Pharmacy Board of Australia v Tavakol

The matter before the tribunal was a disciplinary proceeding brought by the Pharmacy Board of Australia against Jason Arash Tavakol, a registered pharmacist and owner of a pharmacy. The Board alleged that the respondent's conduct amounted to professional misconduct due to a significant increase in the volume of pseudoephedrine being ordered by the pharmacy, which the respondent ought to have known was being targeted by drug runners. The Board sought a suspension of the respondent's registration, with a period of actual suspension followed by a suspended suspension.

The primary legal issue before the tribunal was whether the respondent's conduct constituted professional misconduct warranting disciplinary action. A secondary issue was whether the tribunal had the authority to impose a suspended suspension on the respondent's registration under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland).

The tribunal found that the respondent's conduct did indeed amount to professional misconduct. The respondent had failed to exercise proper professional judgment and oversight, resulting in the pharmacy being used for illicit activities. The tribunal held that the respondent's actions demonstrated a lack of awareness and understanding of the ethical and legal responsibilities of a pharmacist. The tribunal also found that it had the authority to impose a suspended suspension on the respondent's registration, pursuant to section 116(3) of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (Queensland).

The tribunal ordered that the respondent's registration be suspended for a period of one month, from 5 June 2014 to 3 July 2014. Following the suspension, the respondent was to undergo a period of supervised practice and mentoring, complete additional continuing professional development modules, and take accredited courses on pharmacy management and appropriate dispensing. The respondent was also required to maintain membership in professional organisations and ensure that any pharmacies he owned met accreditation standards. The costs of these conditions were to be borne by the respondent. The review period for the conditions imposed on the respondent's registration was set at three years. Finally, the respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the Board's proceedings.