The High Court has dismissed the Professional Standards Authority’s (PSA) second appeal against findings made by the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) regarding “offensive” and “antisemitic” comments uttered by pharmacist Nazim Hussain Ali, it announced on March 14.
The PSA returned to the court to again challenge the decisions of the GPhC’s fitness-to-practise (FtP) committee regarding comments made by Mr Ali in 2017 at a Al Quds Day Rally in support of Palestine, which he led.
In June 2021 the PSA, which regulates the GPhC and other healthcare regulators, successfully appealed the regulator’s initial findings against Mr Ali in the High Court, which meant the regulator was compelled to reconsider the case.
Read more: GPhC: Pharmacist handed warning over 'antisemitic' remarks at political rally
Mr Ali faced a redetermination hearing in September, at which the committee found that two remarks that he made at a rally in June 2017 were "antisemitic". At this hearing, the committee determined that Mr Ali should be issued with a warning.
A spokesperson for the PSA told C+D that it had returned to the High Court because it had “concerns” that Mr Ali had received “an insufficient sanction” and that the committee had “failed to give sufficient reasons for its decision”.
“A matter of concern”
In his judgment, Mr Justice Chamberlain found that the PSA’s three grounds of appeal failed.
The PSA argued that the FtP committee had “placed too much weight” on the unscripted nature of Mr Ali’s remarks, which Mr Ali maintained were not antisemitic. It argued that a “sanction more serious than a warning” was required for his “deeply offensive” comments.
Mr Justice Chamberlain found that it was “a matter of concern” that Mr Ali did not recognise that one of his comments was “an instance of two well-worn, racist conspiracy theories” in the 2023 hearing.
Read more: High Court: GPhC FtP ‘erred in approach’ to alleged antisemitism case
This related to Mr Ali’s comment that “Zionist supporters of the Tory Party” were responsible for the Grenfell disaster, which occurred a few weeks prior to the rally.
Nevertheless, Mr Justice Chamberlain said that he would have “taken the same view” as the committee in issuing Mr Ali with a warning. He said that the committee was correct to treat as relevant the fact that the comments were “not premeditated”.
“No objective observer could doubt that the underlying misconduct was serious – and has been regarded as such by both the regulator and the courts,” wrote Mr Justice Chamberlain.
“Methodical and logical”
The PSA had also argued that the committee had “wrongly dismissed” imposing conditions of practice on Mr Ali, such as it had done in the case of requiring a registrant that had engaged in “sexually inappropriate behaviour” to attend a “suitable course”.
The judge found that there was “nothing in this complaint”, adding that it was not clear that imposing conditions would serve “any useful function”, given the committee’s finding that there was “no risk of repetition”.
Read more: GPhC: Pharmacist’s ‘grossly offensive’ remarks result in FtP warning
Lastly, the PSA had argued that the FtP committee had provided “inadequate reasons” for its decision.
In this too, the judge found the PSA’s appeal should fail. He said that the committee had been “methodical and logical” and provided “comprehensible reasons” for its “amply” reasoned conclusions.
Read more: Pharmacist appointed new chair of GPhC board of assessors
A PSA spokesperson told C+D that it would “accept the judgment to dismiss the appeal”.
And a GPhC spokesperson said that the High Court’s decision to “uphold the sanction imposed by the FtP committee provides assurance that the seriousness of the matter was correctly reflected in the outcome”.
“In line with our normal approach, we are reviewing the judgment in detail to identify any further learning points,” they added.
