General Pharmaceutical Council v Nazir

An interim suspension order may be extended only where the extension is necessary and proportionate to protect the public and the public interest. The court must balance the gravity of the allegations and the identified risk of harm against the nature of the evidence, the regulator’s delay and lack of expedition, and the prejudice to the registrant. Serious allegations and a serious prospective risk may justify a short final extension despite substantial regulatory delay, but the balance may be finely drawn and further delay is unlikely to be tolerated.

The General Pharmaceutical Council applied under article 56(5) of the Pharmacy Order 2010 to extend an interim suspension order imposed on the respondent pharmacist in August 2013. The allegations concerned the supply of controlled and prescription-only medicines to a vulnerable patient without an appropriate prescription.

The respondent had been acquitted in related criminal proceedings. The Council had not completed its investigation or formulated charges, and had failed to pursue available evidence promptly. The central issue was whether a further four-month extension remained necessary and proportionate in light of the alleged risk, the evidential difficulties, the delay and the prejudice caused by prolonged suspension.

1. Application granted. The interim suspension order was extended for four months, from 26 February to 25 June 2017.
2. The governing test, following Hugh, was whether the extension was necessary and proportionate to protect the public and the public interest. Relevant considerations included the gravity of the allegations, the risk of harm, the nature of the evidence, and the prejudice to the respondent.
3. The allegations were exceptionally serious. If established, they demonstrated a serious risk to patients and to the public interest. The criminal acquittal did not necessarily determine the regulatory proceedings because the issues and standard of proof differed.
4. The Council had failed to act expeditiously. It had delayed pursuing the regulatory investigation, had not properly followed up available police assistance, and had not taken adequate steps to obtain or assess relevant evidence. Those failures weighed materially against the application.
5. Balancing the serious risk and gravity of the allegations against the Council’s delay and the respondent’s prolonged inability to practise, the balance only just favoured a short extension. The court warned that there could be no further delay or excuses. The Council was expected to assemble and serve any case, and notify the respondent of any charges, as soon as possible.