Azam v General Pharmaceutical Council

Judgment

The Honourable Mr Justice Cobb :

By Notice of Appeal dated 6 May 2014, Hurfan Azam (hereafter “the Appellant”) appeals to this court against sanctions imposed by the Fitness to Practise (FTP) Committee of the General Pharmaceutical Council on 4 April 2014. The appeal is brought under Article 58(1)(a) of the . By its order, the FTP Committee directed the removal of the name of the Appellant from the register of pharmacists. For completeness, I record that the Appellant mounted a subsidiary appeal against the imposition of an interim order directing his immediate suspension from the record, which was not in the event proceeded with. Pharmacy Order 2010

For the purposes of determining this appeal, I have had the benefit of reading the FTP Committee’s conclusions on the facts relevant to the Appellant’s misconduct, its determination on the Appellant’s impairment of fitness to practise, on sanction, and on interim measures. I have had access to the statements filed for the FTP Committee hearing, the testimonial references, together with a transcript of that hearing. The Appellant has submitted Grounds of Appeal supported by a skeleton argument, and addendum skeleton argument with authorities; the Respondent has filed a Respondent’s Notice (although it in fact supports the reasoning aswell as the decision of the FTP Committee) together with skeleton argument and has provided me with other relevant authorities. I afforded rights of audience to Mr Southall-Edwards from whom I heard helpful and measured submissions on behalf of the Appellant; Ms Sutherland-Mack offered able oral argument in reply.

Background

In order to set a context for my ruling, it is necessary for me to summarise the essential background facts. I take this background from the factual determination of the FTP Committee; I believe that it is uncontroversial. The Appellant was employed as a pharmacist at the New Street Birmingham branch of Boots the Chemist from 1 July 2008 until 31 July 2011. It was one of the Appellant’s important functions as a pharmacist to conduct Medicine Check Ups (MCUs) sometimes referred to as Medicine Use Reviews (“MURs”); this is a service which is intended to improve the patient’s experience of taking medications, and involves the pharmacist interviewing the patient, advising on medication use and ensuring that the patient is taking the correct medication for their needs. Pharmacists are then required to complete a patient record and a note of the patient