Pharmacist Issued Warning After Convictions for Public Sexual Act and Assaulting Police Officers

Date of Decision: July 2, 2020

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

Engaged in a sexual act with another person in a public place.
Convicted of assaulting two police constables during arrest attempts following the incident.
Behaviour found to constitute serious misconduct, undermining public trust in the pharmacy profession.

Outcome: Formal warning issued

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 6 – Behave in a professional manner

Case Summary

The registrant was seen by police officers engaging in a sexual act with a known sex worker in a public alley. Upon noticing the police, the registrant attempted to flee and assaulted two constables during the course of arrest. Injuries included:

Immediate pain to one officer’s face.
A forehead injury, small cut, and bleeding to the second officer.

During the arrest, the registrant shouted:

“No, no I am a pharmacist, don’t do this to me, I am sorry.”

The registrant later made full admissions to police, pleaded guilty, and admitted the incident was out of character due to personal stress relating to his mother’s health.

Findings

The Committee found that:

The registrant’s behaviour in public was deplorable and constituted serious misconduct.
Assaulting police officers breached public trust and was a serious departure from professional standards.
The registrant breached Standard 6 of the Standards for Pharmacy Professionals: “Pharmacy professionals must behave in a professional manner at all times.”

Although the registrant showed genuine remorse, engaged in reflective work, and undertook courses in anger management and self-management, the seriousness of the misconduct demanded regulatory action.

Key points noted:

No repetition of behaviour in the two years following the incident.
Strong testimonial evidence showing a positive professional reputation.
The misconduct was seen as a one-off incident, not part of a pattern.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The Committee concluded that:

The registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired.
Although he had demonstrated insight and significant remediation, the collective serious nature of the misconduct and convictions required a finding of impairment to uphold public confidence in the profession.
There was no real risk of repetition based on current evidence.

The Committee stated:

“A finding of impairment is needed to maintain professional standards and to protect public confidence.”

Sanction

After considering all sanctions, the Committee decided:

Suspension was not necessary, given the strong mitigation, remediation, and no risk to the public.
A formal public warning was proportionate and appropriate.
A warning would adequately mark the seriousness of the misconduct, while allowing the registrant to continue practising safely.

The warning directed:

“[The registrant] is warned not to repeat such behaviour and to abide by the standards of the pharmacy profession at all times.”

Details of the warning were ordered to be entered into the register.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

Personal misconduct outside the workplace can seriously undermine public confidence in the pharmacy profession.
Professional standards apply at all times, not just during working hours.
Insight and remediation are crucial—they can influence the outcome and reduce the severity of sanctions.
One-off serious incidents are still taken seriously—public trust depends on individual and collective professional behaviour.
Warnings are public markers—they serve to protect the profession’s reputation even where risk to patients is low.

Conclusion

This case highlights that even isolated incidents of misconduct, particularly those involving criminal convictions, can lead to findings of impairment and regulatory warnings. The GPhC emphasised that public confidence in pharmacists relies on consistent professional behaviour, both in and out of the workplace. While the registrant was allowed to continue practising, this case serves as a reminder that professional standards are upheld through visible, proportionate regulatory action.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.