Cookie policy: This site uses cookies (small files stored on your computer) to simplify and improve your experience of this website. Cookies are small text files stored on the device you are using to access this website. For more information please take a look at our terms and conditions. Some parts of the site may not work properly if you choose not to accept cookies.


Subscribe or Register

Existing user? Login

Professional standards

Judge turns down PDA’s request for a judicial review on GPhC’s new standards

The Pharmacists’ Defence Association (PDA) has lost its High Court bid for a judicial review of regulator General Pharmaceutical Council’s (GPhC) proposed new standards that govern a pharmacist’s conduct, ethics and performance, which are due to be introduced in May.

Judge Mr Justice Singh threw out the application on a number of grounds and ruled that the two pharmacists bringing the action with the support of the PDA could not be considered victims of human rights legislation and therefore are not entitled to rely on convention rights in these proceedings.

The PDA had sought a judicial review because it was concerned that the standards expected a pharmacist’s behaviour to be applied at all times, both inside and outside the workplace, which it argued threatened the individual’s human rights.

Source: Google Street View

Judge Mr Justice Singh rejected the application for a judicial review of the pharmacy regulator’s proposed new standards at Birmingham High Court.

The hearing to decide whether to grant a judicial review took place at the High Court in Birmingham on 23 March.

Commenting on the decision, director of the PDA Mark Pitt said: “Seeking a judicial review prior to the new standards coming into force … was always going to present some practical difficulties, but we believed it would be preferable to seek a resolution before May rather than wait and expose members to uncertainty and risk.”

But Pitt welcomed the judge’s statement because it clarified some of the issues that had been at the heart of its legal challenge.

Citation: The Pharmaceutical Journal DOI: 10.1211/PJ.2017.20202600

Have your say

For commenting, please login or register as a user and agree to our Community Guidelines. You will be re-directed back to this page where you will have the ability to comment.

Recommended from Pharmaceutical Press

Search an extensive range of the world’s most trusted resources

Powered by MedicinesComplete
  • Print
  • Share
  • Comment
  • Save
  • Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Supplementary images

  • Birmingham High Court

Jobs you might like

Newsletter Sign-up

Want to keep up with the latest news, comment and CPD articles in pharmacy and science? Subscribe to our free alerts.