Pharmacy Technician Removed from Register Following Conviction for Child Exploitation and Dishonesty

Date of Decision: July 3, 2025

Registrant's Role: Pharmacy technician

Allegations:

• Conviction on 7 May 2024 for:
• Four counts of distributing indecent photographs/pseudo-photographs of a child
• Two counts of making indecent photographs/pseudo-photographs of a child
• One count of voyeurism – recording a private act
• Possession of indecent photographs/pseudo-photographs of a child
• Dishonesty in voluntary removal application by declaring no criminal convictions

Outcome: Removal from the register

GPhC Standards Breached:

• Standard 5 – Pharmacy professionals must use their professional judgement
• Standard 6 – Pharmacy professionals must behave in a professional manner
• Standard 8 – Pharmacy professionals must speak up when things go wrong

Case Summary

Allegations
The registrant, a pharmacy technician, faced serious allegations of criminal misconduct and professional dishonesty. On 7 May 2024, the registrant was convicted at Liverpool Crown Court of multiple sexual offences involving children. These included four counts of distributing indecent images of children, two counts of creating such images, a charge of voyeurism involving covert recordings in public toilets, and possession of further indecent materials. The evidence showed that some images were of the highest severity (Category A), with the registrant sharing them through messaging applications such as WhatsApp.

Additionally, four days after sentencing, on 7 July 2024, the registrant submitted a voluntary removal application to the GPhC, falsely declaring that they had not been convicted of any criminal offence. The dishonesty was compounded by the context and timing of this application, clearly aiming to avoid regulatory scrutiny.

Findings
The Fitness to Practise Committee found all facts proved. The registrant did not attend the hearing and explicitly waived his right to do so. The criminal offences were confirmed by a certificate of conviction, and the dishonesty regarding the removal application was verified through Council documentation.

The panel evaluated whether these actions amounted to professional misconduct. They found that the registrant’s actions were not only legally culpable but professionally deplorable. The Committee referred to Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) to assess dishonesty, concluding that the registrant’s claim of having no conviction on his voluntary removal form was both knowingly false and unacceptable by the standards of ordinary decent people.

The registrant’s attempts to explain his conduct through a statement to his employer—where he blamed law enforcement, minimized the offences, and denied sexual interest in children—were deemed evasive and lacking genuine remorse. He wrote, “everyone has done things in public, but I was ‘stupid enough to take pictures’,” and suggested he was unfairly treated by police and legal counsel.

GPhC Determination on Impairment
The Committee found the registrant’s fitness to practise impaired on both personal and public interest grounds. Personally, the registrant demonstrated limited insight, showed no signs of remediation, and posed an ongoing risk to public safety. The panel emphasized that pharmacy professionals must uphold integrity and honesty at all times—not only in clinical practice but in personal conduct.

Publicly, the registrant’s actions risked damaging trust in the pharmacy profession. As the determination noted:

“Members of the public would be appalled to learn that a pharmacy technician had conducted the actions set out in the proven allegations.”

The panel was particularly concerned by the registrant’s lack of openness with his employer and the GPhC, and by his dishonesty when attempting to leave the register under false pretenses.

Sanction
The Committee deemed that lesser sanctions—such as conditions, a warning, or suspension—were inadequate given the severity of the offences. The Guidance on sexual misconduct explicitly states that involvement in child sexual abuse material or registration on the sex offender list is likely incompatible with continued registration. The registrant was sentenced to 20 months in prison (suspended for two years), required to complete the Horizon Sex Offence Treatment Programme, ordered to do 150 hours of unpaid work, and subjected to a 10-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order and sex offender registration.

Removal from the register was the only outcome capable of protecting the public, maintaining public confidence, and upholding professional standards. The registrant was also issued an immediate interim suspension order.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

1. Criminal behaviour outside professional practice can lead to removal: Serious offences, even when unrelated to clinical work, breach core values of integrity, trust, and responsibility.
2. Honesty with regulators is non-negotiable: The registrant’s attempt to deceive the GPhC significantly worsened his case and highlighted the importance of transparency.
3. Public confidence is paramount: The visibility and trust placed in pharmacy professionals means conduct that undermines confidence—such as dishonesty or criminality—can have severe consequences.
4. Personal conduct matters: The registrant’s voyeuristic activities and possession of indecent materials, though outside work, were considered fundamental breaches of professional ethics and standards.
5. Insight and remediation are critical: Lack of engagement, insight, or reflection signals a higher risk of repetition and severely impacts fitness to practise assessments.

This case serves as a sobering reminder that the responsibilities of pharmacy professionals extend beyond the dispensary, encompassing ethical behaviour, transparency, and upholding the reputation of the profession in all areas of life.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.

Log in or Register for free to access.