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

A professional disciplinary tribunal may proceed in a registrant’s absence where proper notice was given and the absence was deliberate and voluntary. The discretion must be exercised with great care, having regard to fairness, the likely disadvantage to the absent person, the prospects of an adjournment, the seriousness of the allegations, and the public interest in resolving the matter promptly.

Where the tribunal has no reasonable basis to expect attendance at a later hearing and cannot impose interim restrictions, it may proceed beyond fact-finding to determine misconduct and sanction. A specialist professional tribunal is entitled to substantial respect when assessing sanctions directed to public protection, professional standards and public confidence.

The claimant appealed under section 10 of the Pharmacy Act 1954 against the Statutory Committee of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s decision to remove his name from the Register.

The Committee had found proved numerous dispensing errors during two employments, including an error involving methadone and conduct towards a patient after an error had been discovered. The claimant had received notice but did not attend the inquiry, seek an adjournment or provide any explanation for his absence.

The appeal challenged the decision to proceed in his absence, the decision to determine misconduct and sanction without a further opportunity to participate, and the proportionality of removal from the Register.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Committee was entitled to proceed in the claimant’s absence. Rule 19 of the Pharmaceutical Society (Statutory Committee) Order in Council 1978 conferred a discretion, to be exercised with great care and with fairness to both sides.

2. The principles identified in Tate v The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons [2003] UKPC 34, drawing on R v Jones (Anthony) [2002] WLR 524 and R v Hayward [2001] QB 862, were material. Relevant considerations included whether the absence was deliberate and voluntary, whether an adjournment might secure attendance, its likely length, representation, the disadvantage caused by absence, the risk of an improper conclusion about the absence, the seriousness of the allegations, the public interest, witness delay and the fairness of continuing the inquiry.

3. The claimant had been notified of the hearing, had made no contact with the Committee, had not sought an adjournment and had supplied no explanation or medical evidence. There was no sufficient basis for expecting him to attend a later hearing. The Committee had also taken steps to protect his position and remained responsible for requiring the Society to prove its case.

4. The Committee was entitled to complete all stages of the inquiry, including misconduct and sanction. It had no power to impose interim suspension or conditions, and the allegations raised serious patient-safety concerns.

5. Removal from the Register was not manifestly excessive. The Committee possessed specialist expertise in assessing measures required to protect the public and maintain professional standards and confidence. The repeated dispensing errors, the methadone incident, the patient becoming ill, and the claimant’s subsequent conduct justified the sanction. The approach was confirmed by Fatnani & Raschid v General Medical Council [2007] EWCA Civ 46.

6. The claimant was ordered to pay the Society’s costs, subject to detailed assessment on the standard basis if not agreed.

• Statutory Committee of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain: Following an inquiry, found the allegations proved and directed removal of the claimant’s name from the Register.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Dismissed the appeal under section 10 of the Pharmacy Act 1954 and ordered costs.