Kings View Chambers’ Joint Head of Chambers, Stephen McCaffrey, said the chambers now “has unparalleled experience in the General Pharmaceutical Council fitness to practise arena – particularly relating to online and remote prescribing and dispensing.”
He was speaking after another successful case for a client pharmacist who found themselves in regulatory troubles with both the General Pharmaceutical Council & Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
Explaining, Stephen said:
“Our client, DC, like others, was under investigation by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) relating to wholesale and online aspects of his business. He was, at that stage, one of the first people to be investigation by the GPhC for online pharmacy retail.
“We worked with him through the investigation and process. The MHRA case was successfully closed with no further action at an early stage, however, the GPhC decided to continue. The GPhC were determined to progress the matter. Following months of work and a clear strategy, we achieved a finding of no impairment at the Principal Hearing.”
“Because this was one of the first cases relating to remote and online pharmacy, the GPhC had yet to decide how it wished to regulate the arena. We were able to expose their disingenuous attempts to compare it to NHS and GMC standards, while demonstrating we recognised certain aspects of the business could have been managed and governed to a higher standard.
“It was a difficult case, challenging some facts and admitting others. This case involved legal argument and difficult strategic decisions, however DC remained with us, followed the plan even at times of concern and panic, and the result speaks for itself.
“Kings View now has unparalleled experience in the GPhC fitness to practise arena – particularly relating to online and remote prescribing and dispensing. We would encourage those seeking representation to research properly, as undoing bad decisions in such matters is very difficult.
“Online and remote GPhC cases are complex. We have since had findings of no impairment in three other substantive cases, with more being listed currently.”
In another recent case and, in what was one of the first substantive online pharmacy cases to reach a hearing, another of Stephen’s online pharmacy clients’ fitness to practise was not found impaired. In relation to this case, Stephen said:
“Having failed to properly regulate or guide this evolving area, the GPhC targeted those who entered it in the early stages. In an investigation that took 7 years, our client made early admissions but did not accept the level of involvement or responsibility being ascribed to him.
“He decided to fight the case. A strategy was put in place with the end result that the Principal Hearing ended with a finding of no impairment on either limb. In such a serious case, this was a fantastic result.”
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.