Yusuf v The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain

A professional disciplinary tribunal may proceed in a defendant’s absence only after exercising its discretion with the utmost caution and considering fairness in all the circumstances. A bare assertion of illness does not require an adjournment, particularly where no medical evidence is supplied and the person has chosen not to be represented. A tribunal is not required to cross-examine witnesses as an advocate, provided it tests the evidence appropriately and fairly considers matters favourable to the defendant. Repeated dishonesty and prescription forgery in a professional context may justify removal from the professional register, even where the practitioner obtained no personal financial benefit.

The appellant, a pharmacist, appealed under section 10 of the Pharmacy Act 1954 against the respondent Society’s decision to remove his name from the register. The Disciplinary Committee relied on an unappealed conviction for dishonestly falsifying NHS prescription records and on separate findings that he had altered prescriptions and forged doctors’ signatures. The appellant challenged the refusal of an adjournment, the decision to proceed in his absence, the Committee’s treatment of evidence, and the proportionality of removal from the register.

1. Appeal dismissed. Each ground of appeal failed.
2. The Committee was entitled to refuse the late adjournment application. It was unsupported by medical evidence, and the appellant had indicated that he did not propose to provide such evidence. The Chairman was not required to invite further evidence before deciding the application.
3. In deciding whether to proceed in the appellant’s absence, the Committee had to exercise its discretion with the utmost caution and consider whether the proceedings as a whole were fair. The principles in R v Hayward [2001] EWCA Crim 168, approved in R v Jones (Anthony) [2002] UKHL 5, and applied to professional disciplinary proceedings in Tait v The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons [2003] UKPC 34, were satisfied. The Committee was entitled to find that the appellant had voluntarily chosen not to attend and not to be represented. His assertion of illness, without medical evidence and without more, did not require an adjournment.
4. The Committee was not required to cross-examine Mr Cristal as if acting for the appellant. It questioned him about the appellant’s allegations and the potential financial benefit to the pharmacy, considered matters favouring the appellant, and was entitled to accept his evidence. The process was fair.
5. The sanction was not disproportionate. Repeated falsification of prescriptions and forgery of doctors’ signatures involved dishonesty, abuse of professional trust, risks to patients, possible loss to the NHS, and damage to confidence between doctors and pharmacists. The absence of personal financial gain was a mitigating factor, but did not prevent removal from the register. The respondent was awarded costs summarily assessed at £12,500 inclusive of VAT.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal against the Disciplinary Committee’s determination of 16 May 2008 dismissed.