Pharmacist Suspended for Stalking Former Colleague with Tracking Device

Date of Decision: July 4, 2025

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

Conviction for stalking without fear, alarm or distress under Section 2A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Outcome: Suspension for 6 months

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 6 – Pharmacy professionals must behave in a professional manner, demonstrating appropriate conduct both within and outside of the workplace.
Standard 9 – Pharmacy professionals must demonstrate leadership, taking responsibility for their actions and leading by example.

Case Summary

Allegations

The registrant, a pharmacist with over 35 years of professional experience, faced allegations stemming from a criminal conviction for stalking a former colleague. According to the Certificate of Conviction, the conduct occurred between December 2021 and May 2022, during which the registrant repeatedly contacted the victim—his former romantic partner and junior colleague—via calls, texts, and emails. Notably, he also placed a GPS tracking device on her vehicle without her consent. This persistent behavior culminated in a conviction under Section 2A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

The gravity of the offence was underscored by the subsequent sentencing at Hull Magistrates’ Court on 14 September 2022, where the registrant received a 10-year restraining order and an 18-month community service order, including 200 hours of unpaid work and 25 rehabilitation activity days.

Findings

The GPhC Fitness to Practise Committee found the facts of the allegation proven, as the registrant admitted the conviction. Despite claiming the tracking device was placed with the victim’s knowledge, the Committee emphasized that it was bound by the facts established by the court. The registrant’s past behaviour, which included prior warnings related to breaches of professional boundaries, was a significant consideration.

The registrant admitted to the misconduct and expressed remorse, stating that the actions were out of character and had deeply impacted his professional identity. He testified to ceasing contact with the victim post-conviction and voluntarily stepping away from pharmacy work. He described his conviction as a life-altering event that triggered a deep personal reflection, referring to the £50,000 he gave the victim as a “training cost” in his emotional and personal development.

He also disclosed having completed an offender management course and ongoing personal development through reading and therapy. While the Committee noted the lack of documentary evidence of remediation, it acknowledged his sincere remorse and credible oral testimony.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The Committee found that the registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired. The conviction, although related to personal conduct, had significant implications for public confidence in the pharmacy profession. The panel evaluated the case through the lens of the principles in Cohen v GMC and CHRE v NMC and Grant, focusing on the registrant’s insight, the likelihood of repetition, and the broader public interest.

The Committee concluded that although the misconduct was remediable and unlikely to be repeated, the seriousness of the conviction and the ongoing restraining order until 2032 warranted a finding of impairment. The panel emphasized that the registrant’s behavior violated two core professional standards and had the potential to bring the profession into disrepute.

As one panel member noted, the registrant’s breach of boundaries with a junior colleague, particularly given the previous warnings from the GPhC, demonstrated a concerning lapse in judgment and professional responsibility.

“The Committee is satisfied that members of the public, if they were fully appraised of the facts of this case, would be surprised if a finding of impairment were not made.”

Sanction

In determining the appropriate sanction, the Committee ruled out taking no action, issuing a warning, or imposing conditions of practice. It held that a warning or conditions would be insufficient given the gravity of the registrant’s criminal conduct.

The panel imposed a six-month suspension order, stating this measure was proportionate to reflect the seriousness of the offence and to uphold public confidence in the profession. The decision also acknowledged that while the registrant was not currently practising, the suspension served as an important message to the profession about maintaining ethical standards both in and out of the workplace.

The suspension does not require a review before expiry, indicating that it was imposed solely in the interest of public perception rather than ongoing risk to patients or practice standards.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

Professional Boundaries Are Crucial: Engaging in inappropriate relationships, particularly where power dynamics exist, risks both personal and professional consequences. Pharmacy professionals must maintain appropriate boundaries with colleagues.
Personal Conduct Reflects on Professional Integrity: Conduct outside the workplace, especially criminal behavior, can severely impact public trust in the profession. The GPhC holds registrants to high standards of personal behavior to protect the profession’s reputation.
Remediation and Insight Are Vital: The registrant’s ability to reflect on his conduct, undertake personal development, and express genuine remorse was crucial in avoiding a more severe sanction like removal from the register.
Conviction-Related Impairment Is Serious: Even when not directly related to professional duties, criminal convictions—especially those involving harassment or abuse—are treated with utmost seriousness.
GPhC Sanctions Are Public Interest-Oriented: Outcomes are guided not just by individual rehabilitation but also by the need to reassure the public and uphold professional standards.

This case serves as a powerful reminder of the ethical responsibilities pharmacy professionals bear and the consequences of failing to uphold those standards in all aspects of their lives.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.