Pharmacist Suspended After Conviction for Falsely Accusing Stranger to Dodge Speeding Fines

Date of Decision: October 2, 2025

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

Conviction at Bradford Crown Court on 30 December 2022 for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, contrary to Section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

Outcome: Suspension for a period of five months

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 6 – Pharmacy professionals must behave in a professional manner. Behaving professionally is not limited to the working day and involves acting with integrity and honesty at all times.

Case Summary

Allegations

This case concerns a conviction unrelated to direct pharmacy practice but which significantly questioned the registrant’s personal integrity—an essential attribute for pharmacists. On 30 December 2022, the registrant was convicted at Bradford Crown Court for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The conviction stemmed from two speeding offences on 11 April 2020, when the registrant’s vehicle triggered static speed cameras on the M62 motorway, recording speeds of 85 mph and 88 mph in a 70 mph zone.

Rather than accepting responsibility, the registrant submitted two signed Notices of Intended Prosecution (NIPs) nominating an unrelated individual as the driver. This act of falsely implicating another person led to a criminal investigation. During a police interview on 5 June 2020, the registrant gave “no comment” answers but submitted a statement claiming he did not know the person named and was not responsible for the false nominations.

Findings

The Fitness to Practise Committee accepted the registrant’s admission of the conviction, which led to a suspended sentence of eight months’ imprisonment, 250 hours of unpaid work, and fines.

The panel noted that the registrant had no previous fitness to practise concerns and had continued working without incident for five years following the offence. He expressed remorse and provided testimonials from colleagues and family who considered the behaviour out of character.

Despite these mitigating factors, the committee scrutinised the registrant’s insight and reflective statement. Although he accepted his misconduct, the committee found omissions in his reflection—particularly the failure to acknowledge the impact on the innocent party falsely named and the broader implications of dishonesty for public trust.

“There is no unequivocal statement from the Registrant before the Committee as to what he might be tempted to do if he were to find himself in a situation in future where he knew for certain that behaving honestly might lead to a disadvantage for himself or for his family.”

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The committee concluded that the registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired based on the following:

Breach of Standard 6 of the GPhC’s Standards for Pharmacy Professionals, which requires pharmacists to behave professionally and with integrity, including outside the workplace.
The registrant’s conduct brought the profession into disrepute.
It breached a fundamental principle of the profession: trustworthiness.

The panel did not find that the registrant’s integrity could no longer be relied upon as of the date of the hearing but emphasized the seriousness of the conviction and its potential to erode public confidence in the pharmacy profession.

Referring to the well-established test in CHRE v NMC and Grant, the panel concluded that a finding of impairment was essential to uphold public confidence and professional standards.

Sanction

Given the gravity of the offence, the Committee considered several sanctions and ruled out lesser measures such as a warning or conditions of practice. These would not sufficiently reflect the seriousness of the conviction or uphold public confidence.

Ultimately, a suspension for five months was deemed proportionate and appropriate. The panel considered this long enough to signal to the profession and the public that the registrant’s conduct was unacceptable, while also recognising his remorse, the isolated nature of the incident, and the low risk of recurrence.

Importantly, the sanction was applied solely in the public interest rather than for public protection, and no interim order was imposed pending its activation, due to the registrant’s continued safe practice over five years.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

Honesty and Integrity Are Fundamental: The case reiterates that pharmacists must uphold the highest standards of personal and professional integrity. Misconduct, even unrelated to clinical duties, can damage public trust and result in significant regulatory consequences.
Professional Behaviour Extends Beyond the Workplace: GPhC Standard 6 explicitly states that professional behaviour is required at all times. Actions in personal life, particularly criminal ones, reflect on the profession as a whole.
Reflection Must Be Full and Sincere: Regulators expect registrants to demonstrate comprehensive insight into their misconduct. This includes recognising all impacts—on victims, the profession, and public confidence—not just personal regret.
Seriousness of Dishonesty: Attempts to pervert justice are seen as fundamentally incompatible with the integrity expected in healthcare professions. Even when not directly related to pharmacy work, such convictions warrant robust regulatory action.
The Role of Remorse and Rehabilitation: Genuine remorse, positive character references, and a previously unblemished record helped mitigate the outcome. However, without clear evidence of remediation and insight, more severe sanctions could have been imposed.

This case serves as a stark reminder that pharmacists are custodians of public trust. Personal decisions, especially those involving dishonesty, can have far-reaching consequences for professional registration and reputation.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.