| · Methadone mixture
· Brand prescribing
· Oxygen services
· BuTrans and the SMC
· The profession (4)
· The Society
· Reciprocity
· CPD
Letters to the Editor
|
The Society
Concern at time taken to resolve infringements cases
From Dr G. E. Appelbe, FRPharmS
There is a long-standing maxim in law stating that justice delayed is
justice denied and this is also enshrined in the Article 6 of the Human
Rights Act 1998, namely, that “everyone is entitled to a fair and
public hearing within a reasonable time”. It is of concern, therefore,
that infringements, either criminal or professional, which are dealt
with by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s inspectors are taking
so long to resolve. No fault lies with the inspectors in this regard.
Every infringement, however small or large, appears to be dealt with
formally in that first there is an interview between inspector and offending
pharmacist and the matter is then referred direct to the Infringements
Committee. There appears no longer to be any screening process in the
Society as in the past.
Over the past 12 months I have been acting as a legal adviser to several
pharmacists who have been so interviewed. However, not one of them has
yet had their case dealt with by the Infringements Committee even after
nearly a year. Even after consideration by the Infringements Committee
these pharmacists could be subject to sanctions ranging from a warning
to referral to the Statutory Committee. After this it is not unknown
for cases to take over 12 months to be heard by the Statutory Committee.
This situation is unacceptable.
There are at least two points to be made. First, the pharmacist’s
conduct could be such as to justify his name being removed from the Register
as soon as possible in the interest of the public. Secondly, for many,
although the ultimate sanction is not applied, the sword of Damocles
hangs over their heads for far too long. I would be surprised if defence
lawyers do not make use of the delay issue in future cases should the
situation not be remedied. The chairman of the Statutory Committee has
in the past, when administering a reprimand, said it was because there
had been a delay in bringing the case to the committee. Presumably if
there had been no delay, erasure, in the public interest, may well have
been the outcome.
If it is a resource problem then it is for the Society to redress any
omission. Perhaps by not having such a rigid formal system but by reinstating
a form of screening process, even suggested by Dame Janet Smith in the
Shipman case, justice would then not only be done but also seen to be
done.
Gordon E. Appelbe
London
| |
JO RAFFAITIN, head of investigation, Fitness to Practise and Legal
Affairs Directorate, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, responds:
Dr Appelbe
is of
course correct that in dealing with cases the Society must be mindful
of the requirements of Article 6 and, indeed, the Society’s
fitness-to-practise procedures take into account all such responsibilities.
However, it is incorrect that all complaints made to the Society are dealt
with in the formal way Dr Appelbe describes. The Infringements Committee,
in deciding
whether a case should be referred to the Statutory Committee, takes into
account all the factors listed in its published referral criteria. These
criteria are
also used by the inspectorate when deciding how to investigate any particular
allegation and to ensure consistency. Only cases that are likely to meet
the referral criteria are investigated formally. The majority of cases are
not so
serious and these will be dealt with informally by the inspectorate before
referral to the Infringements Committee.
Dr Appelbe is also correct that no screening is undertaken by office staff
and all complaints within the Society’s enforcement jurisdiction are
referred to the Infringements Committee, whether they have been investigated
formally
or not. This is in line with the role of the Infringements Committee as defined
in the Council Governance handbook and the Infringements Committee (Procedure)
Rules 2005.
In Chapter 19 of her fifth report, Dame Janet Smith, chairman of the Shipman
Inquiry, was critical of other regulators that undertook screening of cases.
Only by routing complaints through proper fitness-to-practise procedures,
in line with published rules, referral criteria and sanctions guidance, can
transparency
and fairness be maintained.
In 2005, the Society received a 21 per cent increase in the number of complaints
received as compared with the previous year. |
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal