Pharmacist Removed from Register Following Conviction for Possession of Extreme Pornographic Images and Making Indecent Photographs of a Child

The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) Fitness to Practise Committee considered the case of a pharmacist convicted of possessing extreme pornographic material and making indecent images of children. The case originated from an investigation by Devon and Cornwall Police, who traced illicit online activity to the registrant’s home address. Upon searching his device, police discovered numerous indecent images and videos featuring children as young as six years old.

The pharmacist pleaded guilty in court and was sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment (suspended for two years), 200 hours of unpaid work, and a 40-day Rehabilitation Activity Requirement. Additionally, he was placed on the sex offenders register for 10 years and made subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for 10 years.

Findings

The GPhC panel determined that the registrant’s actions had severely damaged public confidence in the profession and breached the fundamental principles of pharmacy practice. The committee highlighted that the registrant’s conviction demonstrated a significant departure from professional standards and presented an ongoing risk to public trust in pharmacy.

In his written statement, the pharmacist acknowledged the severity of his offences, stating:

“The severity of my actions leaves the Committee only one recourse, my removal from the GPhC register.”

However, despite showing some insight into his wrongdoing, the committee was not convinced that he had fully remediated his behaviour, particularly given that his rehabilitation program was still ongoing.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The panel concluded that the registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on both public protection and public interest grounds. The committee cited that his actions had:

• Posed a significant risk to public confidence in pharmacy
• Breached core professional and ethical standards
• Demonstrated conduct that was fundamentally incompatible with being a registered pharmacist

Given the nature of the conviction, the GPhC determined that his behaviour was not remediable, as it involved serious sexual offences, including indecent images of children.

Sanction

The Fitness to Practise Committee ruled that the only proportionate sanction was removal from the GPhC register. Lesser sanctions, such as suspension or conditions, were deemed inappropriate due to:

• The gravity of the offence
• The irreparable damage to public trust
• The long-term nature of the registrant’s legal restrictions (Sexual Harm Prevention Order and sex offenders register placement)

Additionally, the committee imposed an interim suspension effective immediately, preventing the registrant from practising while awaiting the formal removal date or any potential appeal.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

This case underscores several crucial lessons for pharmacy professionals:

1. Criminal Behaviour Has Severe Professional Consequences – Engaging in criminal activity, especially involving vulnerable individuals, is fundamentally incompatible with the responsibilities of a healthcare professional.
2. Public Confidence in Pharmacy Must Be Protected – The GPhC prioritizes maintaining trust in the profession, and any conduct that undermines this trust is likely to result in the most severe sanctions.
3. Some Actions Are Not Remediable – While many fitness to practise cases involve remediation opportunities, offences of a sexual nature—particularly those involving children—are considered beyond redemption within professional regulation.
4. Pharmacists Are Held to the Highest Ethical Standards – Even conduct outside of direct patient care can lead to removal from the register if it is deemed incompatible with professional responsibilities.

Conclusion

The removal of the registration from the GPhC register reinforces the regulator’s zero-tolerance stance on sexual offences and its commitment to protecting public safety and upholding professional standards. The case serves as a stark warning that serious criminal behaviour will result in permanent exclusion from the pharmacy profession.