HA v University of Wolverhampton & Ors (Rev 1)

HA v University of Wolverhampton & Ors (Rev 1)

The University was lawfully entitled to require disclosure of spent convictions and an ECRC from MPharm applicants as part of its gatekeeper role for the pharmacy profession, and the statutory framework permitted such questions. However, the Fitness to Practice Panel's exclusion decision was unlawful due to failure to consider mitigating factors and proportionality, and irrational findings regarding alleged repeated failures to disclose convictions.

Parties
Claimant: HA; Defendant: University of Wolverhampton; Interested Party: Office of the Independent Adjudicator; Intervenor: General Pharmaceutical Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Decision to exclude HA from the MPharm course quashed.
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Spent Convictions, Fitness to Practice, Article 8 ECHR, Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, Exceptions Order, Enhanced Criminal Record Checks, University Admissions, Proportionality Analysis
Administrative Law Education Law Human Rights Law Professional Regulation Disclosure of Spent Convictions Fitness to Practice Article 8 ECHR Rehabilitation of Offenders Act +4 more

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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HA

Claimant

University of Wolverhampton

Defendant

Office of the Independent Adjudicator

Interested Party

General Pharmaceutical Council

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the University was entitled to require disclosure of spent convictions from MPharm applicants
  2. 2 Whether the University could require an enhanced criminal record check (ECRC)
  3. 3 Whether the University's actions infringed Article 8 ECHR rights

Ratio Decidendi

The University was lawfully entitled to require disclosure of spent convictions and an ECRC from MPharm applicants as part of its gatekeeper role for the pharmacy profession, and the statutory framework permitted such questions. However, the Fitness to Practice Panel's exclusion decision was unlawful due to failure to consider mitigating factors and proportionality, and irrational findings regarding alleged repeated failures to disclose convictions.

Court Disposition

Decision to exclude HA from the MPharm course quashed.

Orders

  • University's exclusion decision quashed.
  • No further orders specified.