Lee, R v [2010] EWCA Crim 1404 (24 June 2010)

Lee, R v [2010] EWCA Crim 1404 (24 June 2010)

The appellant, as a self-employed locum pharmacist, was not carrying on the business for purposes of section 85(5)(b); the business was carried on by Tesco Pharmacy. Without a ministerial order under section 106(2), liability under section 85(5)(b) does not extend to the appellant. However, the appellant admitted facts sufficient for conviction under section 64(1) (supplying a medicinal product not of the nature or quality specified in the prescription), so the court substituted a conviction under section 64(1).

Citation
[2010] EWCA Crim 1404
Parties
Respondent: R; Appellant: Elizabeth Lee
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Conviction under section 85(5)(b) quashed; conviction substituted under section 64(1) of the Medicines Act 1968
Legal Topics
Strict Liability Offences, Construction of Medicines Act 1968, Professional Practice Liability, Substitution of Verdict
Criminal Law Pharmaceutical Law Strict Liability Offences Construction of Medicines Act 1968 Professional Practice Liability Substitution of Verdict

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Respondent

Elizabeth Lee

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a self-employed locum pharmacist acts 'in the course of a business carried on by her' under section 85(5)(b) of the Medicines Act 1968
  2. 2 Whether the conviction under section 85(5)(b) was safe
  3. 3 Jurisdiction to substitute a conviction under section 64(1) via section 3A Criminal Appeal Act 1968

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant, as a self-employed locum pharmacist, was not carrying on the business for purposes of section 85(5)(b); the business was carried on by Tesco Pharmacy. Without a ministerial order under section 106(2), liability under section 85(5)(b) does not extend to the appellant. However, the appellant admitted facts sufficient for conviction under section 64(1) (supplying a medicinal product not of the nature or quality specified in the prescription), so the court substituted a conviction under section 64(1).

Court Disposition

Conviction under section 85(5)(b) quashed; conviction substituted under section 64(1) of the Medicines Act 1968

Orders

  • Fine of £300 to be paid within 28 days
  • 14 days imprisonment in default of payment