A charge of dispensing prescriptions without a practising certificate, involving a former Dunedin pharmacist, was upheld at a disciplinary tribunal hearing yesterday.
The former pharmacist, Colin Maxton Henderson, was found not guilty on a second charge, that he had knowingly misled the Pharmacy Council and breached its code of ethics by continuing to practise without a certificate when he had given an undertaking, on May 26, 2010, that he would not do so.
Mr Henderson, the long-time owner of Baylis the Chemist in South Dunedin until he sold it in May last year, said he did not believe he had been acting as a pharmacist during the relevant period.
He said he was being a Good Samaritan and helping out when he had prepared and labelled prescriptions when dispensary staff were busy. His work had been checked by pharmacists with practising certificates.
Mr Henderson (70) had been facing two charges brought by the professional conduct committee of the Pharmacy Council of New Zealand.
The first charge was that he practised between May 2010 and about October last year without holding a current practising certificate.
All evidence involving the charges had been heard by the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal in Dunedin on Tuesday.
The tribunal was chaired by Wellington lawyer Bruce Corkill, QC and the other members were pharmacists Dr John Dunlop, Mary-Ann O'Rourke and Kishor Govind, all of Wellington, and lay member Quentin Hix, of Timaru.
Mr Corkill said yesterday the first charge had been upheld, but the second charge had not been established.
Appearing for the professional conduct committee, counsel Matthew McClelland yesterday sought a fine of $2000 on the first charge and also asked for costs to be awarded, amounting to 30% of the combined costs of the committee and the tribunal, which together had been about $58,600.
Representing himself, Mr Henderson said the costs as claimed were excessive and he still felt he had done nothing wrong, under the circumstances.
Mr Corkill thanked the parties for their helpful submissions and said the tribunal would reserve its decision as to penalty and costs involving the first charge.
The tribunal was likely to issue its written decision in about three weeks.
Mr McClelland had earlier told the tribunal that pharmacists were required to work on an ongoing professional development programme and to demonstrate they were doing that before their certification was renewed in April each year.
In March 2009, Mr Henderson was selected for a random professional development audit. His documentation did not meet the pre-audit check and he was instructed to complete more credits and engage a registered pharmacist to work with him and oversee his work, otherwise he was unlikely to be given his next annual practising certificate.
In March 2010, Mr Henderson applied for his practising certificate for the 2010-11 year, but this was declined because, despite the council's ongoing prompts, he had not completed the necessary professional development credits and could not prove he had engaged anyone to oversee his work, Mr McLelland said.
Mr Henderson sold the pharmacy in May last year but continued to work there part-time until about October.
Mr Henderson told the tribunal he had issues with the content and marking system for the professional development programme and the council had not answered his concerns.
He knew he was not allowed to practise as a pharmacist after May 2010. After being warned about the situation, he had three immediate options, including to close the pharmacy and walk away, or hand over the running of the pharmacy to another pharmacy. He opted to take responsibility for continuing the business.
