General Pharmaceutical Council v Lakatos

When deciding whether to extend an interim suspension of a registered pharmacist, the court must assess whether continuation is necessary for public protection, the public interest or the registrant’s own interest. The assessment must have regard to the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the evidence, the seriousness and risk of harm to patients, the reasons for delay, and prejudice to the registrant. A serious, unappealed conviction may justify continuation where ending the suspension would undermine public trust and confidence in the profession.

The General Pharmaceutical Council applied under article 54(5) of the Pharmacist and Pharmacy Technicians Order 2007 for a six-month extension of an interim suspension order imposed on the respondent pharmacist. The order had originally been made while criminal proceedings were pending. The respondent was later convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and sentenced to 78 months’ imprisonment.

The disciplinary proceedings alleged impairment of fitness to practise by reason of the conviction. The substantive hearing was fixed for 12 April 2012. The issue was whether the interim suspension should be renewed until that hearing.

1. The application was granted. The interim suspension was extended for six months, expiring on 2 August 2012.

2. In applying the same criteria as the disciplinary committee, the court had to consider the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the evidence, the seriousness and risk of harm to patients, the reasons why the case had not concluded, and the prejudice to the registrant if it remained unresolved. The court had to decide whether continuation was necessary for the protection of the public, the public interest or the registrant’s own interest.

3. The respondent remained registered because his application to leave the profession voluntarily had not yet been determined. His conviction was extremely serious because it involved the taking of life. The delay was attributable to the criminal proceedings and could not fairly be placed at the Council’s door.

4. The conviction had not been appealed, and the fitness-to-practise allegation flowed from it. In those circumstances, the court was satisfied that failure to renew the suspension would undermine public trust and confidence in the profession. Continuation of the order was therefore necessary in the public interest.