Restoration of former pharmacist must await his removal from sex offenders' register
The Statutory Committee has decided that it will not consider restoring a sex offender's name to the Register of Pharmaceutical Chemists until the end of a requirement for his inclusion on the sex offenders' register.
On 18 July the committee considered an application for restoration from
Dilip Patel (former registration number 73918), of Watford. The committee
had ordered his name to be removed from the Register on 13 August 1998
following a conviction in December 1997 for indecently assaulting an
11-year-old girl. After a three-day trial at Harrow Crown Court, during
which his victim was required to give evidence because he pleaded not
guilty, he was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment and ordered
to pay £2,500 in compensation and costs. The prison sentence automatically
attracted a requirement that his name should be on the sex offenders’ register
for 10 years.
Mr Patel told the 18 July hearing that he now regretted having forced
his victim to give evidence in court and accepted he knew he was guilty
all along. He realised he had put unnecessary stress and strain on the
girl and recognised the impact the assault must have had on her.
Mr Patel told the panel he was currently running a successful business
importing nutritional supplements. He did not want to work as a pharmacist
again, but being restored to the Register would help him to conduct his
business more fully.
Giving the committee’s determination, the chairman, Lord Fraser
of Carmyllie, QC, said that the committee had taken note of a recent
case in which the Council for the Healthcare Regulatory Excellence had
challenged a disciplinary decision of the General Dental Council. In
that case, the judge had said: “I am satisfied that, as a general
principle, where a practitioner has been convicted of a serious criminal
offence or offences he should not be permitted to resume his practice
until he has satisfactorily completed his sentence.”
In Mr Patel’s case, said the chairman, the prison sentence had
been completed but the obligation to be recorded as a sex offender would
continue until December 2007. “With some hesitation,” he
continued, “we refuse his application for restoration, but if he
reapplies after December 2007 and nothing untoward has occurred, we will
look favourably on his application then.”
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal