Abdul-Razzak v General Pharmaceutical Council

A professional disciplinary appeal court should intervene on factual findings only where the committee was wrong, in practice plainly wrong, while allowing appropriate weight to its specialist expertise and its advantage in hearing witnesses. A responsible pharmacist has a positive, proactive duty to supervise counter assistants and prevent prescription-only medicines being supplied without a prescription. Current impairment depends on present fitness, not merely past misconduct. Insight, remediation and the likelihood of repetition are important, but public protection and confidence in the profession remain fundamental. Interim suspension is not analogous to custody on remand and need not be deducted from a later disciplinary suspension.

The appellant, a registered pharmacist and responsible pharmacist at a London pharmacy, appealed against findings by the General Pharmaceutical Council’s Fitness to Practise Committee. The Committee found that counter assistants had supplied prescription-only medicines without prescriptions on three occasions, that the appellant’s inadequate supervision caused or permitted the unlawful supplies, and that his fitness to practise was impaired. It suspended his registration for six months.

The appeal challenged the factual findings, the finding of current impairment, and the proportionality of the sanction, including the treatment of an earlier interim suspension. The central issues were the proper standard of appellate review, the scope of a responsible pharmacist’s supervisory duty, the significance of insight and remediation, and the approach to sanction.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Committee’s findings that the appellant caused or permitted the unlawful supplies were not wrong, and certainly not plainly wrong. The High Court must not second-guess a specialist professional tribunal or substitute its own view for that of the fact-finder, particularly where the tribunal heard and assessed the witnesses. The court should nevertheless correct an error of fact, approach or procedural fairness, and may moderate deference where the issue lies outside the tribunal’s professional expertise.
2. The responsible pharmacist’s statutory duty to secure the safe and effective running of the pharmacy imposed a positive and proactive policing duty. It was not enough to rely on the experience or presumed integrity of counter assistants, or merely to arrange their training. The appellant had to supervise their activities and intervene to prevent prescription-only medicines leaving the pharmacy without a prescription. The Committee was entitled to infer, from the appellant’s conduct during the filmed supply and from the surrounding evidence, that the same failure of supervision caused or permitted the other supplies.
3. The finding of current impairment was sustainable. Impairment is a matter of judgment. The Committee had to consider present fitness, while protecting the public, maintaining proper professional standards and preserving confidence in the profession. Applying the questions identified in Cohen v GMC [2008] EWHC 581 Admin—whether the misconduct was easily remediable, had been remedied, and was highly unlikely to recur—the Committee was entitled to treat the appellant’s failure to recognise his fault and his inability to explain precisely how he would act differently as an insuperable obstacle to a finding of no impairment. Competence as a pharmacist did not necessarily establish competence in the distinct role of responsible pharmacist.
4. Suspension for six months was not disproportionate. The Committee was entitled to give greater weight to public protection, professional standards and public confidence than to the appellant’s personal hardship. Its decision was entitled to considerable respect. Time spent under an interim suspension order need not be deducted: disciplinary proceedings protect the public and the profession, whereas criminal sentencing serves a different function.

The judgment records the Fitness to Practise Committee’s decision dated 5 October 2015. The High Court dismissed the appeal against the findings of misconduct, current impairment and the six-month suspension.