Pharmacist Removed from Register After Sexual Assault Conviction and Failure to Notify GPhC

Date of Decision: October 29, 2019

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

Convicted of sexual assault on a female, contrary to Section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Failed to notify the GPhC of the conviction within seven days, breaching Rule 4 of the GPhC (Fitness to Practise and Disqualification etc. Rules) Order of Council 2010.
Received a Police Caution for failing to comply with notification requirements under Section 91(1)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Failed to notify the GPhC of the Police Caution within seven days, breaching Rule 4.

Outcome: Removal from the GPhC register

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 6 – Act with honesty and integrity
Standard 9 – Demonstrate leadership

Case Summary

Allegations

In a deeply concerning case for the pharmacy profession, the registrant, a pharmacist with several years of experience, faced a Fitness to Practise Committee hearing on serious charges involving criminal behaviour and regulatory non-compliance. The allegations centred around a conviction for sexual assault and subsequent failures to comply with mandatory notification requirements set out by the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC).

The registrant was convicted of sexually assaulting a female patient during a consultation when he was working as a healthcare assistant. He conducted a patient registration assessment, which involved routine checks like blood pressure and HIV testing. At the end of the assessment, he inappropriately requested and conducted a breast examination — despite having no clinical justification, authority, or training to do so. The trial judge, during sentencing, remarked:

“You tricked her, and that is what I consider you did, into letting you fondle her naked breasts and nipples for something like two minutes.”

Following the conviction, the registrant was required to sign the Sex Offenders Register and received a suspended prison sentence. However, in direct violation of GPhC Rules, he failed to notify the regulator of both his conviction and a later Police Caution related to non-compliance with sex offender registration requirements.

Findings

The panel found all allegations proven, largely based on the registrant’s admission through his legal representative. The evidence included a police interview transcript from December 2018, and a Certificate of Conviction. The registrant’s failure to report the conviction and Police Caution compounded the severity of his initial misconduct.

The Committee found that:

The conduct presented a serious risk to patients and the public.
The registrant had brought the profession into disrepute.
There was a clear breach of fundamental professional principles, particularly the duty of honesty and candour.
The registrant’s integrity could no longer be relied upon.

The panel emphasized that failing to report serious events to the GPhC deprived the regulator of an opportunity to protect the public in a timely manner.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

Applying the criteria in Rule 5(2) of the Fitness to Practise Rules, the panel determined that the registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired. This determination was reached not only because of the conviction and Police Caution but also due to misconduct arising from his failure to fulfil his professional duty to notify the GPhC.

The committee noted that the case engaged all four impairment criteria:

Actual risk to the public.
Disrepute to the profession.
Breach of fundamental principles of pharmacy.
Irredeemable damage to trust and integrity.

The registrant, through his representative, accepted this finding.

Sanction

In considering sanctions, the Committee referenced the GPhC’s Good Decision Making Guidance, which states:

“Sexual misconduct, whatever the circumstances, undermines public trust in the profession and has a significant impact on the reputation of pharmacy professionals…”

and further:

“The GPhC believes that some acts of sexual misconduct will be incompatible with continued registration… unless there is evidence of clear mitigating factors.”

Aggravating factors included:

The abuse of a patient’s trust during a clinical interaction.
The nature and severity of the sexual assault.
Subsequent failure to comply with regulatory obligations.

Mitigating factors were limited and included:

Previous good character.
A long, otherwise unblemished career.
Some unspecified medical issues, which were not linked to the assault.

The Committee ruled out lesser sanctions such as warnings, conditions, or suspension. They concluded that only removal from the register would be proportionate, given the gravity of the misconduct and the need to maintain public confidence.

The Committee ordered that the removal take immediate effect, under Article 60(2) of the Pharmacy Order 2010, revoking the prior interim suspension.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

Absolute Professional Boundaries: Pharmacy professionals must never abuse the trust placed in them by patients. Engaging in any behaviour of a sexual nature in a clinical context, especially without proper justification, authority, or training, is indefensible and will likely result in removal from the register.
Mandatory Notifications Are Critical: Pharmacists must notify the GPhC within seven days of a conviction or police caution. Failure to do so is not a minor oversight—it is a serious breach of professional responsibility.
Honesty and Integrity are Non-Negotiable: The profession demands that registrants act with integrity. Any act that calls into question a pharmacist’s trustworthiness—especially one as serious as this—will be viewed with the utmost gravity.
Sexual Misconduct is Incompatible with Registration: This case reinforces the GPhC’s stance that sexual misconduct, particularly involving patients, is generally incompatible with continued registration. Even where a registrant has mitigating factors, such offences are seen as fundamentally damaging to public trust.
Regulatory Oversight Protects Public Safety: The GPhC’s framework exists to ensure public protection. Pharmacists must cooperate fully with regulatory requirements at all times.

This case is a stark reminder to all pharmacy professionals of the high standards of conduct expected, both inside and outside the workplace.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.