GPhC Caution Disclosure Case Ends Without Dishonesty Findings After Committee Rules It Has No Jurisdiction
Date of Decision: October 8, 2018
Registrant's Role: Pharmacist
Allegations:
- The GPhC alleged that the registrant failed to disclose a police caution when initially registering and on three subsequent registration renewals in 2014, 2015 and 2016. The Council’s submissions identify the initial registration year as 2013.
- The GPhC alleged that these omissions were dishonest.
- The registrant disclosed the caution at the 2017 renewal, which ultimately led to these proceedings.
Outcome: Proceedings ended at the preliminary stage due to lack of jurisdiction.
Case Summary
Allegations
This case concerned an alleged failure to disclose a police caution to the GPhC, rather than a dispensing error, clinical incident or controlled drug handling concern. The central question was whether the Fitness to Practise Committee could consider alleged dishonest non-disclosure after the caution had acquired legal protection.
The GPhC alleged that the registrant failed to disclose the caution on initial registration and when renewing registration in 2014, 2015 and 2016. According to the Council’s submissions, the caution was spent during that period but had not yet become protected. The Council argued that the registrant was therefore obliged to disclose it.
Continue Reading the Full Case
Create a free account or log in to access the complete case summary.
- Full allegations considered by the GPhC/PSNI
- Panel findings and reasoning
- Outcome of the investigation
- Sanctions considered and imposed on the Pharmacist
- Key professional learning points
Original Case Document
The original determination document is available to registered users.
1 thought on “GPhC Caution Disclosure Case Ends Without Dishonesty Findings After Committee Rules It Has No Jurisdiction”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It appears that the GPhC had known all the relevant facts by 2017. It is remarkable that the GPhC should be pursuing this case now. Since cases usually cannot proceed more than 5 years after the most recent event referred to in the allegation, the GPhC Registrar must have decided that pursuing the case was necessary for the protection of the public, or otherwise in the public interest, for the allegation to be referred. Either that, or the Registrar overlooked this requirement. I recently wrote up another case that arose from facts many years before https://www.chemistanddruggist.co.uk/analysis/opinion/from-a-lawyer-could-ftp-delays-work-in-pharmacists-favour-5ZMKRUOKSFFAJKZ4PEGS3BRUPU/