in evidence. Serious disciplinary allegations concerning a healthcare professional engaged the public interest in patient protection, professional standards and public confidence.
4. The allegations of bias were unsustainable when the proceedings were read as a whole. Isolated remarks could not be assessed out of context, and the Committee’s conclusions were open to it on the evidence and admissions.
5. The Committee was entitled to proceed without medical or psychiatric reports. There was no medical evidence before it, the appellant had not obtained such evidence, and the circumstances did not require an inference that illness caused the misconduct or deprived him of responsibility. The Committee was entitled to reject the proposed mitigation.
6. The dispensing errors, failures concerning patients, dishonesty, offensive conduct, misconduct involving controlled drugs and lack of insight were serious professional matters, not merely technical infringements. Removal from the register was the correct and proportionate sanction. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of £14,482.82.

• Statutory Committee of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain: found the allegations established, save for wasting an inspector’s time, and directed removal of the appellant’s name from the register.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay costs of £14,482.82.