Kuforiji v The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLORD JUSTICE KENNEDY,MRS JUSTICE HALLETT
Judgment Date20 December 2001
Neutral Citation[2001] EWHC 1132 (Admin)
Date20 December 2001
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
Docket NumberNO: CO/3833/01

[2001] EWHC 1132 (Admin)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

DIVISIONAL COURT

Before

Lord Justice Kennedy and

Mrs Justice Hallett

NO: CO/3833/01

Kuforiji
and
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain

MR JAMES PICKUP QC (instructed by Panone Partners, 123 Deansgate, Manchester M3 2BU) appeared on behalf of the Claimant

MR NIGEL PLEMING QC (instructed by Penningtons Sols, Bucklesbury House, 83 Canon Street, London EC4N 8PE) appeared on behalf of the Defendant

LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY
1

This is an appeal from a decision of the Statutory Committee of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain which on 24th May 2001 ordered that the name of the appellant be removed from the Register. The ground of appeal is that the order was in all the circumstances excessive, because it related to offences for which he had been prosecuted, convicted and sentenced. His misconduct, it is said, was dealt with by those steps, so that it was unnecessary for the Society's Statutory Committee to do more than, as Mr Pickup on his behalf put it to us today, to reprimand him.

2

The appellant himself is a man of 49 years of age who has much to be said to his credit. He is a native of Nigeria. He qualified in Nigeria as a pharmacist and worked there in hospitals. He came ultimately to the United Kingdom in 1982. He studied in the United Kingdom and he has obtained further qualifications. He married. He has two children who are in the higher stages of education. He began to practise as a pharmacist having achieved, by part-time study, the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of London, and having obtained the qualification of MBA at the City University in 1995. In 1996 he bought pharmacy premises and spent a considerable amount of money in so doing. Since that time he has sought to develop those premises and to serve the community in which he operates and lives.

3

It is clear from the material which is before us, and the things which have been said about him by others, that he is a man who is highly thought of. He is, as was said on his behalf by Mr Pickup, regarded by those who have given references as honest, diligent and caring. It is against that background that we have to look at what happened to bring him not only before a criminal court but also before the body charged which deciding whether or not he should be permitted to continue to practise in his profession.

4

It concerned the dispensing of methadone. That is, as every pharmacist knows, an important and integral part of his professional life, particularly if he works in an urban area, as this appellant did. It is in my judgment important to look not only at the charges themselves but at the detail which we have been given in relation to those charges.

5

There were two patients who were attending at the Junction Centre, which deals with those who are unfortunately in need of drugs counselling. The Junction Centre is situated in London NW10. One of the counsellors at that drug centre is a lady named Susan Willimott-Rviz. She was dealing with one particular patient, who for present purposes it is possible to refer to simply by the letter "C". On 7th February that patient returned to see her, complaining about difficulties in relation to his accommodation. She pointed out that although he was at that moment unable to access his medication because it was inside the accommodation, which he was unable to enter, all he had to do was to get his next instalment from the pharmacy. Although a prescription might cover a couple of weeks it would only authorise a pharmacist to release to the patient enough methadone for one or two days at a time. It was in that context that the patient told the counsellor that the pharmacist, who was this appellant, had given him the entire two weeks' prescription on 3rd February 2000. She rang the appellant and asked to speak to him personally. He spoke to her. When she put to him what the patient had said, and this is accepted by Mr Pickup, he said, "Yes", he had given it all because the patient had hassled him so he gave it all to him. She said, "If you have such a problem you should have called us." Her statement in these proceedings goes on thus:

"This totally defeats the object of our services, attempting to stabilise the patients drug misuse, increases the chances of overdose and increased the possibility that the drug is diverted. In this case, the patient is chaotic, has drinking problems, and had mental health history, all of which is compounded by this act. The pharmacist [she ended] did not seem particularly upset by the situation, or concerned, and seemed to think he hadn't done anything wrong."

6

As to that Mr Pickup accepted that at that stage the appellant did not think the matter was as serious as it was. But one would have thought that following that conversation he would have been in no doubts as to the seriousness of his conduct. Sadly, the lesson does not seem to have been learnt, because the statement of Dr Ford deals with what happened in the same month but rather later.

7

On 24th February that doctor, who worked at the same project, saw another patient, whom I will refer to as "D", and that patient had received a fortnight's prescription of methadone on 16th February. That, as the doctor said, was especially important in D's case as he was vulnerable, homeless and had an alcohol problem. He also used Benzodiazepines which if mixed with methadone could be fatal. D was about to change his address. On 24th the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Panjawani v Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 17 d5 Maio d5 2002
    ...burden on every appellant to make good his or her grounds (see the decision of this court in Kuforji v Royal Pharmaceutical Society [2001] EWHC Admin 1132). But Preiss also reminds us that there are things that specialist tribunals will know more about than courts (see paragraphs 26 and 27 ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT