Pharmacy Board of Australia v Booy

In the matter of Pharmacy Board of Australia versus Mr Booy, the Board brought disciplinary proceedings against the pharmacist for professional misconduct. The Board alleged that Mr Booy had dispensed anabolic steroids without the requisite authorisation, which was in breach of the standards expected of a pharmacist. Mr Booy did not contest the proceedings and, as such, the Tribunal had to determine the appropriate sanction to impose.

The central legal issue was whether the Tribunal should impose a sanction on Mr Booy for his professional misconduct. The Tribunal had to consider the nature of the misconduct, the circumstances in which it occurred, and the mitigating factors that Mr Booy presented. The Board argued that the dispensing of anabolic steroids without proper authorisation was a serious breach of the pharmacist's professional duties. In contrast, Mr Booy argued that he had discussed his concerns about the dispensing with both the prescribing doctor and his employer, and that he had not intended to cause harm.

The Tribunal found that while Mr Booy's actions were serious, there were mitigating factors that needed to be considered. The Tribunal noted that Mr Booy had worked with minimal supervision, and that he had raised concerns about the dispensing with his employer and the prescribing doctor. However, the Tribunal found that Mr Booy's actions were still a serious breach of his professional duties, and that a sanction was necessary to maintain public confidence in the pharmacy profession. The Tribunal imposed a three-month suspension of Mr Booy's registration, which was wholly suspended for a period of 12 months provided that Mr Booy did not face disciplinary action in the Tribunal during that period. The Tribunal also ordered that Mr Booy complete a course in ethical decision making, participate in mentoring for 12 months, and meet with his mentor no less frequently than monthly for at least an hour.

In summary, the Tribunal found that Mr Booy's actions constituted professional misconduct, but that there were mitigating factors that needed to be considered. The Tribunal imposed a sanction that was intended to maintain public confidence in the pharmacy profession, while also providing Mr Booy with an opportunity to improve his professional skills and knowledge. The Tribunal also ordered that Mr Booy bear any costs associated with mentoring, including the mentor's costs of reporting to the Board.