The General Pharmaceutical Council’s fitness to practise committee has issued a warning to a pharmacist accused of making antisemitic remarks.

We previously reported that, Mr Nazim Ali is the pharmacist who told a crowd at the Al Quds Day March in June 2017 in London that “They are responsible for the murder of the people in Grenfell. The Zionist supporters of the Tory Party” amongst other remarks defaming “Zionists”.

In relation to the above, disciplinary proceedings were brought against him, alleging that he had used antisemitic and offensive words during a public speech. A Fitness to Practise Committee (“the FPC”) found that the words he had used had not been antisemitic, but that they had been offensive, that this amounted to misconduct, that Mr Ali’s fitness to practise was impaired, and that he should be given a warning.

The PSA sucesfully appealed this finding in Professional Standards Authority for Health And Social Care v The General Pharmaceutical Council & Anor [2021] EWHC 1692 (Admin) (23 June 2021).

Insight Works Training

At the rehearing, which ran from 29–31 August 2023, the GPhC’s fitness to practise committee found that two of the four remarks that were considered at the initial hearing were proven to be antisemitic.  The Pharmaceutical Journal reported that:

“In coming to its decision on sanction, the committee identified aggravating factors in the case that “the registrant was not only participating in the Al Quds rally but was leading it, which inevitably gave his remarks more salience” and that “the remark made regarding the Grenfell Tower tragedy was made shortly afterwards and when feelings and emotions were at their rawest and therefore would have deepened the hurt, harm and offence”.

“The committee also set out mitigating factors, which included that “there had been no repeat of the misconduct, including when leading the Al Quds rally in subsequent years, and not at any time in the 6 years since the comments were made, the numerous uniform positive testimonials from a wide range of people attesting to the character of the registrant, that the registrant expressed genuine remorse and had apologised unreservedly, and that the registrant had demonstrated insight”.

The committee considered a period of suspension as a sanction, but decided that “a warning was the sufficient sanction in order to maintain public confidence and uphold professional standards”.

Disclaimer: The accuracy and information of news stories published on this website is accurate on the date of publishing. We endeavour to update stories if information change. You can contact us with change and update requests. Where possible, we will link to sources. Content on this website is for guidance purposes only. We cannot accept any responsibility or liability whatsoever for any action taken, or not taken. You should seek the appropriate legal advice having regard to your own particular circumstances.