From Mr G. Brack, MRPharmS
SIR,—The report of the Statutory Committee inquiry into the case of a
Jersey pharmacist (PJ, September 2, p326)
is disquieting, if accurate. Since the charge did not allege a pattern of continued
behaviour, it is not clear why the previous record of the pharmacist, and a
previous order for removal of his name, was regarded as relevant. In normal
legal practice, surely the judge would have ordered that a conviction on an
unrelated matter was not to be considered before sentencing, and was to remain
unreported. Lord Fraser is an experienced and able lawyer, and I should be surprised
if he allowed an offence committed over 12 years previously, with largely different
subject matter, to form a major part of the committee’s deliberation.
May I add that I do not intend to suggest that the decision was incorrect.
Graham Brack
Truro, Cornwall