Yusuf v The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns a pharmacist ("Appellant") who was found by the Disciplinary Committee of a professional regulatory body ("Respondent") to have engaged in systematic alteration of prescription forms and forgery of doctors' signatures. The Committee found the Appellant guilty of dishonesty, abuse of trust, loss to the National Health Service, and fundamental breaches of the professional Code of Ethics, directing removal of his name from the register of pharmacists.

The Appellant had previously been convicted at a Magistrates' Court of multiple offences of dishonestly falsifying NHS prescription records. The Disciplinary Committee considered two Notices of Inquiry: one based on the criminal convictions ("conviction case") and another based on additional allegations of prescription alterations and forgery ("non-conviction case"). The Committee found the allegations in the non-conviction case largely proved, except for those relating to dishonesty and financial gain.

The Appellant did not attend the disciplinary hearing, having applied unsuccessfully for an adjournment on grounds of ill health and personal circumstances. The Committee decided to proceed in his absence after concluding that the Appellant had voluntarily chosen not to attend or be represented. The Committee heard evidence, including from the pharmacy owner ("Witness"), and found the Appellant unfit to remain on the register, imposing removal as the sanction.

The Appellant filed a notice of appeal to the Administrative Court, challenging the refusal of adjournment, the decision to proceed in his absence, the adequacy of examination of the Witness, and the proportionality of the sanction imposed. The appeal was heard and dismissed.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Disciplinary Committee erred in refusing the Appellant's application for adjournment on grounds of ill health.
2. Whether the Committee was wrong to proceed with the hearing in the Appellant's absence.
3. Whether the Committee failed adequately to protect the Appellant's interests by not sufficiently examining or cross-examining the key witness.
4. Whether the sanction of removal from the register was disproportionate and excessive in the circumstances.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The refusal to grant an adjournment was improper, particularly as the Chairman did not request medical evidence despite the Appellant's assertion of ill health.
• The Committee should not have proceeded in the Appellant's absence given his illness and dispute of the allegations, as this compromised fairness and justice.
• The Committee failed to adequately examine or cross-examine the pharmacy owner witness, who was central to the non-conviction allegations and had a potential interest in the outcome.
• The removal from the register was manifestly excessive and unnecessary, especially as the Appellant gained no financial benefit and no motive was established; a reprimand would have sufficed.

Respondent's Arguments

• The adjournment application was late, unsupported by medical evidence, and not the duty of the Chairman to request such evidence; refusal was proper.
• The Committee properly exercised its discretion to proceed in the Appellant's absence after careful consideration and finding that the absence was voluntary.
• The Committee took appropriate steps to question the witness and ensure the Appellant's case was put; it was not the Committee's role to conduct cross-examination.
• The Committee was entitled to impose removal given the serious nature of the offences involving professional dishonesty, risk to patients, and breach of trust, outweighing mitigating factors.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court systematically addressed each ground of appeal. On the refusal of adjournment, it held that the Chairman was not obliged to request medical evidence and that the late, unsupported application was properly refused. Regarding proceeding in absence, the court applied established principles from criminal and disciplinary law requiring careful discretion. It found the Committee had correctly identified the Appellant’s absence as voluntary, exercised its discretion with utmost caution, and was entitled to proceed.

On the adequacy of examination of the key witness, the court noted the Committee had questioned the witness and put the Appellant's allegations to him. It was not the Committee's role to conduct cross-examination as would a legal advocate. The acceptance of the witness's evidence was a matter within the Committee’s discretion and did not amount to unfairness.

On the sanction, the court acknowledged the serious nature of the misconduct involving repeated dishonesty in a professional context, risk to patients, and breach of trust. It found the Committee’s decision to remove the Appellant from the register was proportionate and justified, rejecting comparisons with less serious cases. The court emphasized that the absence of financial gain or motive did not mitigate the seriousness of the misconduct sufficiently to warrant a lesser sanction.

The court also rejected late attempts by the Appellant to introduce new matters, affirming that the appeal was properly decided on the original grounds. Finally, it declined to direct any early restoration of the Appellant’s registration, leaving such matters to the Respondent and applicable procedures.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED THE APPEAL, thereby upholding the Disciplinary Committee’s decision to remove the Appellant’s name from the register of pharmacists.

The direct effect is that the Appellant remains removed from the professional register and is barred from practicing as a pharmacist unless and until restoration procedures are properly pursued. The court imposed costs on the Appellant, summarily assessed at £12,500 inclusive of VAT. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the decision reaffirmed established principles concerning procedural fairness, discretion to proceed in absence, and proportionality of sanctions in professional disciplinary contexts.