Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2016] All ER (D) 70 (Dec)
Neutral Citation: [2016] UKSC 64
Court: Supreme Court
Judge:

Lord Neuberger P, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwarth, and Lord Hodge SCJJ

Representation Tom Kark QC and Kenneth Hamer (instructed by General Pharmaceutical Council, Professionals Regulation (Fitness to Practice)) for the council.
  K appeared in person.
  Andrew Smith QC and Rory Holmes (instructed by General Medical Council Legal) for the General Medical Council.
  Jeni Richards QC (instructed by Bircham Dyson Bell LLP) for the Health and Care Professions Council.
  Kay Springham QC and Julian Martin-Brown as the advocate to the court.
Judgment Dates: 14 December 2016

Catchwords

Medical practitioner - Disciplinary committee - Fitness to practice - Sanction - Respondent pharmacist being removed from register by committee of General Pharmaceutical Council as sanction for unfitness to practice - Respondent appealing - Extra division allowing appeal and making suggestions regarding sanction - Committee of council appealing - Whether review committee having power to direct suspension beyond 12 months to reflect conclusion regarding gravity of misconduct - Whether removal from register disproportionate - Pharmacy Order, .

The Case

Medical practitioner Disciplinary committee. The Supreme Court held in allowing the appeal of the committee of the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPC), that a review committee of the GPC had had no power to direct suspension beyond 12 months of the original suspension so as to reflect a conclusion that the gravity of the respondent's misconduct demanded a longer period of suspension than 12 months which could not have been exceeded in the direction given by the original committee. Further the sanction of removal of the pharmacist from the registrar had been disproportionate.

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.