General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) Restoration

If you have previously been registered as a pharmacist or pharmacy technician with the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) or the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, you can apply to re-join the GPhC register.

We look at the process and importance of legal advice.

What is General Pharmaceutical fitness to practise?

To remain on the General Pharmaceutical Council’s (GPhC) register, pharmacists must be “fit to practise”. The GPhC defines fitness to practise as pharmacy professionals:

“having the skills, knowledge, character and health necessary to do their job safely and effectively, act professionally and meet the principles of good practice set out in our various standards, guidance and advice.”

The GPhC will investigate concerns which suggest that a pharmacists’ fitness to practise may be impaired. A pharmacists’ fitness to practise can be impaired for a number of reasons, including misconduct, lack of competence, not having the necessary knowledge of English, ill-health or a conviction or caution for a criminal offence.

“Returning” or “Restoration”?

There is a difference between “returning” to the GPhC register and applying for “restoration”. Generally speaking, if, for example, a pharmacist’s registration has lapsed or you have been removed voluntarily, you can make the following applications to the GPhC:

If it is less than 12 months since you were last registered with the GPhC, you can apply to restore your registration
If it is more than 12 months, you can apply to return to the register.

However, the “more than 12 months” rule for returning to the register does not apply to removal by a GPhC Fitness to Practise Committee. If a pharmacist was removed from the register by a committee, they will not be able to apply to return to the register until five years has elapsed from the removal date.

Removal by a GPhC Fitness to Practise Committee – Overview

an application to return to the register is not an appeal against, or a review of, the original fitness to practise committee decision
there is no automatic right to return
when applying, the ‘burden of proof’ is on the applicant
pharmacist must provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate their fitness to practise
the application will be heard by a fitness to practise committee, which will consider whether the pharmacist can be restored with unrestricted practice or with conditions
if an application is refused, a pharmacist must wait 12 months from the date of the application before they can make another application
the committee may direct that a pharmacist cannot make any further applications for restoration

Restoration Hearings

Your application for restoration will be heard by a GPhC Fitness to Practise Committee, which will consider whether you can be restored with unrestricted practice or with conditions.

These hearings are usually take place in public. The exception is hearings relating to health issues where the interests of the pharmacist, or a third party, in maintaining their privacy outweigh the public interest in holding the hearing in public.

The hearing is held by a panel of three people (a chair, a registrant member and a lay member). Other people may also be at the hearing, including a legal adviser, a medical adviser, GPhC staff and the applicant’s representatives.

A hearing will usually follow the following order:
1. Preliminary legal arguments
2. GPhC presenter - is invited to speak to the committee on the background of the case and the circumstances in which the applicant’s name was removed from the register. This is important, because the committee will need to understand what happened which led to registration being removed. The presenter must direct the attention of the committee to any relevant evidence, including transcripts of previous hearings.
- Applicant - The pharmacist plying has a right to address the committee, present evidence and call witnesses in relation to “any relevant matter”. This includes evidence on professional knowledge and skills kept up to date and insight.
1. The committee - may ask questions on any issues which are relevant to the restoration application.
2. Decision making

“Overarching objective”

When making this decision, the committee will apply the following test:

“Against the backdrop of the overarching objective (to protect the public, maintain confidence in the profession & maintaining professional standards), is the applicant concerned fit to practise.”

To decide if the applicant is fit to practise and whether restoration will meet our overriding objective, the committee will take into account a range of factors:

- The circumstances that led to the removal
- The reasons given by the original committee for the decision to remove
- The pharmacist’s response to the findings of the committee at the original hearing
- The likelihood of the pharmacist repeating the conduct that led to their removal from the register
- Evidence of learning activities designed to keep skills and knowledge up to date, and to keep up with developments in practice
- The lapse of time since the applicant was removed
- Evidence demonstrating insight & remediation

Insight & Remediation

When you apply for restoration, a pharmacist will be required to “provide sufficient evidence” to demonstrate their fitness to practise. The ‘burden of proof’ is on the pharmacist. This means that it is for the pharmacist to satisfy the committee that they should be restored – it is not for the GPhC to prove or to provide evidence to the contrary.

When the committee considers evidence of insight, it will consider:

Does the applicant understand what went wrong and accept that they should have behaved differently?
Has the applicant demonstrated that they appreciate the impact or potential impact that their wrongdoing had or could have had on patients and members of the public, for example by showing remorse?
Is the applicant empathetic to any individuals involved in the original concern, for example by apologising?
Has the applicant identified how they will act differently in the future to avoid similar issues arising?

It is important to remember that a restoration hearing is not an opportunity to challenge the findings of the fitness to practise committee which removed the pharmacist’s name from the register, or about the severity of that original decision. A committee considering an application for restoration is bound by the original findings and decision.

What powers have the committee have?

The fitness to practise committee could:

grant the application, and direct that the applicant should be restored to the register without conditions;
grant the application, and direct that the applicant should be restored to the register with conditions for a period of up to 3 years; or
refuse the application.

Right of appeal

There is no right of appeal against a decision by the committee to refuse restoration. There is a right of appeal against a committee decision that no further applications can be made. This type of appeal can be made to the High Court (or the Court of Session in Scotland) within 28 days of the written reasons for the decision being given.

Legal Representation

Restoration applications are complex and should be approached with a clear strategy and great care. There are a number of things for pharmacist to consider:

The GPhC fitness to practise committee will be supported by a legal advisor with representatives from the GPhC present to present the regulator’s case.
The process is governed by strict statutory rules and procedures.
There are limited ground of appeal and the committee can direct that no further applications can be made. Approaching a restoration application with a clear strategy and legal advice will assist pharmacists.
The right evidence is critical to evidence fitness to practise. This is particularly relevant to showing insight and remediation.

Expert legal advice and representation will benefit pharmacists greatly.

Kings View Barristers

With over 30 years combined experience, Kings View Chambers have established itself as one of the best when it comes to fitness to practise defence. We fully understand that fitness to practise defence is not merely about processes and procedures. We also understand that we are working with people who are anxious and worried about what investigations might mean for them, their professions and the reputations.

We are proud to be rated ‘excellent’ by our clients. Our commitment to client care is genuine in both seeking the very best outcomes for our clients, but also ensuring we do what we can to support them through the process.

Contact us today for a no obligation and free telephone consultation about your case in the knowledge that you are speaking to one of the best in the business.

In upholding the appeal, Alan Bates, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, said:

Failure to assess witness credibility and reliability The panel did not sufficiently evaluate the general credibility and reliability of key witnesses, whose evidence was essential to the charges. It failed to consider factors such as contradictions between witnesses' accounts and whether their testimonies should be approached with caution. This omission undermined the panel's ability to justify its conclusions.
Lack of explanation for preferred evidence The panel failed to provide adequate reasons for preferring the complainants' evidence over the appellant nurse's and the paramedic's. Simply stating a preference for certain witnesses' accounts without detailed justification left the appellant without a clear understanding of why her evidence was rejected.
Errors in evidence evaluation The panel assessed each charge in isolation without considering broader patterns or contextual evidence. It failed to recognize that inaccuracies in one allegation (contradicted by CCTV) could cast doubt on the reliability of witnesses' accounts in other allegations, leading to flawed conclusions.
Improper handling of contextual evidence The panel neglected to evaluate the behaviour of the complainant nurses during the investigation, which was relevant to determining their credibility. Additionally, it overlooked the appellant nurse's claims that the allegations were fabricated to remove her from her managerial position.
Insufficient reasoning for findings The panel provided inadequate reasoning for its findings of misconduct. It did not fully explain how the evidence supported its conclusions, including why the NMC had met the burden of proof for each disputed allegation. This failure left the appellant with unsubstantiated conclusions, undermining the credibility of the process.

Lessons

This case highlights several critical considerations for fitness to practise tribunals. One key lesson is the importance of thoroughly evaluating the credibility and reliability of witnesses, particularly when their testimony is central to the charges. Without such assessments, the accuracy and fairness of the tribunal’s findings can be compromised. Witness accounts must be examined not only in isolation but also in a broader context, taking into account patterns and inconsistencies to achieve a holistic evaluation.

Additionally, tribunals must provide clear and rational reasoning for their decisions. Merely preferring one witness’s account over another without detailed explanations can lead to procedural unfairness. Ensuring transparency in decision-making fosters trust in the process and supports robust outcomes. Tribunals must also maintain procedural fairness by upholding the burden of proof on the prosecuting body. Accused parties should never feel pressured to disprove allegations, as fairness is crucial to preserving the system’s integrity.

Finally, the impact of procedural delays cannot be underestimated. Prolonged proceedings can cause undue harm to the accused, affecting their career and reputation. Timely resolutions are essential to upholding justice while minimizing unnecessary stress on all parties involved. By focusing on these principles, fitness-to-practise tribunals can enhance the fairness and effectiveness of their proceedings.

Disclaimer: This article is for guidance purposes only. Kings View Chambers accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any action taken, or not taken, in relation to this article. You should seek the appropriate legal advice having regard to your own particular circumstances.