General Pharmaceutical Council v Lim [2019] EWHC 1699 (Admin)

General Pharmaceutical Council v Lim [2019] EWHC 1699 (Admin) concerned an application by the General Pharmaceutical Council to extend an interim suspension order against a pharmacist; His Honour Judge Lickley QC, sitting as a deputy High Court Judge, granted the extension for a further six months.

The original interim order had been made on 22 June 2017 under article 56 of the Pharmacy Order 2010 and had been extended on 7 June 2018, with further reviews on 31 August 2018 and 15 February 2019. The applicant now sought a further extension for 12 months from 23 June 2019.

Mr Lim had come to the attention of the General Pharmaceutical Council in June 2017 when his employers reported that he had stolen medicines from their pharmacy. The theft was reported to Cheshire Constabulary. The medicines were worth over £3,000. Mr Lim admitted his wrongdoing and was summarily dismissed in June 2017. At the date of the hearing, almost exactly two years later, the General Pharmaceutical Council had not yet dealt with the matter as a disciplinary body. Mr Lim had provided no response at any stage of the proceedings. He was now in Malaysia and did not appear and was not represented at the hearing.

The judge pressed counsel for the General Pharmaceutical Council on the reasons for the delay. Ms Holdsworth explained that the General Pharmaceutical Council now wished to resolve the matter and was seeking to collect relevant evidence from the police, including witness statements, to allow Mr Lim sufficient time to respond to the service of the material and notice, and to resolve the matter, hopefully within six months.

The judge was satisfied that it was necessary to protect the public, that it was in the public interest, or in Mr Lim’s own interest, for the interim suspension to continue. However, he granted the extension for only six months rather than the 12 months sought, to run from 23 June 2019 to 23 December 2019. No application for costs was made and no order for costs was made.

In short, the court extended the interim suspension for six months given the need to protect the public, but for a shorter period than sought in light of the considerable delay in bringing the disciplinary proceedings.