Internet Explorer 11 (IE11) is not supported. For the best experience please open using Chrome, Firefox, Safari or MS Edge

The Fitness to Practise Committee (Committee) of the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) in the UK directed the removal of a pharmacist’s registration following his conviction for the murder of his wife.

In December 2018, the pharmacist was sentenced to a minimum of 30 years imprisonment when he was found guilty of strangling his wife with a plastic bag.

It was proven at his trial, that the pharmacist had subdued his wife with insulin before suffocating her. Forensic evidence was produced at trial which showed that the pharmacist had conducted online research about strangulation and the effects of insulin for a number of years in advance of his crime.

In an effort to cover up his crime, the pharmacist then, immediately after killing his wife, ransacked the family home in an attempt to make the murder look like a break-in gone wrong. Interestingly, the pharmacist’s attempt to deceive the authorities in this manner was thwarted when they examined data from the pharmacist’s health app on his mobile phone. This data was used and crucial to secure the conviction of the pharmacist.

Unknown to the pharmacist at the time of his crimes, his iPhone was actively monitoring his activity, and the data revealed his frantic running around the house as he staged the burglary by running up and down the stairs. Data from the phone of his deceased wife was also examined, and revealed that her health app recorded no movement until shortly after her death, when the pharmacist took her phone from her body and dropped it outside in an attempt to make it look like the “burglar” had dropped it when leaving the house.

Following the conviction of the pharmacist, the Committee convened in June 2019 to consider his registration status in light of his conviction. An allegation was made that his fitness to practise was impaired due to his conviction. Attention was drawn to the fact that the pharmacist was not present before the Committee, despite his being put on notice. The notice had been served on the pharmacist in the prison where he is serving his sentence. The Committee proceeded in his absence, noting that it was in the public interest to do so and that the pharmacist had not asked for the hearing to be postponed, nor had the pharmacist responded to any of the correspondence sent to him.

The Committee found that the allegation made against the pharmacist was proven, and subsequently made a finding of impairment gainst the pharmacist under Article 51(1)(e) of the Pharmacy Order 2010 which states:

“A person’s fitness to practise is to be regarded as “impaired” for the purposes of this Order only by reason of:

(e) a conviction in the British Islands for a criminal offence.”

The Committee accepted the submission made by the GPhC that the conduct of the pharmacist due to his conviction breached a number of the GPhC’s Standards for Pharmacy Professionals, namely:

  • Standard 6: Pharmacy professionals must behave in a professional manner

  • Standard 8: Pharmacy professionals must speak up when they have concerns or when things go wrong

  • Standard 9: Pharmacy professionals must display leadership

In light of the above, the Committee found that the pharmacist’s fitness to practise was impaired by reason of the conviction. It was noted that this finding was also required on public interest grounds in order to uphold professional standards and public confidence in the profession. The Committee directed that the pharmacist’s entry in the register of pharmacists be removed.


The regulation of pharmacists in the UK operates under a different legislative structure and to a different standard of proof than its Irish equivalent, the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland.

This case demonstrates to prosecutors and indeed professional regulators a new age of evidence which may be available and should be considered when investigating complaints.

It is likely to be only a matter of time before such evidence plays a key role in the professional regulatory context again.

The content of this article is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal or other advice.

Share this: