General Pharmaceutical Council, R (on the application of) v Ramos

A continuing suspension may be maintained where it remains justified in the public interest, the underlying investigation has been properly conducted, and delay in reaching the disciplinary hearing is adequately explained. Delay caused by the vacating of a hearing and the resulting difficulty in assembling a panel does not, on the facts, require suspension to end.

The General Pharmaceutical Council applied for an order continuing the defendant’s suspension pending a disciplinary hearing. The defendant was unlikely to participate but did not accept the evidence against him, so the evidence would need to be called. A hearing within 18 months had been vacated, and the substantive hearing was listed for March of the following year. The court considered whether the suspension should continue in light of the delay and the public interest.

1. Suspension justified. The court was satisfied that maintaining the suspension was justified.
2. Investigation and delay. The claimant had conducted a proper investigation. The delay was essentially attributable to the vacating of a hearing that would otherwise have taken place within 18 months, together with difficulties in finding a panel to hear the evidence. Those difficulties were relevant because the defendant did not accept the evidence against him, notwithstanding his indication that he was unlikely to participate.
3. Public interest. The public interest, in particular, supported maintaining the suspension until the listed hearing.
4. Order. The court granted the order sought and approved the draft order, with the reference to costs deleted because the claimant did not press its application for costs.