The High Court suspended a registered pharmacist from the register pending further procedure on a complaint, finding that the risk to public health and safety warranted a court order rather than a voluntary undertaking not to practise.
The redacted judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Richard Humphreys on 30 September 2020, says the pharmacist accepted in an affidavit that he should not be practising for the time being because of mental health difficulties and addiction to alcohol and medication. The court said the risk threshold under section 45 of the Pharmacy Act 2007 was met.
The Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland told the court it had received concerns on 3 September. Among the matters it cited when deciding to seek an order were allegations that the pharmacist dispensed the wrong product, attended work while drunk, sought to conceal medication use, and left methadone for patients in an alleyway or bookie’s shop. These were allegations considered in the Society’s decision to apply; the judgment does not determine them as disciplinary findings.
The pharmacist had offered an undertaking not to practise. He had ceased working at the pharmacy on 4 September, resigned as a director of the company operating it on 18 September, and no longer held its keys or passwords. The Society nevertheless sought suspension, arguing that an undertaking was less enforceable and would not change the legal status of his registration. The judge also considered that a suspension would allow the public-facing register and information given to people making enquiries to reflect his status.
The court concluded that an undertaking was less effective in addressing the identified risk and ordered the suspension and related relief sought in the special summons. It directed the Society to amend the public-facing register appropriately and permitted it to disclose the terms of the order in response to enquiries. The proceedings were otherwise private under the legislation. The order did not decide the underlying complaint: the judgment anticipated a further court application after the disciplinary process. Costs were reserved by consent until the proceedings are finalised.
The judge also noted that the case exposed possible gaps in the legislation, including the absence of a statutory route for an enforceable voluntary suspension with equivalent effect. That observation was not part of the operative order.