Pharmacist Struck Off After False Driver Declarations and Perjury Convictions Linked to Speeding Offences
Date of Decision: September 21, 2018
Registrant's Role: Pharmacist
Allegations:
- The registrant was convicted at a Magistrates’ Court of driving a motor vehicle on a road subject to a 40 mph speed limit at a speed exceeding that limit, contrary to sections 84 and 89(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
- The registrant was convicted at a Magistrates’ Court of a second offence of driving a motor vehicle on a road subject to a 40 mph speed limit at a speed exceeding that limit, contrary to the same statutory provisions.
- The registrant was convicted at a Magistrates’ Court of knowingly and wilfully making a false statement in a material particular within a declaration (a Section 172 Notice), which he was required to complete under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, contrary to section 5(b) of the Perjury Act 1911.
- The registrant was convicted of a second offence of knowingly and wilfully making a false statement in a Section 172 Notice under the same legislation.
Outcome: Removal from the register
GPhC Standards Breached:
- Standard 6 – Be honest and trustworthy
- Standard 6.1 – Act with honesty and integrity to maintain public trust and confidence in your profession
- Standard 6.5 – Meet accepted standards of personal and professional conduct
Case Summary
Allegations
This case concerned a pharmacist whose fitness to practise was called into question following a series of criminal convictions relating to speeding offences and dishonesty in official declarations. The underlying incidents arose after average speed cameras detected the registrant’s vehicle exceeding a 40 mph speed limit on two separate occasions. The offences were recorded several hours apart, with the vehicle identified through its registration number.
As the registered keeper of the vehicle, the registrant received Section 172 Notices of Intended Prosecution from the Central Ticket Office (CTO). These notices required him to identify the driver at the time of each offence, as mandated under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
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 Pharmacist
- 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