Pharmacist Cleared to Return to Practice After Public Indecency Caution and Regulatory Breach

Date of Decision: May 31, 2019

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

Accepted a conditional police caution for an act of public indecency.
Failed to notify the GPhC of the police caution within the required 7-day period.
Provided false declarations during the annual registration renewal by denying any cautions or convictions.

Outcome: Fitness to practise no longer impaired; suspension order to lapse

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 2 – Work in partnership with others
Standard 5 – Use professional judgement
Standard 6 – Behave professionally

Case Summary

Allegations

The pharmacist in this case was the subject of a Fitness to Practise investigation after accepting a conditional police caution for a serious act of public indecency. The caution arose from an incident in which the registrant was observed by a member of the public, Witness A, in a supermarket car park, with his penis exposed, allegedly stroking it while deliberately turning toward the witness. Witness A testified that the behaviour lasted several minutes, during which she felt shocked and violated.

Following the incident, the registrant admitted to police that his penis was exposed but claimed it was due to irritation, and that he was applying cream for a skin condition. He accepted the caution and wrote letters of apology to both Witness A and a supermarket employee who also witnessed the event.

In addition to the underlying indecent behaviour, the registrant:

Did not report the caution to the GPhC within the required 7-day window.
Falsely declared on his registration renewal form that he had not received a caution or conviction.

These actions were deemed to be misconduct and were admitted by the registrant. The principal hearing found that both the conduct leading to the caution and the subsequent regulatory breaches constituted impairments of fitness to practise.

Findings

At the principal hearing, the Committee rejected the registrant’s explanation that he was merely applying cream discreetly. They found his behaviour to be a “brazen and deliberate act of sexual impropriety.” The Committee also expressed concern that the registrant continued to deny the intentional nature of the incident, despite accepting a police caution and offering apologies.

The Fitness to Practise Committee suspended the registrant for six months, highlighting:

The public interest in upholding professional standards.
The need for insight and accountability from the registrant.
The seriousness of the registrant’s failure to report the caution and make accurate declarations to the GPhC.

In their determination, the Committee wrote:

“Until he can come to some resolution in his own mind as to why he wanted to do this and why he did it, we cannot be certain that there will be no repetition.”

They also signalled that future reviews should focus on the registrant’s insight, acceptance of responsibility, and remediation.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

At the review hearing in May 2019, the registrant provided a bundle of documentation, including:

A detailed reflective statement.
Evidence of Mindfulness training.
Testimonials from his wife, sister, and a family friend.
Confirmation from the GPhC that he had complied fully with his suspension.

In both his written and oral evidence, the registrant reiterated that while he still disputed the intent attributed to his actions, he accepted the Committee’s previous findings and respected their determination. His reflections focused on increased self-awareness, empathy, and understanding of how his behaviour had affected others.

He acknowledged:

“I assure you that all of this will help me to behave professionally at all times and uphold GPhC standard 6.”

The registrant also discussed how the incident had impacted him personally—resulting in resignation from his job to protect his employer’s reputation, loss of friendships, and reputational damage.

The Committee explored whether his misconduct was fully remediated and unlikely to be repeated. Despite his continued insistence on an alternative explanation for his actions, the Committee noted the relevance of legal precedent (Yusuff v GMC [2018]), which affirms that maintaining innocence does not inherently mean a lack of insight.

They found that the registrant:

Had reflected deeply on the incident and its effects on the victim, the profession, and himself.
Had shown sufficient remorse and insight to satisfy the public interest.
Had complied with all regulatory expectations and demonstrated accountability.

Sanction

The Committee concluded that the registrant’s fitness to practise was no longer impaired, as he had demonstrated adequate insight, the risk of repetition was now minimal, and the public interest had been marked by the prior suspension.

“We are satisfied that there is unlikely to be a repetition of the previous behaviour if the Registrant were permitted to return to unrestricted practice.”

Accordingly, no further action was taken, and the suspension order was allowed to lapse.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

Acts Outside of Clinical Practice Can Still Impact Fitness to Practise: Professionals are held to high standards of personal conduct, even outside the workplace. Inappropriate or unlawful public behaviour can have direct regulatory consequences.
Self-Reporting Legal Issues is Mandatory: Failing to disclose a police caution or conviction is itself a serious breach of GPhC rules and undermines the integrity of the profession.
Denial Does Not Always Equal Lack of Insight: This case highlights that a registrant may still demonstrate professional insight, remorse, and remediation even while maintaining a different personal account of events—provided they accept the findings and demonstrate behavioural change.
Reflective Practice and Mindfulness Are Effective Tools: Structured reflection and techniques such as mindfulness can support emotional awareness and professional development, especially after a serious lapse in judgement.
Professional Reputations Are Fragile: Incidents outside of work can lead to job loss, reputational damage, and personal hardship. Maintaining professionalism in all areas of life is essential.
Testimonial Evidence and Personal Growth Matter: Strong support from those who know the registrant and clear evidence of personal growth can influence the Committee’s decision on rehabilitation and fitness to practise.

This case serves as a cautionary tale about personal conduct and the far-reaching consequences it can have on professional standing. It also highlights the GPhC’s balanced approach—ensuring accountability while recognising genuine remediation.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.