Vora Snehlata Jayantilal 2017737 19-02-2013.pdf - General ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

10The challenge to Mrs R's evidence has been on the basis that her evidence is not credible.Mr McCartney explained that the he uses the word 'credibility' to cover a number ofsituations, including where the witness has an honest belief but what is said is notinherently credible; where the witness is not telling the truth (in short he is telling lies); orwhere the witness is mistaken.In the course of the hearing, it became apparent that there were disputes of differences ofrecollection about the number of compacts that fell on the floor; how many were in fact (oras a matter of opinion) damaged; how many compacts were handed to Mrs R by MissVora.Mr McCartney highlighted a number of inconsistencies in the evidence in this regardin support of his submission that the evidence of Mrs R was not credible or reliable.Although Mrs R said in cross-examination that she had shown two compacts to Miss Riley,the Council accept, in the light of the inquiries made of Miss Riley, that it is unlikely thatshe did so. It follows that that evidence of Mrs R in this regard is incorrect. The Councilalso accept that Miss Riley would never have said that the compacts would not form part ofthe evidence. It follows that Mrs R's evidence in this regard is incorrect.Of course, when a witness answers a question with apparent conviction, but which she thenretracts when asked further questions, or which is then contradicted by other evidence, thiscauses any decision-maker considerable pause for thought. It is true that Mrs R was awitness who expressed herself in a manner that suggested that she had no doubt, until herevidence was explored. The prime example of this was when she was cross-examined byMr McCartney as to whether she had spoken to Miss Vora on the telephone on the eveningof 13 July. In summary, she moved from certainty that she had not, to indecision that shemay have, and to a degree of belief that she must have. In our view, the explanation is thatshe genuinely did not remember the telephone conversation on 13 July when giving herevidence before us.Do we believe Mrs R's evidence that one brown inhaler was removed from the bag ofitems dispensed and paid for? If it was not, it would follow that Mrs R had that item aftershe left the pharmacy but nonetheless returned to work and spoke to her colleagues aboutthe incident; phoned her GP surgery; was present when her husband telephoned Miss Voraconcerning the removal of the items; phoned the General Pharmaceutical Council to makea complaint about the removal of the item; reattended the pharmacy with a witness the nextday to request the return of the item; made a complaint in writing to the GeneralPharmaceutical Council on 14 July 2011; made a statement to Miss Riley on 1 August2011; attended to give evidence in these proceedings - even though at all material timesshe had had the item said to have been withheld in her possession.Whilst we accept that at times Mrs R's evidence was inconsistent on some aspects, weconsider it likely that this reflected the fact that she did not think that such matters wereimportant. What shined through her evidence as a whole is that for Mrs R what wasimportant was that no matter why the compacts had fallen, how many had fallen, howmany had been handed to her, where she was in relation to the counter, etc, etc, paled intoinsignificance in relation to what she saw as the central issue: was it right that Miss Vorahad retained her medication in the context of the dispute?
11The issue is whether the confidence with which Mrs R expressed herself in relation to thecentral issues is in fact well founded. There was no exploration of the possibility that MrsR had made a mistake, i.e that at all times in July 2011 had had the item, but we havenonetheless considered this. We do agree that some aspects of Mrs R's evidence wereinconsistent. To take one example, she clearly said on two occasions in cross-examinationthat she had not spoken to Miss Vora on the telephone later on 14 July. When taken to herrecord made, dated 14 July, she had difficulty explaining why she had said therein that shespoke to Miss Vora on the telephone. In the event that she said she could not nowremember if she had spoken to Miss Vora. We find that based on her own nearcontemporaneous record, she must have been done so. Common sense and experience tellus that the memory can play tricks. We do not consider that this, or any other of theinconsistencies on which reliance was placed, materially undermined the core of Mrs R'saccount.If Miss Vora's evidence is reliable, she asked Mrs R if she would mind if she removed oneitem but, in the event, did not do so because Mrs R would not agree. In our view, it isimprobable that Miss Vora on her own admission would think to do the very thing that sheis accused of doing, but draw back at the request of Mrs R. It is plain to us that shestrongly felt that she had a claim of right to withhold prescribed medication.A great deal of emphasis has been placed by her upon the sign Ms Vora claims wasexhibited on the counter. If the sign was present on that day - and we make no finding asto this - it simply illustrates Miss Vora's attitude to commercial relations with hercustomers. We have no doubt that Mrs R did not see it and, in our view, its present orabsence has no material bearing on the core facts.There were several aspects of Miss Vora's evidence that we considered to be unsatisfactory.We highlight some of these, some of which are more or less important than others. Herevidence was to the effect that, in her own mind, she estimated the damage to the compactsto be £15, but this was the cost price rather than the sale price. She was unable to say atwhat price the compacts were on sale. Mrs R's evidence was that the price label was £2.99.If she is right on this, then £15 would roughly equate to five compacts at £2.99.Miss Vora explained this by saying that this was the price of the refills. We have hadconsiderable doubt that this damage analysis was in fact undertaken by Miss Vora, either inher mind or otherwise. Whether it was or not, we accept that the request for paymentrelated to an additional £2.99 further to the £3 already given by Mrs R.Miss Vora's evidence about the telephone calls is in our view significant. Her broad casewas that, because Mr R phoned when she was busy dispensing, she had asked if she couldring him back after work. On her evidence Mr R carried on saying exactly what Mrs R wassaying. Mr R was saying that she (Miss Vora) had not given Mrs R one of the items. MissVora said this in evidence that she said to Mr R: "I will tell you the whole story, whathappened, when I have finished work." On her evidence, the conversation with Mr R wasof one or two sentences, and she said "It lasted a couple of minutes - no, not even a
Page 1 and 2: 1GENERAL PHARMACEUTICAL COUNCILFITN
Page 3 and 4: 3Pharmacy technicians.6. You were a
Page 5 and 6: 5"In some contexts a Court or Tribu
Page 7 and 8: 7that she was so shocked to have be
Page 9: 9and Mrs McKenzie attended, and who
Page 13 and 14: 13only telling Betsy that she could
Page 15 and 16: 15FITNESS TO PRACTISE COMMITTEE129
Page 17 and 18: 17have the item until she paid this
Page 19 and 20: 19affect their care or safety."Prin
Page 21 and 22: 21attitude displayed by Miss Vora i
Page 23 and 24: 23DETERMINATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON
Page 25 and 26: 25written on the basis that Miss Vo
Page 27 and 28: 27confidence.Mr McCartney has sugge
Page 29 and 30: 29GENERAL PHARMACEUTICAL COUNCILFIT
Page 31 and 32: 31necessary for the protection of m

Vora Snehlata Jayantilal 2017737 19-02-2013.pdf - General ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?