Strikings-off for campaign of threats and abuse after wholesaler sent in receivers to recover loans
The Statutory Committee has ordered the striking-off of two pharmacists — a
husband and wife — who carried out a campaign of threats and abuse
against directors of a pharmaceutical wholesaler after it appointed administrative
receivers to recover sums loaned to their pharmacy business.
The inquiry, held on 23 June, 22 and 23 September and 21 October 2004,
concerned Christopher Charles Chanin and Lynda Jane Chanin, both of 3
Whinmoor Close, Prenton, Merseyside, who were the shareholders and directors
of Chanins Pharmacy Ltd.
The inquiry arose from a complaint by the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society alleging that the couple had engaged in actions that did not
conform with accepted standards of personal and professional conduct
and might demonstrate such misconduct as to render them unfit to have
their name on the Register of Pharmaceutical Chemists.
The committee heard that Chanins Pharmacy Ltd was refinanced in June
2000 by UniChem Ltd, which had been pharmaceutical wholesaler to the
business for a number of years. The refinancing agreement included a
number of charges over the Chanins’ personal and business assets.
In April 2002 UniChem decided that the Chanins had not complied with
the terms of the refinancing agreement and appointed administrative receivers
over their business to recover the sums it had loaned to them. The Council
alleged that the couple then harassed, threatened and/or pestered board
members and/or employees of UniChem Ltd and its parent company Alliance
UniChem Plc by:
· Sending offensive and threatening letters, postcards and faxes to
their work and home addresses
· Making harassing and/or threatening telephone calls to their home and
work places
· Publishing their names, home addresses and home and work telephone
numbers on websites
· Publishing abusive, offensive and threatening material about them on
websites
· Instructing and/or permitting a Brian Jones to harass, threaten and/or
pester them and members of their families
· Producing and/or distributing to directors and/or employees, or instructing
others to do so, a compact disk that purported to contain offensive and/or
threatening material but which was in fact blank.
The Council’s complaint included specific examples of alleged
harassing, threatening and/or pestering actions under each of the above
categories.
The Council also alleged that on 18 July 2002, in the High Court of Justice,
Queen’s Bench Division, Mr and Mrs Chanin had been made the subject
of an injunction restraining them from “entering upon, occupying
or taking possession of or otherwise seeking to interfere with the administrative
receivers’ possession of the premises at 14-16 Cross Lane, Bebbington,
Wirral, Merseyside, and 4 Fenderway, Greenfields, Birkenhead, Wirral,
Merseyside and/or taking possession of or otherwise seeking to interfere
with the administrative receivers’ possession of property at the
premises, and interfering with or otherwise in any way in or in connection
with the carrying on of any business or activity carried on by the administrative
receivers at the premises save with their consent”.
Mr and Mrs Chanin attended the inquiry but were not legally represented.
Instead they were assisted by Mr Jones as a “MacKenzie friend” [a
person who may give advice, take notes and assist the person in court
at the discretion of the judge or magistrate but may not speak for that
person].
Appointment of receivers “inevitable”
Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie,
QC, said that, however aggrieved the Chanins may have felt when the receivers
were appointed, there could be no doubt that UniChem was entitled to
take that course of action in terms of the loan. “It might be thought
that it was a course that was made more or less inevitable by the Chanins’ actions
in the spring of 2002, most particularly by stopping the monthly trading
payments due by direct debit to UniChem. Indeed, those responsible for
finance and credit control within UniChem could have been subject to
severe criticism if they had allowed the situation to drift on.”
On the specific complaints about letters, postcards and faxes sent to
UniChem board members and employees, the chairman said that it was disputed
that they were offensive and/or threatening. “In our view,” he
said, “not only are all the examples threatening and offensive,
but they were intended to be.”
He went on to say that the committee was less sure about the telephone
calls. The examples given, although they would have been alarming in
the context of other actions, were not in themselves sinister and would
be excluded from the committee’s determination.
The committee did find proved the allegations concerning websites. It
regarded the material put on the website as abusive, offensive and threatening.
On the alleged actions by Mr Jones, the chairman said that although Mr
Jones had been present throughout the hearing he had not given formal
evidence, which would have been helpful in view of his protracted involvement
in the matter. Although the Chanins may not have instructed Mr Jones
to act in the manner complained of, they both appeared to see nothing
wrong with any of his actions. Both at least permitted him to act as
he did and they both had to be responsible for all his actions on their
behalf, The committee found proved the allegations that Mr Jones harassed,
threatened and/or pestered board members of UniChem and/or employees
and members of their family.
Turning to the allegation concerning the CD, the chairman said that the
Society’s claim that its production was threatening was much closer
to the truth than the Chanins’ use of the word “persuade”.
The fact that there appeared never to have been anything on the CD made
their action even more questionable, in a way.
The committee also found proved the complaint that the Chanins had been
made subject to a High Court injunction order in the terms set out.
The chairman said that, with the cautious exclusion of the telephone
calls, all the Society’s allegations were approved, including the
summarising allegation that the Chanins’ actions were inappropriate
in that they did not conform with the accepted standards of personal
and professional conduct.
“Pharmacists,“ said the chairman, “are expected to conduct
themselves generally in accordance with the standards of professional
men and women and failure to do so may reflect upon the reputation of
the profession as a whole.” The Chanins had singularly failed to
conduct themselves in accordance with such standards and appeared to
have no insight into the extent of their departure from the standards
required. That may in part follow from the “baleful influence” of
Mr Jones but the responsibility was theirs. They showed such a remarkable
lack of insight into how far they have departed from professional standards
that the committee had no option but to direct the removal of their names
from the Register.
Earlier, the chairman had expressed concern that, having made a complaint
to the Society, UniChem had later sought to drop the complaint after
reaching a settlement with the Chanins. “That is unacceptable, “ he
said. “The Royal Pharmaceutical Society are the guardians of the
Register, not UniChem, and it is for this committee as part of the machinery
of self-regulation under statute to determine whether individuals should
be on the Register or not. I am not impressed that UniChem should have
threatened that their witnesses, directors or employees, would refuse
to give evidence before the Statutory Committee. That was irresponsible
and unworthy of a major wholesale pharmacy company such as UniChem.”
Mr and Mrs Chanin had three months in which to appeal.
Back to Top
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal