Microsoft word - nfl1-#2743902-v1-article__legal_review_of_pharmacy_2010.doc

www.charlesrussell.co.uk
What a year 2009 was! The MHRA issued guidance trying to stop exporting. The NHS Counter Fraud Service began investigating Specials. The Medicines Act was amended to bring in a requirement for Responsible Pharmacists. The National Health Service Act was amended to introduce as from next year a new control of entry test. But the most prominent legal issues faced by pharmacists in 2009 were in the criminal courts. First there was the Elizabeth Lee case. You will recall that after a dispensing error, Mrs Lee, a locum, pleaded guilty to a labelling offence under the Medicines Act, and an Old Bailey judge imposed a 3-month prison sentence which he suspended. In the furore that followed, it was heartening to read in C&D towards the end of the year that, following the suggestion I made in my June 2009 column, the Crown Prosecution Service will publish Published
guidelines about whether and when to prosecute pharmacists. Just when you might have felt it was safe to go back into the dispensary, Prestatyn Magistrates waded in. A patient brought a prescription for Spironolactone to a pharmacy, but was given Sertraline by mistake. The pharmacist and a dispenser were convicted of supplying the wrong medicine in breach of section 64 of the Medicines Act. The dispenser’s appeal to the High Court was dismissed, and a transcript of the court’s reasons finally became available in December. The dispenser’s barrister argued that the offence under section 64 could only be committed by a company that owned a pharmacy owner or a pharmacist. He drew attention to some sections of the Medicines Act that impose obligations on persons who act in the course of a business that they are carrying on. Mr Justice Elias politely described this as “a bold submission” that involved asking the court to pretend that section 64 included words that were not there. The judge said there was “an obvious public interest in ensuring that all those whose failings have led to the [supplying] wrongly, of a product in this way, should be held accountable”. The judge went on to say that the decision was not harsh and just because the pharmacist failed to carry out her obligations, the dispenser who had selected the wrong product was also guilty of an Section 85 of the Medicines Act also creates an offence, but only by a person who is acting in the course of a business carried on by him. What does section 85 deal with? Labelling. According to the law, the Prestatyn dispenser was guilty of an offence under section 64, but the High Court ruling raises the question whether Elizabeth Lee was This information has been prepared by Charles Russell LLP as a general guide only and does not constitute advice on More information
any specific matter. We recommend that you seek professional advice before taking action. No liability can be accepted by us for any action taken or not taken as a result of this information. Charles Russell LLP is not authorised under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 but we are able in certain circumstances to offer a limited range of investment services to clients because we are members of the Law Society. We can provide these investment services if they are an incidental part of the professional services we have been engaged to provide. Charles Russell LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales, registered number OC311850, and is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Any reference to a partner in relation to Charles Russell LLP is to a member of Charles Russell LLP or an employee with equivalent standing and qualifications. A list of members and of non-members who are described as partners, is available for inspection at the registered office, 5 Fleet Place, London EC4M 7RD.

Source: http://www.charlesrussell.co.uk/UserFiles/file/pdf/Pharmacy/review_2009.pdf