Pharmacist Suspension Expires after Exam Dishonesty and Motoring Convictions

Date of Decision: January 14, 2019

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

Dishonesty toward an NHS Trust regarding a Clinical Pharmacy Diploma exam.
Dishonest statements to colleagues about sitting and completing an exam that was never taken.
Failure to disclose motoring convictions to the GPhC within the required timeframe.
Dishonesty on a GPhC registration renewal form by declaring no criminal convictions.

Outcome: Suspension was allowed to lapse as the registrant was found no longer impaired

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 3 – Be honest and trustworthy
Standard 6 – Maintain, develop and use your professional knowledge and skills
Standard 9 – Ensure your conduct justifies the trust that patients and the public place in you and the pharmacy profession

Case Summary

Allegations

The case centred around serious breaches of professional standards, primarily involving dishonesty. The registrant was employed by an NHS Trust as a Deputy Aseptic Services Pharmacist under the condition that they complete a Clinical Pharmacy Diploma. Although enrolled in the program, the registrant failed to complete essential coursework and was therefore ineligible to sit the required final exam. Despite this, the registrant requested leave under false pretences and later misled colleagues by implying the exam had been taken.

Additionally, the registrant was convicted of motoring offences but failed to notify the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) within the required 7-day window. This omission was compounded by a false declaration on a registration renewal form, affirming no prior convictions. The allegations were admitted in full by the registrant at the original hearing, acknowledging dishonesty both toward the employer and the regulatory body.

Findings

At the original hearing, the panel found the registrant guilty of misconduct and determined their fitness to practise was impaired. Dishonesty was at the heart of the findings, involving intentional deception in both professional and regulatory contexts. However, the misconduct was classified as being “at the lower end” of the dishonesty spectrum due to mitigating personal circumstances and the registrant’s lack of previous disciplinary history.

The review hearing, which took place on 14 January 2019, focused on whether the registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired. The panel reviewed extensive documentation and heard oral evidence demonstrating deep reflection, sustained remorse, and positive action taken by the registrant since the suspension.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The panel found that the registrant had shown meaningful insight into their behaviour. Evidence of this included a reflective statement, apology letters, CPD activities, and efforts to stay engaged with the pharmacy profession. The registrant had attended a CPPE ‘Return to Practice’ course, sought mentorship through the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, and performed voluntary work teaching English to refugees.

The registrant had also proactively created a “Relapse Prevention Plan” and received psychological support to address underlying personal challenges which had contributed to their earlier misconduct. These efforts were seen as sincere and effective in lowering the risk of repetition.

The panel concluded:

“The Registrant had shown full insight into her misconduct… The panel was satisfied that she had taken sufficient steps to avoid a repeat of her misjudgements that had led to these proceedings.”

Given the registrant’s demonstrated rehabilitation and low risk of future misconduct, the panel determined that the registrant’s fitness to practise was no longer impaired.

Sanction

The panel made no further order, allowing the existing suspension to lapse on 14 February 2019. The decision signified that the registrant had met the required threshold of remediation and that continued regulatory intervention was not necessary to protect the public or uphold professional standards.

This resolution was aligned with the principle of proportionality and based on comprehensive evidence of the registrant’s efforts to rebuild their professional standing.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

Transparency is essential: Honesty in communications with employers and regulatory bodies is a core professional obligation. Concealment, even of seemingly minor offences like motoring convictions, can constitute serious misconduct.
Professional integrity includes personal accountability: The registrant’s case highlights the repercussions of avoidant behaviour. Professionals must actively address obligations, especially when these relate to professional development or regulatory compliance.
Mental health and wellbeing impact professional behaviour: While not an excuse, personal health challenges can influence judgement. Seeking help early and maintaining wellness is a professional responsibility.
Effective remediation can restore trust: The registrant’s thorough and sustained efforts to engage with the profession, demonstrate insight, and rebuild professional competence were pivotal in the panel’s decision to lift the suspension.
Sanctions are not merely punitive: They serve to protect the public and uphold confidence in the profession. Remediation and insight are vital in demonstrating that the underlying concerns have been addressed.

This case serves as a reminder that dishonesty—even without patient harm—can gravely affect one’s professional standing. However, it also illustrates that with humility, commitment, and proactive steps, professionals can recover and return to practice in a manner that maintains public trust.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.