Hospital Lead Pharmacy Technician Removed from Register After Conviction for Attempted Sexual Communication with a Child and Dishonest Declaration to GPhC

Date of Decision: August 8, 2025

Registrant's Role: Pharmacy technician

Allegations:

• Convicted of attempting to engage in sexual communication with a person believed to be a 13-year-old girl, contrary to Section 15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, between 22 January 2023 and 15 March 2023.
• Submitted an annual declaration to the GPhC on 14 January 2024 incorrectly stating “No” to being under investigation by any regulatory body or criminal enforcement authority, despite being under police investigation at the time.
• Conduct in making the false declaration was dishonest and/or lacked integrity.

Outcome: Removal from the GPhC Register, with immediate interim suspension pending the decision taking effect.

GPhC Standards Breached:

• Standard 5 – Pharmacy professionals must use their professional judgement.
• Standard 6 – Pharmacy professionals must behave in a professional manner.
• Standard 8 – Pharmacy professionals must speak up when things go wrong.

Case Summary

Allegations
The case centred on serious criminal and professional misconduct involving a pharmacy technician (the registrant). The first allegation related to a conviction under Section 15(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Between January and March 2023, the registrant engaged in explicit online communication with someone he believed to be a 13-year-old girl named “Amelia”. The individual was in fact an undercover police officer. Despite being told “Amelia” was under 16, the registrant persisted with sexual conversations, requests for explicit images, and sending indecent images of himself. His behaviour included explicit comments and offers to exchange sexual photographs.

In addition to the conviction, the registrant was accused of providing false information to the GPhC on 14 January 2024 in his annual declaration. He incorrectly stated he was not under any criminal investigation, despite having been arrested in March 2023 and awaiting a charging decision. The third allegation claimed that this false statement was dishonest and/or demonstrated a lack of integrity.

Findings
The GPhC Fitness to Practise Committee found all allegations proved. The conviction was established beyond doubt by the Certificate of Conviction from Sheffield Crown Court, which confirmed the registrant pleaded guilty on 29 May 2024. He was sentenced on 17 July 2024 to:

• 8 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 24 months
• 30-day Rehabilitation Requirement Order
• 5-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order
• Registration on the Sex Offenders Register for 10 years
• Referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service

The Committee also determined that the false declaration on the 2024 annual form was deliberate. Applying the legal test for dishonesty, it found it “inconceivable” that the registrant was unaware of the ongoing police investigation. An ordinary decent person would view the false response as dishonest.

GPhC Determination on Impairment
The Committee found the registrant’s fitness to practise impaired on two statutory grounds: conviction and misconduct. His conduct breached key professional standards:

• Standard 5 – failure to use professional judgement by making a knowingly false declaration.
• Standard 6 – engaging in criminal conduct of a sexual nature with a child, and behaving dishonestly towards the regulator.
• Standard 8 – failing to be candid by concealing the fact of the police investigation.

The panel considered the registrant’s sexual offence against a person he believed to be a child to be fundamentally incompatible with professional registration. It noted the safeguarding concerns reflected in the Sexual Harm Prevention Order. The registrant’s dishonesty towards the regulator compounded the seriousness, eroding trust in his integrity.

Although he expressed remorse in his police interview — stating “I stupidly got into a conversation online… I’m extremely sorry for what I’ve done” — he provided no evidence of remediation or insight to the GPhC. The Committee concluded that the risk of repetition could not be ruled out, and all public protection and public confidence considerations pointed towards a finding of impairment.

Sanction
The Committee considered possible outcomes in ascending order. No action, warnings, and conditions of practice were rejected as inadequate given the gravity of the conviction and dishonesty. Suspension was also deemed insufficient because it would allow eventual return to the register while still subject to criminal restrictions, and would not mark the seriousness of the misconduct.

Removal was determined to be the only proportionate sanction. The Committee cited GPhC guidance that sexual offences involving children, especially where the professional is placed on the Sex Offenders Register, are likely incompatible with continued registration. The registrant’s conduct met every element of this criterion.

The panel concluded that public confidence in the profession would be “shocked and appalled” if the registrant were allowed to remain on the register. His behaviour was “fundamentally incompatible” with being a pharmacy professional. Removal was necessary to uphold proper standards, protect the public, and preserve trust in pharmacy regulation.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

1. Sexual offences and safeguarding responsibilities – Pharmacy professionals, including technicians, often serve vulnerable populations. Any sexual offence involving a child is regarded as gross misconduct that almost invariably leads to removal from the register.
2. Dishonesty towards the regulator is a serious breach – Providing false information on GPhC declarations, even if unrelated to direct patient care, undermines public trust and breaches the duty of candour.
3. Standards apply beyond working hours – As reiterated by the GPhC, professional standards must be upheld at all times. Conduct in private life can seriously impact registration if it undermines public confidence.
4. Engagement in regulatory processes matters – Failure to provide insight, remediation, or evidence of behavioural change will weigh heavily against a registrant when impairment and sanction are considered.
5. Protecting public trust outweighs individual circumstances – As established in case law, the reputation of the profession is paramount. Personal mitigation may be outweighed by the need to demonstrate that the profession will not tolerate certain behaviours.
6. Declaration obligations are non-negotiable – Annual GPhC declarations are legal and professional attestations. False answers, particularly about investigations or convictions, may amount to separate misconduct and lead to removal.

This case is a stark reminder that safeguarding breaches and dishonesty are viewed with utmost seriousness by the regulator. Pharmacy professionals must act with integrity, honesty, and respect both in their professional duties and personal lives. The public must be able to trust that those on the register meet the highest ethical standards.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.

Log in or Register for free to access.