The High Court has refused an application by pharmacist Colin Lannon to cancel a two-month suspension imposed by the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland (PSI) for poor professional performance. The challenge concerned only the suspension. Lannon accepted the finding against him and the other registration conditions imposed by the Council.
Lannon was the supervising pharmacist at Lannon’s Late Night Pharmacy in Sligo. The PSI complaint concerned supplies of Kalydeco, a high-tech medicine for cystic fibrosis, to two children in one family. Their prescriptions had last been valid up to July 2017, but the pharmacy continued dispensing the medicine from August 2017 to February 2018 without valid prescriptions. Lannon personally dispensed it on one occasion, but was responsible as supervising pharmacist for the pharmacy’s operations.
Following an inquiry in February 2021, the PSI’s Professional Conduct Committee found beyond reasonable doubt that Lannon had supplied or permitted the supply of prescription-only medicine without valid prescriptions and had failed to ensure adequate compliance with the pharmacy’s procedures for high-tech medicines. It recommended a two-month suspension, followed by nine months of practice restrictions and supervision. The Council adopted those recommendations after a separate sanction hearing in June and July 2021.
In court, Lannon argued that the suspension was disproportionate, citing his previously unblemished practice, his later acceptance of responsibility and evidence from an expert pharmacist. The judge acknowledged his remorse and current insight, and found he was unlikely to repeat the conduct. But the court concluded that his obligations as supervising pharmacist were heightened under the high-tech scheme and that the dispensing continued for months without required consultant review. The judge said the absence of actual harm did not remove the potential risk to the patients.
The court also rejected arguments that the Council had misjudged the seriousness of the conduct, failed to account for comparable cases or mitigating factors, or should have given greater weight to the expert evidence. It held that the regulator’s two-month suspension was not disproportionate, unduly lacking in leniency or unreasonable. The court therefore did not cancel the sanction. The respondent was presumptively entitled to its costs, but the judge allowed Lannon 14 days to submit an argument for a different costs outcome, with a further 14 days for the respondent to reply.