12-Month Suspension for NHS Pharmacist Following Findings of Boundary Breaches and Sexual Misconduct Allegations

Date of Decision: August 8, 2025

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

Unsolicited hugging of multiple female colleagues between 2015 and 2021, including hugging without permission, from behind, and for prolonged periods.
Removing a colleague’s bleep in order to initiate physical contact.
Sending inappropriate social media messages to colleagues, including comments such as “wife material,” “wit woo,” and other remarks on physical appearance.
Continued physical contact despite formal advice from employer to desist.
Some behaviours found to be sexually motivated, particularly towards one colleague, involving back rubbing in the bra strap area.
Transgression of proper professional boundaries.

Outcome: 12-month suspension (with interim suspension already in effect)

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 1 – Provide person-centred care
Standard 2 – Work in partnership with others
Standard 3 – Communicate effectively
Standard 5 – Use professional judgement
Standard 6 – Behave in a professional manner
Standard 8 – Demonstrate leadership

Case Summary

Allegations

The case against the registrant, a pharmacist formerly employed at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, involved multiple allegations of inappropriate physical and digital conduct toward five junior female colleagues between 2015 and 2021. Central to the allegations were repeated instances of hugging without consent, prolonged physical contact, and unwelcome messages sent via Instagram, often with personal or suggestive undertones.

Specific instances included:

Hugging colleagues without permission, including hugging from behind, particularly while they were working in clinical environments like aseptic services.
Comments on physical appearance through Instagram, such as “wife material” and “you looked fab”.
Rubbing a colleague’s back in the area of her bra strap and slowly moving his hand in this region, which was found to be sexually motivated.
Despite being formally warned by the Trust in December 2020 about his behaviour, the registrant continued engaging in similar conduct until early 2022.

Several complainants noted feelings of discomfort and the difficulty of voicing objections due to the registrant’s seniority. Many indicated that while they did not initially perceive the conduct as sexual, they recognised it as a breach of professional boundaries. However, for one colleague (referred to as Colleague J), the behaviour, particularly the bra strap touching and associated messages, was categorically perceived as sexually motivated.

Findings

The Fitness to Practise Committee found numerous facts proved, including both admitted and contested allegations. Particulars proven included:

Hugging without permission across multiple instances and individuals.
Removing a bleep from a colleague to facilitate a hug.
Sending Instagram messages that were over-friendly or suggestive.
Continuing inappropriate contact despite formal advice.

Crucially, the Committee concluded that the registrant’s conduct in relation to Colleague J—which involved intimate touching and slow rubbing of the bra strap area—was sexually motivated. This contrasted with the conduct towards other colleagues, which was deemed “over-friendly” and boundary-transgressing but not sexually motivated.

The panel deemed the registrant’s actions towards Colleague J a marked escalation, involving an abuse of professional power and intimate contact. The registrant did not give oral evidence, which limited the weight given to his denials.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The panel concluded that the registrant’s fitness to practise was currently impaired. Key elements in their reasoning included:

The seriousness and persistence of boundary breaches over a prolonged period.
Evidence that the registrant had not adequately internalised or reflected upon the inappropriateness of his behaviour, particularly following the employer’s explicit warning.
Public confidence in the pharmacy profession would be undermined if such behaviour were not appropriately addressed.

The registrant did submit written reflections, but the Committee found these lacked sufficient insight and understanding of the impact on the victims and the profession.

As the determination notes:

“The registrant’s conduct fell significantly below the standards expected of a pharmacist and failed to uphold the trust placed in him as a healthcare professional.”

Sanction

Given the proven misconduct and findings of impairment, the Committee imposed a 12-month suspension. It reasoned that this was the minimum sanction required to protect the public and uphold public confidence. The suspension was proportionate in light of:

The absence of criminal convictions or charges (the CPS confirmed no charges would be pursued).
The registrant’s long professional history prior to these events.
His partial engagement and admissions.

The suspension will not take effect until 10 September 2025 unless appealed; however, an interim suspension is in force immediately.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

Understanding Professional Boundaries: Even non-sexual, over-friendly conduct like hugging or informal social media contact can amount to serious boundary breaches. Physical contact must always be consensual and contextually appropriate.
Power Dynamics Matter: Being in a position of seniority heightens the responsibility to model professionalism and to avoid any behaviour that could be seen as coercive or overbearing.
Listening and Responding to Feedback: Once advised of the inappropriateness of certain behaviours, professionals must take immediate and genuine steps to change. Failure to do so may be viewed as deliberate disregard.
Social Media Etiquette: Even seemingly benign or friendly messages, particularly when sent from a senior to a junior, can cross boundaries and be interpreted as inappropriate or suggestive.
Sexual Motivation Assessment: A finding of sexual motivation is based not on how behaviour is perceived by recipients, but on the registrant’s own intentions. Nonetheless, clear evidence of persistent intimate contact, such as repeated touching of a bra strap area, can meet this threshold.
Insight and Reflection: Regulatory bodies expect a deep understanding of one’s misconduct, its impact, and how such behaviour will be prevented in future. Minimal or superficial reflection will not suffice.
Regulatory Consequences: This case illustrates how a pattern of minor but repeated misconduct—especially after warnings—can lead to significant regulatory sanctions, even in the absence of criminal charges.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.