Pharmacist’s Application for Restoration Denied Due to Dishonesty in Fitness to Practise Declarations

The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) Fitness to Practise Committee reviewed an application for restoration submitted by a pharmacist who had been removed from the register in 2015 due to dishonesty.

The pharmacist had been struck off following a fitness to practise hearing in June 2015, which found that:

• In January 2014, he applied to become a director of a new pharmacy company but failed to disclose his criminal record and past regulatory issues.
• His application form falsely stated that he had no past criminal convictions or fitness to practise investigations.
• In reality, he had:
  • Two convictions under the Medicines Act for improper dispensing and sales.
  • Five past regulatory investigations, including three reprimands and a formal warning.
  • Previously been caught making similar false declarations in 2007 when applying for NHS contracts.

The 2015 GPhC committee found that his actions were clearly dishonest and removed him from the register.

Application for Restoration:

In June 2020, the pharmacist applied for restoration, arguing that:

• He now accepted responsibility for his past dishonesty.
• He deeply regretted his actions.
• He had remained involved in the pharmacy sector as a dispenser and had completed continuing professional development (CPD) courses.
• He had reflected on his actions and had gained insight into the importance of honesty in healthcare.

His application included:

• References from two pharmacists who had worked with him.
• CPD records and certificates from return-to-practice courses.

Findings:

The Fitness to Practise Committee reviewed his application and found serious concerns about his level of insight and remediation, specifically:

1. A Pattern of Repeated Dishonesty Over Many Years:
   • The pharmacist had been dishonest in 2007, 2014, and again in 2015, repeatedly misleading regulators and NHS bodies.
   • His conduct was not an isolated lapse, but a repeated pattern of dishonesty over nearly a decade.
2. Lack of Genuine Insight:
   • While the pharmacist claimed to accept responsibility, his statements focused more on the impact on himself rather than on the impact on public trust, employers, or colleagues.
   • He failed to acknowledge how his dishonesty affected the profession as a whole.
3. Superficial Remorse:
   • The committee noted that he showed little genuine remorse for deceiving NHS England and the GPhC.
   • His explanation that he was under business pressure suggested he still justified his dishonesty.
4. Failure to Use His Experience as a Teaching Opportunity:
   • When asked whether he had shared his experience with pre-registration pharmacists as a cautionary lesson, he admitted that he had not, due to “personal pride”.
   • The committee found this concerning, as true insight would involve using his mistakes to educate others.
5. Concerns Over Future Risk:
   • Given his repeated history of dishonesty, the committee was not confident that he would not repeat similar misconduct in the future.
   • The fact that he only admitted the full extent of his dishonesty during this hearing raised further doubts about his integrity.

The committee concluded that his fitness to practise remained impaired and that restoring him to the register would undermine public confidence in the profession.

Decision on Restoration:

The committee refused his application for restoration, citing:

• His failure to demonstrate full insight into how his dishonesty affected public confidence.
• His history of repeated dishonesty, showing a pattern of deception.
• The need to uphold public confidence in pharmacy regulation.

The pharmacist was advised that he could reapply after 12 months but would need to provide clearer evidence of genuine insight and remediation.

Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals:

This case highlights critical lessons regarding honesty, professional integrity, and the restoration process.

1. Repeated Dishonesty Can Permanently Damage Professional Reputation:
   • The pharmacist’s history of misleading regulators and NHS bodies over a decade made it difficult for the committee to trust his reform.
   • Once dishonesty is established, proving genuine change requires significant effort and evidence.
2. Restoration Applications Require Strong Evidence of Insight:
   • Simply saying “I regret my actions” is not enough—pharmacists must show:
     • Deep reflection on their mistakes.
     • Understanding of how their actions affected public confidence.
     • Steps taken to ensure misconduct will not happen again.
3. Public Trust in Pharmacists Depends on Transparency:
   • Pharmacists must be open and honest in all professional dealings, especially with regulatory bodies.
   • Any attempt to mislead employers, the NHS, or regulators can lead to removal from the register.
4. Superficial Remorse is Not Enough for Restoration:
   • The committee found that his focus on personal consequences rather than the impact on the profession showed limited insight.
   • A strong restoration case must acknowledge the broader implications of past misconduct.
5. Regaining Registration After Dishonesty is Extremely Difficult:
   • The committee emphasized that dishonest conduct is one of the hardest issues to remediate.
   • Genuine rehabilitation takes years of consistent ethical behaviour and professional development.