Shah Ketankumar 2036445 5-11-2012.pdf - General ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Athe profession. The Committee notes that this is a case of historic misconduct. TheCommittee has considered whether it might be sufficient, for the protection of the publicinterest, that Mr Shah should be the subject of an order of suspension for 12 months, theBmaximum period for which the Committee can make an order of suspension.The Committee has borne in mind the words of the Privy Council in Chaudhury vGeneral Medical Council [2002] UKPC 41 at paragraph 21:C"The application of the doctrine of proportionality is to ensure that a measureimposes no greater restriction upon a Convention right than is absolutelynecessary to achieve its objectives."DHowever, in this case, despite the time which has passed since Mr Shah's misconduct wasdetected in 2005, the Committee considers that the most important consideration for theCommittee is the effect which this determination, that Mr Shah's fitness to practise isEimpaired, will have on public confidence in the profession. It has had regard to the wordsof Sir Thomas Bingham MR in Bolton v Law Society [1994] 1 WLR 512:"Any solicitor who is shown to have discharged his professional duties withFanything less than complete integrity, probity and trustworthiness must expectsevere sanctions to be imposed upon him by the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal.Lapses from the required high standard may, of course, take different forms andbe of varying degrees. The most serious involves proven dishonesty, whether orGnot leading to criminal proceedings and criminal penalties. In such case thetribunal has almost invariably, no matter how strong the mitigation advanced forthe solicitor, ordered that he be struck off the Roll of Solicitors. OnlyHT A REED& CO LTD01992-465900infrequently, particularly in recent years, has it been willing to order therestoration to the Roll of a solicitor against whom serious dishonesty had been18- Day 6
Aestablished, even after a passage of years, and even where the solicitor had madeevery effort to re-establish himself and redeem his reputation..."BIn this respect there is no relevant difference between a solicitor and a pharmacist. Thereis a particular need for honesty and integrity when a pharmacist is dealing with, forexample:C1. Cash handling2. Advice to customers about the choice of medications,which may be against the pharmacists commercial interestD3. Bulk sales and purchases where an inducement might beofferedE4. International transactions5. Compliance with NHS requirements for record keeping andaccountingF6. Compliance with other business requirements7. Accounting as an agent or employee to a principal orGemployer8. Advising and administering treatmentsH9. Safekeeping and control of drugsT A REED& CO LTD01992-46590019- Day 6
Page 7 and 8: ABCthat a refund was paid in cash b
Page 9 and 10: ABCDEFGHT A REED& CO LTD01992-46590
Page 11 and 12: ABCDdocuments. The Committee theref
Page 13: ABCsuggestion he handed over his wi
Page 16: ABHaving weighed all these matters,
Page 22: AThe Committee has concluded that h

Shah Ketankumar 2036445 5-11-2012.pdf - General ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?