Key Facts
- •Nazim Hussain Ali, a registered pharmacist, made antisemitic and offensive comments at the 2017 Al Quds Day rally.
- •The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) Fitness to Practise Committee found Mr. Ali guilty of serious misconduct but imposed only a warning.
- •The Professional Standards Authority (PSA) appealed the sanction, arguing it was insufficient.
- •The High Court previously remitted the case back to the Committee following a successful appeal by the PSA.
- •The Committee's second decision again imposed a warning.
- •The PSA appealed again, focusing solely on the inadequacy of the sanction.
Legal Principles
The court will allow an appeal if the appeal decision is ‘wrong’ or ‘unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings in the lower court’
CPR Part 52.21(3) and GMC v. Meadow [2006] EWCA Civ 390
Appeals courts correct material errors of fact and law but are cautious about upsetting conclusions of primary fact, especially those based on witness credibility assessments.
Assicurazioni Generali SPA v. Arab Insurance Group [2002] EWCA Civ 1642; Southall v GMC [2010] EWCA Civ 407
Appellate courts approach Tribunal determinations on serious misconduct, impairment of fitness to practise, and public confidence with diffidence.
Fatnani and Raschi v GMC [2007] 1WLR 1460; Khan v General Pharmaceutical Council [2016] UKSC 64
The overriding objective of professional regulators is to protect the public.
Bolton v. The SRA; Dr Cheng Toh Yeong v. The GMC [2009] EWHC 1923 (Admin)
Professional regulation focuses on current and future fitness to practise, considering past actions to assess the current position.
Meadow at paras 28 to 32
A finding of misconduct does not automatically mean impairment of fitness to practise.
Yeong at para.21, citing Cohen v The GMC [2008] EWHC 581 Admin
Under s. 29(4) of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002, the Authority may appeal if the decision is insufficient for the protection of the public.
National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Act 2002
In determining whether Mr Ali's comments were antisemitic, the Committee should have focused on the objective meaning of the words, considering their cumulative effect.
Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care v General Pharmaceutical Council [2021] EWHC 1692 (Admin)
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The High Court held that the Committee did not err in imposing a warning. While acknowledging that the Committee gave undue weight to Mr. Ali's lack of intent, the Court found the overall decision was adequately reasoned and that a more severe sanction was not warranted given the circumstances and lack of evidence of repeated misconduct.