General Pharmaceutical Council v Ilyk [2017] EWHC 3133 (Admin)

If this Transcript is to be reported or published, there is a requirement to ensure that no reporting restriction will be breached. This is particularly important in relation to any case involving a sexual offence, where the victim is guaranteed lifetime anonymity (Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992), or where an order has been made in relation to a young person.This Transcript is Crown Copyright.  It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority.  All rights are reserved.[2017] EWHC 3133 (Admin)Venue Royal Courts of JusticeDate Tuesday, 24 th October 2017
Before
MR JUSTICE LAVENDERB E T W E E N:
Between
GENERAL PHARMACEUTICAL COUNCILApplicantILYKRespondent________J U D G M E N T

A P P E A R A N C E S

[1]This is an application under Art. 56(5) of the Pharmacy Order 2010 for the extension of an interim suspension order which was originally made for 12 months on 7th November 2016. The extension sought is for eight months. The respondent has not responded to the present application and does not appear before me today.[2]The respondent first came to the attention of the applicant on 26th May 2016 following a self-referral. She faces allegations of theft of prescription-only medication and of taking the same, which resulted in her working when not fit to do so.[3]On 7th November 2016 the applicant's fitness to practise committee directed that the respondent's registration should be made the subject of an order for interim conditional entry for a period of 12 months pursuant to Art. 56(1)(b) of the Pharmacy Order. The committee made that order on the ground that it was necessary for the protection of the public and was in the interests of the respondent. An early review of that order was undertaken on 15th November 2016 in accordance with Art. 56(2)(b) of the order. The committee on that occasion replaced the order for conditions with an interim suspension order on the grounds of public protection. By that stage, the allegations of theft had come to light.[4]There have been further reviews of the interim suspension order on 13th February 2017 and 2nd August 2017, when on each occasion the parties consented to the continuation of the order. The latest review was yesterday, on 23rd October 2017. In recent months it has proved difficult to contact the respondent in order to arrange a further health assessment, and there have also been some difficulties in obtaining statements from witnesses about events last year.[5]At yesterday's meeting, the fitness to practise committee said as follows in its determination:
"20. The Committee first considered whether some form of interim order remained appropriate. The Committee noted that the allegations against the Registrant are of a particularly serious nature. By reason of her position as a pharmacist, the Registrant would regularly be required to engage with members of the public, often those in a vulnerable position due to illness or infirmity. The Committee concluded that the risk of the registrant making an error, or of otherwise acting so as to put public confidence in the profession at risk, was high. The Committee noted the absence of any update as to the Registrant's health (due, it appears, to her lack of cooperation). The Committee also concluded that an interim order is in the registrant's own interests, in that it would restrict her ability to take medication for her own purposes. 21. The Committee concluded that some form of interim order was required, based on the three statutory grounds as put forward by Ms Davies. 22. The Committee next considered whether it would be possible to formulate conditions which would allay public concerns sufficiently to enable the registrant to practice as a pharmacist, with suitable restrictions. 23. Conditions must not only be sufficient to manage the identified risks, but must also be workable and enforceable. In the light of the events of 7 November 2016, after the interim order hearing, the Committee concluded that conditions would be insufficient to address its concerns. In the absence of any additional medical evidence or engagement from her, the Committee could have no confidence that the registrant would be willing or able to comply with conditions. The Committee concluded that, even if it were possible to formulate appropriate conditions, these would not be sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession. 24. In reaching this decision, the Committee recognised that the continuing suspension is likely to have a detrimental impact on the Registrant both financially and in terms of her professional reputation. However, in all the circumstances, the Committee concluded that the public interest in maintaining confidence in the profession outweighed the Registrant's interests. 25. The Committee directs that the Interim Suspension Order should continue."
[6]The principles governing an application of this nature to this court were set out by Arden J in her judgment in GMC v Hiew [2007] EWCA (Civ) 369. Her Ladyship stated that the criteria which the court applies in deciding whether and, if so, to what extent, to accede to an application are the same as those which apply when considering whether to make an interim order originally, that is to say the protection of the public, the public interest and the petitioner's own interests. Amongst other things which the court has to take into account are matters including the gravity of the allegations, the nature of the evidence, the seriousness of risk of harm to patients, the reasons why the case is not concluded and the prejudice to the practitioner if an interim order is continued.[7]All of those matters were considered only yesterday by the fitness to practise committee, and having considered what the fitness to practise committee said in the passages which I have quoted, and also the efforts which have been made to conclude this case as quickly as possible, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make an order extending the interim suspension order.[8]The period of extension which is sought is one of eight months. I am told that it is hoped that the investigation will be finalised within one month. After that, the respondent will have 12 weeks in which to prepare her evidence. It follows that there cannot be a hearing for at least four months and, allowing for the usual consequences of litigation, eight months seems to me to be a sensible and proportionate period. Accordingly, I grant the order sought. 9. __________ Transcribed by Opus 2 International Ltd. (Incorporating Beverley F. Nunnery & Co.) Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers 5 New Street Square, London EC4A 3BFTel: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 7737 admin@opus2.digital __________ This transcript has been approved by the Judge.