Pharmacy Board of Australia v Daddow

The Pharmacy Board of Australia brought disciplinary proceedings against Mr Daddow, a pharmacist, to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Mr Daddow is alleged to have dispensed large quantities of pseudoephedrine (PSE), a drug prone to abuse, to persons he knew or suspected to be drug runners and for reasons other than a therapeutic need. The Board also alleges that Mr Daddow failed to keep proper records of his sales of products containing PSE as required by law. The Tribunal was required to decide whether Mr Daddow's conduct amounted to unsatisfactory professional conduct and, if so, what the appropriate sanction should be.

The Tribunal found that Mr Daddow's conduct did amount to unsatisfactory professional conduct. He had sold approximately 1,430 to 2,000 packets of PSE, the significant majority of which were not entered into the pharmacy's dispensing software, to persons he knew to be or who he suspected of being drug runners and for reasons other than a therapeutic need. This contravened the relevant regulations. The Tribunal also found that Mr Daddow's failures to keep records in accordance with the regulations were substantial and extensive. The Tribunal agreed that a suspension of registration was an appropriate sanction in this case. The issues in contest between the parties were the appropriate period of suspension, whether any part of the suspension should actually be served, and if part, or all, of the suspension was to be suspended, what should be the operational period of that suspension. The Tribunal decided that a period of suspension of 18 months was appropriate in this case, with 3 months to be actually served and 15 months to be suspended for an operational period of 15 months. The Tribunal also decided that Mr Daddow must not engage in any conduct in respect of which he is liable to disciplinary action by the Board or the Tribunal during the operational period of the suspended suspension. The Tribunal further decided that Mr Daddow must complete a tertiary module in ethical decision making within 12 months of the decision of the Tribunal, work under the supervision of another registered pharmacist at all times for a period of two years after the suspension, and not own a pharmacy, either in his own right or in partnership, for a period of five years.

Mr Daddow be released from the undertakings he gave to the former Pharmacists Board of Queensland on 16 April 2007, effective from the date of the Tribunal’s decision. Pursuant to s 241(2)(g) of the Health Practitioners (Professional Standards) Act 1999, Mr Daddow’s registration be suspended for a period of 18 months commencing on the date of the hearing, 13 December 2012. The suspension in order 2 is to be suspended after Mr Daddow has served 3 months of the suspension, for an operational period of 15 months during which time Mr Daddow must not engage in any conduct in respect of which he is liable to disciplinary action by the Board or the Tribunal. A record of the suspension must be made in the Board’s register and remain after the suspension ends for a period of five years. Pursuant to s 241(2)(g) of the Act, Mr Daddow pay the Board’s costs of and incidental to this proceeding in a sum as agreed or assessed.