Pharmacy Technician Removed from Register Following Conviction for Online Sexual Communication with a Minor

Date of Decision: June 26, 2019

Registrant's Role: Pharmacy technician

Allegations:

Conviction for attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child, contrary to Section 15A(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Engaged in sexually explicit online communications with an individual believed to be a 13-year-old girl during pharmacy working hours.

Outcome: Removal from the GPhC register

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 6 – Behave in a professional manner: The registrant failed to demonstrate professional conduct by engaging in sexually inappropriate communication with a minor, fundamentally breaching the integrity expected of a pharmacy professional.

Case Summary

Allegations

This case involved a pharmacy technician convicted of a serious criminal offence—attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child, a violation of section 15A(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The registrant was engaged in online conversations with someone he believed to be a 13-year-old girl. These communications were sexually explicit and included sending an image purporting to be of himself, requests for images from the “child”, and discussions of intimate acts he wished to perform.

Significantly, the registrant conducted these communications via mobile phone, during working hours at his pharmacy. The conversations occurred on a platform that clearly identified users as between 13 and 19 years old. The “child” was, in fact, an undercover police officer who had created a profile stating clearly that she was 13. Despite being told this, the registrant continued the interaction, suggesting knowledge and acceptance of the child’s purported age.

The registrant was arrested and later convicted, receiving a three-year community order, a requirement to complete a sex offender programme, a five-year sexual harm prevention order, and was placed on the sex offender register. He also faced forfeiture of his iPhone, prosecution costs, and unpaid work.

Findings

The GPhC Committee accepted the conviction under rule 24(4), which allows a certificate of conviction to be treated as conclusive evidence. Although the Committee was presented with further contextual allegations relating to the timing and platform of the communications, it did not make specific findings on these, considering the conviction itself sufficient to proceed.

The registrant did not attend the hearing but had submitted a statement and testimonials. In his written submissions, he attempted to downplay the seriousness of his actions. He maintained that he remained a competent technician and that the incident had not affected his work. In one statement, he wrote:

“I can still do my job, it hasn’t affected the way I work or my work ethic towards pharmacy… I’m happy in my dispensing role currently, and am trusted and valued at my pharmacy. Time to move on.”

The Committee interpreted this as a lack of insight. It noted his repeated attempts to dismiss the significance of his conviction by pointing out that it had not been publicised or noticed by others. He also expressed fatigue with the regulatory process, stating:

“I just want this over so I can get on with my life. I can’t listen to another assassination and digging up the past sorry.”

This, the panel concluded, demonstrated a failure to grasp the public and professional importance of the proceedings.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The Committee applied legal precedents (CHRE v Grant, Cohen v GMC) and concluded that the registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on all four grounds under Rule 5(2):

Risk to patients or the public: The registrant posed a potential ongoing risk due to the nature of his conduct and lack of insight.
Reputation of the profession: His conviction and conduct had brought the profession into disrepute.
Breach of fundamental principles: As a pharmacy technician, he had an obligation to uphold trust, integrity, and professionalism.
Lack of integrity: His actions and subsequent justifications showed a serious erosion of the integrity expected of pharmacy professionals.

The Committee noted that despite undergoing some elements of sentencing, including the sex offender programme, the registrant had not produced evidence of meaningful reflection or remediation.

Sanction

The Committee considered all available sanctions but quickly ruled out a warning, conditions, or suspension. The nature of the offence—a sexual offence involving a child—was too serious to warrant anything less than removal. The sanctions guidance, specifically paragraphs 6.3 and 6.4, indicated that removal is likely the most appropriate response in cases involving:

Serious sexual offences
Offences involving children
Being placed on the sex offender register

While the Committee acknowledged some mitigation—such as the brief duration of the misconduct, the guilty plea, and positive character references—these were insufficient to outweigh the gravity of the offence. The registrant had not appeared at the hearing or demonstrated genuine insight.

“The Committee considered that the conviction, and the conduct underpinning it, was such that the Registrant’s behaviour was fundamentally incompatible with remaining on the register.”

The Committee determined that the only appropriate sanction was removal from the register, in order to protect the public, maintain confidence in the profession, and uphold professional standards.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

Personal conduct matters, even outside of clinical settings. Pharmacy professionals are held to high standards in both their personal and professional lives. Misconduct—especially of a sexual or criminal nature—will be scrutinised regardless of where it occurs.
Lack of insight is a critical issue. Demonstrating insight, remorse, and understanding of the impact of one’s actions is crucial in fitness to practise cases. Dismissing or downplaying serious conduct undermines a registrant’s position significantly.
Online behaviour is under regulatory scrutiny. Interactions on social media, especially during work hours and using personal devices, can be highly damaging to a professional’s reputation and career if inappropriate.
Public perception is not dependent on media coverage. The GPhC will act in the public interest even when offences are not widely publicised. The integrity of the profession is paramount, and internal awareness alone can justify sanction.
Sexual offences involving minors will almost certainly result in removal. These cases are seen as fundamentally incompatible with continued registration. Professionals must understand that such convictions are viewed with zero tolerance by regulators.
Remediation is more than completing sentencing requirements. Reflective statements, insight into harm caused, and clear evidence of rehabilitation are necessary if one hopes to remain in or return to the profession.

This case is a stark reminder of the responsibilities that come with registration and the seriousness with which breaches of public trust are treated by the regulator. Pharmacy professionals must uphold ethical conduct in every sphere of their lives.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.