Disciplinary Committee

Disciplinary Committee orders striking from Register for tax evasion

A Cheshire pharmacist who went to prison for failing to pay income tax and national insurance during six years work as a locum has had his name removed from the Register of Pharmacists by order of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Disciplinary Committee.

At a hearing on 10 August 2007, the committee inquired into the case of Robert Mark Nicholson (registration number 70435), of Warrington. Information had been received that on 26 September 2005, at Chester Crown Court, Mr Nicholson had pleaded guilty and been convicted of six counts of “acting with intent to prejudice Her Majesty the Queen and the Public Revenue with intent to defraud Her Majesty the Queen”. The matter had been adjourned to 4 November 2005, when he had been sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment for each offence, to run concurrently, and a confiscation order had been imposed in the sum of £55,932.75, to be paid by 17 June 2006, in default of which he was to serve a further two years’ imprisonment. In the event, he only paid off a small proportion and on 29 June 2006 a sentence of 694 days was activated on the unpaid balance of £52,202.75. He was released from prison on 16 July 2007.

The committee heard that for periods from 1998 to 2004 Mr Nicholson had failed to deliver tax returns and had paid no income tax or national insurance. During that period he had earned about £386,000, giving rise to an evasion of tax of about £149,000, including some £18,000 of interest. The Inland Revenue had started an inquiry in late 2000. It had attempted to negotiate a settlement but Mr Nicholson had not co-operated. Civil proceedings were started in 2002 as an alternative to prosecution. These proceedings resulted in a judgment against him, but he did not comply with the payment demands sent to him. At subsequent meetings he agreed to co-operate with an IR investigation but failed to do so.

Mr Nicholson told the committee that during the period in question had had been working some 13 hours a day for 13 days a fortnight. His father, who had been ill, died in 2001. His third wife, with whom he ran a hotel, had financial difficulties and developed a mental disorder. She assaulted him, and they divorced in 2001. His daughters from his second marriage, with whom he had recently regained contact, had difficulties that resulted in further stress for him. A clinical psychologist who examined him in August 2007 confirmed that these matters were highly stressful.

Giving the committee’s determination, the chairman, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC, said that in failing to pay tax and national insurance for some six years Mr Nicholson was dishonest, misleading and deceptive. The committee noted the problems Mr Nicholson had faced and also took into account two testimonials from doctor colleagues who, among other plaudits, described him as helpful, professional and caring.

However, the committee had to bear in mind the words of Lord Steyn in the Privy Council case of Patel v GMC, that: “For all professional persons, including doctors, a finding of dishonesty lies at the top end in the spectrum of gravity of misconduct.” It also bore in mind the judge’s sentencing comments, when he had said: “You are an intelligent man. You knew exactly what you were doing. You are not as naive as you might wish this court to believe.”

The committee further bore in mind Key Responsibility 3 in the Code of Ethics and Standards, which said: “Pharmacists must ensure that they behave with integrity and probity, adhere to accepted standards of personal and professional conduct, and do not engage in any behaviour or activity likely to bring the profession into disrepute or undermine public confidence in the profession.”

The committee also bore in mind that the dishonesty had persisted for a long period, that Mr Nicholson had been given every opportunity to settle the matter before he was prosecuted, that he had served a substantial period of imprisonment and that he had still not repaid the bulk of the money he was ordered to reimburse.

In all those circumstances, the committee found Mr Nicholson unfit to be on the Register, the chairman said. It was not a case in which the health or welfare of the public had been put at direct risk, but it was a serious case of dishonesty, accompanied by a lack of sufficient insight. “We considered the suitability of admonishment or reprimand, but we did not think either sanction sufficiently addressed the issues of maintenance of public confidence in the profession or the maintenance of proper standards of behaviour. We decided that the only way these matters could properly be addressed was by the removal of Mr Nicholson’s name from the Register, and we so order.”

Mr Nicholson had three months in which to appeal. His name was struck from the Register on 13 November 2007.