“F*** the Restraining Order”: Pharmacist Removed from Register After Repeated Breaches of Restraining Order

Date of Decision: August 13, 2025

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

Convicted on 1 and 14 March 2024 of eight counts of Harassment – Breach of Restraining Order at Cardiff Magistrates’ Court.

Outcome: Removal from the Register (with immediate interim suspension)

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 5 – Pharmacy professionals must use professional judgement
Standard 6 – Pharmacy professionals must behave in a professional manner

Case Summary

Allegations

This case concerned a pharmacist who was found guilty of eight breaches of a Restraining Order originally imposed in 2018 following a conviction for assault and criminal damage involving his ex-partner. The Restraining Order prohibited all forms of direct and indirect contact and specific references to the ex-partner online or electronically.

In February and March 2024, the registrant repeatedly violated the terms of this order. Incidents included attending the ex-partner’s residence multiple times, deflating her car tyres, calling her workplace, and contacting her over 36 times in one day. These actions occurred while a child, his son, was involved and emotionally impacted. The registrant made statements such as “see what I did” and showed little remorse during his police interview, declaring “Fuck the Restraining Order” and later saying he felt “marvellous” about the matter.

He pled guilty to all charges and was sentenced to six months of imprisonment, suspended for two years, along with a new indefinite Restraining Order and a rehabilitation activity requirement.

Findings

The Committee found the facts proved by way of formal admissions and a certificate of conviction. The registrant admitted to the breaches. The Committee concluded that the conduct amounted to a serious deviation from acceptable professional standards. His behaviour showed a persistent disregard for legal boundaries and involved coercive and intimidating behaviour towards a vulnerable individual.

Though there was no direct evidence of patient harm, the seriousness and repetition of the criminal conduct, coupled with the registrant’s history, meant his actions seriously undermined the reputation of the pharmacy profession.

Notably, the registrant had previously received a nine-month suspension for earlier offences related to the same individual. Despite previous regulatory action and assurances of insight and rehabilitation, he reoffended in a more egregious and persistent manner.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The Committee determined that the registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired due to his criminal conviction. It held that his conduct engaged key parts of the GPhC’s regulatory framework, particularly Rule 5(2)(b) and (c), namely that the behaviour:

brought the profession into disrepute
breached fundamental tenets of the profession, especially the expectation to act lawfully and maintain public trust

The Committee referenced guidance stating that maintaining public confidence and declaring proper standards are paramount even where direct patient safety is not at issue. The conduct was seen to be “fundamentally incompatible” with being a registered pharmacist.

“The Registrant’s offending behaviour… marked a serious departure of core obligations for a Pharmacist to act within the law, and had the potential to impact on the reputation of the profession generally.”

Sanction

Given the registrant’s prior suspension for similar criminal conduct, the Committee concluded that removal from the register was the only proportionate and appropriate sanction. Suspension or conditional registration were deemed inadequate due to:

the seriousness and persistence of the conduct
the presence of aggravating factors including repeat offending against the same victim
his failure to respond adequately to previous regulatory interventions

The Committee found that the registrant’s expressions of remorse and reflections carried limited weight, given the lack of substantive behavioural change evidenced by his repeated breaches.

An immediate interim suspension was also imposed, pending any potential appeal, to maintain public confidence in the profession.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

Professional obligations extend beyond the workplace. Personal conduct that violates the law can severely impact a pharmacist’s ability to remain registered, regardless of whether it occurs in a professional setting.
Previous sanctions do not guarantee leniency for future misconduct. In this case, a previous suspension for related behaviour did not prevent a more serious outcome upon reoffending.
Respect for legal and regulatory boundaries is paramount. A pharmacist’s integrity includes compliance with the law. Statements like “Fuck the Restraining Order” starkly contrast with the professional values expected of registrants.
Insight must be credible and consistent. Merely expressing remorse or participating in rehabilitation is not sufficient when the registrant has a pattern of failing to adhere to legal constraints and professional expectations.
Regulators prioritise public confidence and standards. Even in the absence of clinical failings or patient harm, sustained personal misconduct can result in the most severe sanction—removal from the register.
Impacts on others matter. The repeated breaches in this case not only caused emotional distress to the ex-partner but also involved harm to the registrant’s child, highlighting how personal failings can have wider ethical implications for pharmacy professionals.
Good character and trustworthiness are fundamental. The GPhC emphasises that honesty, integrity, and respect for others are core to pharmacy practice. Breaching legal orders, especially involving domestic matters, signals unfitness to practise.

This determination serves as a firm reminder that maintaining lawful, respectful, and professional conduct at all times is essential to uphold the trust placed in pharmacists by patients, the public, and the regulatory body.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.