Pharmacist Removed from GPhC Register Following Conviction for Making Indecent Images of Children

Date of Decision: November 29, 2019

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

Conviction for making indecent images of children:
Two still Category A images
Four still Category B images
Four still Category C images

Outcome: Removal from the GPhC register

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 6 – Pharmacy professionals must behave in a professional manner, demonstrating integrity, empathy, and respect, and maintaining public trust both within and outside of professional settings.

Case Summary

Allegations

The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) Fitness to Practise Committee convened a hearing to assess the fitness to practise of a registered pharmacist (hereafter referred to as “the registrant”) following a criminal conviction. The registrant had been convicted of three counts of making indecent images of children, contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978. These images included two classified as Category A (the most severe), four Category B, and four Category C.

The convictions arose from a police investigation initiated in 2014. A warrant was executed at the registrant’s home, which was linked to internet activity involving the download of indecent images. A forensic analysis of a laptop found at the premises revealed the illicit material and a user profile that aligned with the registrant.

The allegations concerned the making of these images, which involves the act of downloading or storing them digitally. While the registrant initially denied the charges, he was found guilty in January 2019 and sentenced to a community order with significant restrictions, including a five-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order and registration on the Sex Offenders Register.

Findings

The panel found the facts underpinning the allegations to be proven, based on the Certificate of Conviction and the criminal court proceedings. It determined that the convictions were serious and that the registrant’s behaviour breached fundamental professional values. While the registrant attempted to contextualize his conviction—suggesting he was a young man and not yet a pharmacist at the time of the offences—the panel found this argument insufficient to negate the impact of the conviction on his professional standing.

The panel took particular issue with the registrant’s limited insight. While his written statement acknowledged the non-victimless nature of child sexual exploitation, he did not express regret or provide substantive reflections on the harm caused or the implications for public trust in the profession. As the panel noted:

“There is only limited information regarding the Registrant’s insight on his offending behaviour and limited information regarding how he would manage himself in the future to avoid a repetition.”

The panel also considered whether the registrant’s conviction affected public confidence in the profession. Despite the absence of clinical failings, the panel emphasized that trust and integrity are essential components of a pharmacist’s professional identity. The conviction, involving serious sexual offences against children, fundamentally undermined those values.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The Committee concluded that the registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired. It found that:

He posed an actual or potential risk to the public, particularly vulnerable individuals.
His conviction brought the pharmacy profession into disrepute.
He breached a fundamental tenet of the profession—namely, Standard 6, which calls for integrity and professional behaviour at all times.
His integrity could no longer be relied upon.
Public confidence in the profession and its regulator would be compromised if no finding of impairment were made.

The panel highlighted that the registrant’s conviction was incompatible with continued registration, particularly while he remained subject to criminal sanctions. The offences were not historic in impact merely because they occurred before registration; the conviction itself and subsequent restrictions persisted as of the time of hearing.

Sanction

After evaluating all sanction options—from taking no action to issuing a removal order—the panel determined that removal from the register was the only proportionate and appropriate response.

The registrant’s mitigating factors, such as engagement with proceedings, some expressions of insight, and personal development since the offences, were acknowledged but deemed insufficient to outweigh the severity of the conduct. The lack of meaningful remorse and limited reflective insight weakened his case for leniency.

As per the GPhC’s guidance, certain convictions—especially those involving child exploitation—almost invariably lead to removal unless there are extraordinary mitigating circumstances. The panel concluded:

“Convictions involving indecent images of children are unacceptable, inconsistent with the expected standards, and are not to be tolerated.”

An interim suspension was imposed immediately to bridge the period until the removal order took effect, ensuring public safety and regulatory consistency.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

Upholding Integrity Is Paramount: Pharmacy professionals are expected to maintain the highest standards of personal and professional integrity at all times. Criminal conduct, even outside the workplace, can severely compromise public trust.
Convictions for Sexual Offences Are Incompatible with Registration: Particularly when involving vulnerable populations such as children, sexual offences will almost always result in removal from the register. The profession has a zero-tolerance approach to such conduct.
Insight and Remediation Are Crucial but Must Be Genuine: Registrants facing impairment proceedings must show clear, credible insight into their misconduct. Acknowledging harm, demonstrating remorse, and showing sustained efforts toward remediation are essential.
Professional Standards Apply Beyond Clinical Practice: The GPhC’s standards govern both the professional and personal behaviour of pharmacists. Misconduct outside work—particularly criminal behaviour—can trigger regulatory action.
Sanctions Serve Public Protection and Trust: The GPhC’s decisions prioritize public safety and confidence in the profession. Sanctions are not punitive but are designed to reflect the seriousness of misconduct and uphold professional standards.

This case serves as a stark reminder that pharmacists hold a position of significant trust. That trust can be irrevocably broken by serious criminal conduct, regardless of when it occurs in the professional journey.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.