GPhC Review Determines No Ongoing Impairment After Sexual Misconduct Suspension

Date of Decision: June 12, 2025

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

• Inappropriate and sexually motivated conduct toward multiple female colleagues between 2018 and 2021, including:
• Touching a colleague's bottom on multiple occasions during work-related events.
• Making sexually explicit comments and questions regarding colleagues' sex lives and physical attributes.
• Engaging in behaviour that sought sexual gratification or a sexual relationship.
• Repeated unprofessional and boundary-violating remarks and actions.

Outcome: Suspension to lapse upon expiry; fitness to practise found not currently impaired.

GPhC Standards Breached:

• Standard 3 – Communicate effectively
• Standard 5 – Use professional judgement
• Standard 6 – Behave in a professional manner
• Standard 9 – Demonstrate leadership

Case Summary

Allegations

This GPhC Fitness to Practise case centred on serious allegations of misconduct involving a pharmacist, who over a multi-year period engaged in repeated, sexually inappropriate behaviour towards several female colleagues. The allegations included both physical and verbal acts, occurring at various work-related and social events. Examples of behaviour found proved included groping a colleague’s bottom during a Christmas party at Madame Tussauds, making sexually suggestive remarks such as “I bet you liked it” and “you just need a good shag”, and displaying written questions about sex toys during a professional development session.

Three of the more striking quotes cited within the determination include:

• “I bet you liked it” – said to a colleague shortly after groping her.
• “You just need a good shag” – directed to another colleague, shortly after squeezing her during an unsolicited hug.
• “No you need someone to make you come” – whispered to a colleague, underscoring the sexually motivated nature of the conduct.

These allegations were corroborated and deemed proved by the original committee, which concluded that the conduct was sexually motivated, repeated, and indicative of a serious abuse of professional boundaries.

Findings

The original panel found most of the alleged incidents proved and determined that the registrant’s actions constituted serious misconduct. The behaviour was described as “deplorable” and the kind that would “shock and appal members of the public and fellow practitioners.” The Committee was particularly concerned about the misuse of a position of professional authority and trust, especially where a power imbalance was present. Breaches of GPhC Standards 3, 5, 6, and 9 were identified.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

At the principal hearing, the panel found that the registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired. While the registrant had undertaken some remediation efforts, including participation in courses on professional boundaries and interpersonal conduct, the Committee concluded that insight was limited, noting that the registrant “focused mainly on the effect of these proceedings on him” and only addressed the impact on complainants when prompted.

However, at the 2025 review hearing, the registrant presented a more robust and introspective reflective statement. He fully accepted the findings of misconduct and acknowledged the significant impact his actions had on his colleagues and the wider profession. In his updated reflections, he stated:

“I recognise that such conduct breaches Standards 3, 5, 6, and 9… I deeply regret the distress, discomfort, and professional impact my actions caused to Colleagues B, E, F, and G, as well as the broader harm to team dynamics and public confidence in the pharmacy profession.”

The Committee was persuaded that the registrant had demonstrated sincere insight and effective remediation. They highlighted that he had not only undertaken formal training but had applied learning in his professional and personal life, proactively altering his communication style and respecting boundaries.

Sanction

The original sanction was a 12-month suspension, with the possibility of review. At the review hearing in June 2025, the Committee determined that the registrant’s fitness to practise was no longer impaired. Given the substantial remediation, development of insight, and lack of ongoing risk, the Committee allowed the suspension to lapse upon expiry.

“The Registrant has addressed all those issues that the Principal Hearing Committee considered would assist this Reviewing Committee… He would address a similar situation differently now, having reflected on his past behaviour and undertaken remedial training.”

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

1. Upholding Professional Boundaries: Even in social or informal work settings, pharmacy professionals must maintain strict professional boundaries. Comments or behaviours that could be perceived as sexually suggestive or intrusive are unacceptable.
2. Sexual Misconduct and Professionalism: The profession demands the highest standards of conduct, and sexually motivated behaviour is a serious breach. This includes verbal comments, physical gestures, or written communications of a sexual nature.
3. Insight and Remediation: Demonstrating insight is not merely about accepting fault. It involves understanding the impact of one’s behaviour on others and the profession, and applying learning to prevent recurrence.
4. Impact on the Profession: Misconduct of this nature undermines public confidence in pharmacy professionals and can harm team dynamics, potentially affecting patient care indirectly.
5. Importance of Reflection: Structured and sincere reflection, supported by learning and feedback, can be a powerful tool for demonstrating insight and supporting re-entry into the profession.

This case serves as a critical reminder of the profound responsibilities pharmacists hold, not just in clinical settings, but in every professional interaction.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.

Log in or Register for free to access.