The defendant pharmacist faced a charge of supplying a medicinal product with a misleading label, an offence under section 85 of the 1968 Act. Working as a locum in a busy supermarket pharmacy she had signed off a mislabelled prescription. The patient ended up in hospital. After directions as to the law, she pleaded guilty. She now appealed questioning whether she had supplied the drug in law, saying that the offence required to a sale or supply ‘in the course of a business carried on by him’.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The words of the section could not be ignored. The words directed the section at the business owner which she was not. It was argued that ‘business’ should be construed to include a professional practice. That argument was not accepted since it failed to address the issue of ownership clearly pointed to by the section. A person in the defendant’s position could still face prosecution for a lesser offence.
The court considered it ability to substitute a conviction for a lesser offence. The test set out in R v Ramzan was met in this case.
Aikens LJ, Royce J, Radford J
[2010] EWCA Crim 1404, WLRD 24-Jun-2010, [2010] WLR (D) 160, [2010] 2 Cr App Rep 26, (2010) 116 BMLR 147, [2011] 1 WLR 418
Bailii
Medicines Act 1968 85, Criminal Appeal Act 1968 3A(1), Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 40(1)(b)
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Ramzan and Others, Regina v CACD 21-Jul-2006
The court considered its power on allowing an appeal after a plea of guilty to substitute a conviction for an appropriate lesser offence.
Held: Hughes LJ said that section 3A of the 1968 Act imposed a two stage test. The court considering . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime, Health Professions, Criminal Practice
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.417794
