The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 269 No 7214 p345
7 September 2002

Society summary

"Pointless" forgery leads to suspended registration

A candidate for the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's registration examination who had forged the signature of his supervising pharmacist on a declaration form has had his registration suspended by the Statutory Committee.

At its meeting on 22 November 2001, the committee inquired into the case of Gulraj Dhillon, a pharmacy graduate who had passed the registration examination and had applied to be registered as a pharmacist.

A complaint had been received from the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society alleging that Mr Dhillon had himself signed with the name of his supervising pharmacist a declaration form that he had completed the period of supervised training required of a candidate taking the examination for the third time.

Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors), appeared in order to place the facts of the case before the committee.

Kevin McCartney, of counsel, instructed by Charles Russell (solicitors) represented Mr Dhillon, who was present at the inquiry.

The committee heard that in November 1999 Mr Dhillon had begun the additional six-month period of training that is required of a candidate sitting the registration examination for a third time. Early the following May he submitted to the Society a "Declaration by the supervising pharmacist" form on which he had forged the name of the supervising pharmacist. He had admitted the forgery almost immediately. The supervising pharmacist had, in fact, sent in a form, signed by her, to the effect that Mr Dhillon had demonstrated the ability to apply in practice the law related to the practice of pharmacy and that she would support his registration.

Giving the committee's decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that on receiving the properly signed form, the Society would have had no option but to agree to Mr Dhillon taking the examination. In effect, the forgery he had admitted was unnecessary and pointless.

However, if he had forged the signature in circumstances where he had been aware that his supervising pharmacist would not have been prepared to sign the declaration, the committee would have taken a much sterner view. In such circumstances it might well be that the committee would have concluded that the forgery would be so significant that the applicant should never be allowed to register as a pharmacist.

But, said the chairman, the forgery had been pointless, Mr Dhillon had passed the examination, and a period had elapsed during which he had not been able to register.

All other things being equal, the committee would have marked their stern disapproval of forgery, even where it was pointless, by suspension of the registration for anything up to two years or even more, said the chairman. However, since some 18 months had elapsed since the matter had first arisen, the committee directed that Mr Dhillon should not be registered for a further six months.