Pharmacy Technician Suspended After Inappropriate Physical Contact with 17-Year-Old Staff Member During Car Journey
Date of Decision: September 10, 2025
Registrant's Role: Pharmacy technician
Allegations:
- On 12 March 2021, the registrant drove a 17-year-old female employee from the pharmacy to a nearby car park; while inside the vehicle the registrant intentionally: (1) held her hand; (2) kissed her hand while holding it; (3) stroked her hair; (4) hugged her; (5) kissed her head, from forehead down to her cheek; and (6) attempted to wipe her tears off her cheeks.
- That the registrant’s actions were inappropriate.
- That the registrant’s actions were sexual in nature.
- That the registrant’s actions were sexually motivated.
Outcome: Suspension for 4 months, with an interim suspension imposed until the decision takes effect; a review is directed before expiry of the suspension.
GPhC Standards Breached:
- Standard 3 – Communication: Failed to communicate appropriately, including touching the junior employee without consent during a private interaction.
- Standard 6 – Professionalism: Failed to behave in a professional manner “at all times,” particularly during the car encounter.
- Standard 9 – Leadership: Failed to demonstrate leadership; abused seniority in relation to a teenage employee.
Case Summary
Allegations
This case concerned the registrant, a pharmacy technician and director/owner within a Bolton community pharmacy, and a 17-year-old employee (“Witness A”). On 12 March 2021 the registrant asked a colleague to send Witness A outside, invited her into his car, and drove her from the pharmacy to a nearby car park. During that period, while she was upset and crying, the registrant intentionally held and kissed her hand, stroked her hair, hugged her, kissed her head down to her cheek, and attempted to wipe away her tears. The registrant admitted only that he drove her to a car park; he denied the physical contact. The panel ultimately found Particular 1 (the physical contact) proved and Particular 2.1 (that this behaviour was “inappropriate”) proved, but did not find the conduct to be sexual in nature (2.2) or sexually motivated (2.3).
There was relevant contextual material about workplace dynamics. The superintendent pharmacist (“Mr 1”) and the registrant had a deteriorated business relationship, with later civil disputes and competing interests in nearby pharmacies. The panel examined whether Witness A’s account could be a fabrication influenced by that rivalry; it concluded the registrant’s “conspiracy” theory was “a stretch too far,” noting Witness A’s later business links with Mr 1 arose about two years after the incident.
The case file included contemporaneous workplace steps: Witness A reported distress on return to the pharmacy, described a later consultation-room conversation with senior staff, and went to the police on 18 March 2021. The officer in charge’s statement was admitted as hearsay, with the committee recording that it was not “first complaint” evidence because Witness A had spoken to colleagues earlier. WhatsApp exchanges from 13 March 2021 showed the registrant messaging in a friendly tone (including emojis), which the panel later considered in assessing his insight and the context of the following day.
Continue Reading the Full Case
Create a free account or log in to access the complete case summary.
- Full allegations considered by the GPhC
- Panel findings and reasoning
- Outcome of the investigation
- Sanctions considered and imposed on the Pharmacy technician
- Key professional learning points
Original Case Document
View the Full Determination Document
The original determination transcript is available to registered users.
- Download the official GPhC determination
- Full hearing transcript
- Detailed findings of fact
- Sanction reasoning
- Details of the pharmacy professionals involved