General Pharmaceutical Council v Ilyk

When deciding whether to extend an interim professional suspension order, the court applies the same criteria as when making the original order. It must consider protection of the public, the public interest and the practitioner’s own interests. Relevant factors include the seriousness of the allegations, the evidence, the risk of harm, the reasons for delay and the prejudice caused by continuation. The court may rely on a recent assessment by the relevant fitness to practise committee, but must independently decide whether the proposed period is necessary and proportionate. A substantial extension may be justified where investigation, preparation of evidence and the listing of a hearing mean that an earlier hearing is unrealistic.

The General Pharmaceutical Council applied under article 56(5) of the Pharmacy Order 2010 to extend an interim suspension order concerning the respondent’s registration as a pharmacist. The order had initially been imposed following allegations involving prescription-only medication and fitness to practise. The fitness to practise committee had recently reviewed the order and directed that it continue for eight months. The respondent did not respond to the application and was not represented. The central issues were whether continuation remained justified and whether the requested period was necessary and proportionate.

1. The application was granted. The interim suspension order was extended for eight months.
2. The governing criteria were those identified by Arden J in GMC v Hiew [2007] EWCA Civ 369. The court had to consider protection of the public, the public interest and the respondent’s own interests. Relevant considerations included the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the evidence, the seriousness of the risk of harm to patients, the reasons why the substantive proceedings had not concluded and the prejudice to the practitioner if the order continued.
3. The fitness to practise committee had considered those matters at its review the previous day. The allegations were particularly serious, the risk of error or conduct damaging public confidence was high, and there was no updated health evidence because of the respondent’s apparent lack of cooperation. The committee was entitled to conclude that conditions would not be sufficient, workable or enforceable, and that continued suspension was required in the public interest and the respondent’s own interests.
4. The respondent’s financial and reputational prejudice was recognised, but the public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession outweighed those interests. The requested eight-month period was sensible and proportionate because the investigation was expected to take a month, the respondent would then have 12 weeks to prepare evidence, and a hearing could not realistically occur sooner.