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.
Continue Reading the Full Case
Create a free account or log in to access the complete case summary.
- Full allegations considered by the GPhC
- Panel findings and reasoning
- Outcome of the investigation
- Sanctions considered and imposed on the Pharmacist
- Key professional learning points
Original Case Document
View the Full Determination Document
The original determination transcript is available to registered users.
- Download the official GPhC determination
- Full hearing transcript
- Detailed findings of fact
- Sanction reasoning
- Details of the pharmacy professionals involved