Pharmacist Warned for Failing to Provide Breath Specimen and Not Declaring Conviction
Date of Decision: July 22, 2025
Registrant's Role: Pharmacist
Allegations:
- Conviction for failing to provide a breath specimen without reasonable excuse when suspected of driving under the influence
- Failure to declare the conviction to the GPhC within the required 7-day period
Outcome: Warning issued to remain on the register for 12 months
GPhC Standards Breached:
- Standard 6 – Behave professionally
- Standard 9 – Demonstrate leadership by keeping to the relevant laws and codes of conduct
Case Summary
Allegations
The case against the registrant revolved around two serious concerns: a criminal conviction and a failure to uphold professional obligations to the GPhC. On 8 March 2024, the registrant was convicted at Leamington Spa Magistrates’ Court for failing to provide a specimen of breath when required to do so. The incident occurred on 12 December 2023, when the registrant was suspected of having driven under the influence of alcohol or drugs. This offence contravened Section 7(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
In addition to the criminal conviction, the registrant also failed to notify the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) of the conviction within the mandated 7-day period as required under the Fitness to Practise and Disqualification etc. Rules Order of Council 2010. This dual lapse—both in law and in professional responsibility—prompted the Investigating Committee to take regulatory action.
Findings
The GPhC Investigating Committee reviewed the registrant’s conduct and found it to fall significantly short of the standards expected of a pharmacist. The committee emphasized that pharmacists must adhere to the law not only in their professional capacity but also in their personal lives. The registrant’s failure to provide a breath specimen without a valid excuse, especially in a context involving suspicion of intoxicated driving, was deemed particularly serious.
Moreover, the registrant’s delay in declaring the conviction further compounded the misconduct. The GPhC places strong emphasis on transparency and timely communication regarding criminal convictions. This duty is crucial in maintaining public trust in the integrity and professionalism of pharmacy practitioners.
GPhC Determination on Impairment
In determining whether the registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired, the panel considered the broader implications of the conduct. Although the case did not progress to a full fitness-to-practise hearing and did not result in a suspension or removal, the decision to issue a formal warning highlights that impairment can still be identified through breaches of legal and ethical standards.
The committee referenced the importance of upholding professional integrity at all times, noting:
“Behaving professionally is not limited to the working day or face-to-face interactions. The privilege of being a pharmacist calls for appropriate behaviour at all times.”
The panel acknowledged that although the registrant’s actions occurred outside of the workplace, the consequences reverberate within the profession, potentially undermining public confidence.
Sanction
The GPhC Investigating Committee concluded that a warning was the most proportionate response. This warning serves as both a disciplinary and a deterrent mechanism, aiming to reinforce the expectations placed upon all pharmacy professionals. The warning will remain on the registrant’s record for a period of 12 months.
The decision underscores that even in the absence of workplace-related misconduct, off-duty conduct that violates the law and professional obligations can and will attract regulatory scrutiny. The Committee stressed:
“This warning is to remain on the register of pharmacy professionals for 12 months… to send a clear message to the profession and the public as a whole, that conduct such as this is unacceptable, puts the public at risk and undermines confidence in the pharmacy profession.”
Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals
- Professional Behaviour is 24/7: Pharmacists must maintain professional conduct not only during working hours but in all aspects of life. The public rightly expects high standards from healthcare professionals at all times.
- Legal Compliance is Non-Negotiable: Pharmacists are expected to comply with all legal obligations, including road traffic laws. A conviction related to impaired driving, or refusal to cooperate with legal testing, is viewed with particular seriousness due to the potential public safety implications.
- Prompt Disclosure Obligations: Registrants must notify the GPhC of any criminal conviction within seven days. Failure to do so can lead to regulatory action and reflects poorly on professional integrity.
- Impact on Public Confidence: Incidents involving personal misconduct, even when not directly linked to patient care or workplace behaviour, can diminish public trust in the profession and attract regulatory penalties.
- Regulatory Warnings Matter: A warning is not a trivial matter—it remains on the professional register and serves as a public record of misconduct. This has implications for future employment, inspections, and overall professional reputation.
This case serves as a clear reminder that pharmacists must remain vigilant about their conduct in all areas of life, with awareness that personal choices can have professional consequences.
Original Case Document
The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.
Log in or Register for free to access.