Pharmacist’s fitness to practise found not impaired

The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) were determined to progress the matter. Following months of work and a clear strategy, we achieved a finding of no impairment at the Principal Hearing.

 “Kings View now has unparalleled experience in the GPhC fitness to practise arena – particularly relating to online and remote prescribing and dispensing. We would encourage those seeking representation to research properly, as undoing bad decisions in such matters is very difficult.” 

 

Our client, DC, like others, was under investigation by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) relating to wholesale and online aspects of his business. He was, at that stage, one of the first people to be investigation by the GPhC for online pharmacy retail.

We worked with him through the investigation and process. The MHRA case was successfully closed with no further action at an early stage, however, the GPhC decided to continue. The GPhC were determined to progress the matter. Following months of work and a clear strategy, we achieved a finding of no impairment at the Principal Hearing.

General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) Defence Barrister and joint-head of chambers, Stephen McCaffrey, said:

“Because this was one of the first cases relating to remote and online pharmacy, the GPhC had yet to decide how it wished to regulate the arena. We were able to expose their disingenuous attempts to compare it to NHS and GMC standards, while demonstrating we recognised certain aspects of the business could have been managed and governed to a higher standard.

 

“It was a difficult case, challenging some facts and admitting others. This case involved legal argument and difficult strategic decisions, however DC remained with us, followed the plan even at times of concern and panic, and the result speaks for itself.

 

“Kings View now has unparalleled experience in the GPhC fitness to practise arena – particularly relating to online and remote prescribing and dispensing. We would encourage those seeking representation to research properly, as undoing bad decisions in such matters is very difficult.

 

“Online and remote GPhC cases are complex. We have since had findings of no impairment in three other substantive cases, with more being listed currently.”

DC said:

“I cannot speak highly enough about the representation I received from Mr McCaffrey during my recent professional conduct hearing. From our very first meeting, I felt reassured in the face of what I saw as a threat to my career.

 

“Mr McCaffrey immediately grasped the complexities of my case and helped me understand the allegations against me in a clear way. With great insight, he was able to craft a solid foundation for building my defence.

 

“Throughout the entire process leading up to the hearing, Mr McCaffrey displayed consummate professionalism. He explained each step, managed my expectations, and prepared me thoroughly so I knew what to expect. This gave me huge confidence walking into that room. He was on my case, weekends are no exceptions including Saturday and even on a Sunday night!!

 

“During the gruelling experience of giving evidence and testimony, Mr McCaffrey cross examination skills were truly masterful. Methodological yet empathetic, he was able to raise contradictions with the claims brought against me.

 

“Thanks to Mr McCaffrey intricate preparation, razor sharp mind and rousing closing arguments, the panel had no option but to give a favourable outcome.”

Insight Works Training

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.

More News & Articles