Medicines Act 1968

81 Grounds for disqualification in certain cases. U.K.

[F1 (1) Unless the conditions specified in subsection (1A) are satisfied, the relevant disciplinary committee may not do any of the following—

(a) give a direction under subsection (1) of section 80 of this Act—

(i) in a case falling within paragraph (b) of that subsection, or

(ii) in a case falling within paragraph (c) of that subsection, where the failure in question is by a member of the board or any officer of, or person employed by, the body in question; or

(b) give a direction under subsection (4) of that section.

(1A) The conditions are that—

(a) one or more of the facts specified in subsection (2) are proved to the satisfaction of the relevant disciplinary committee; and

(b) the committee are of the opinion, having regard to those facts, that the board of the body corporate or, as the case may be, the representative, is to be regarded as responsible for the offence, misconduct or failure in question.]

(2) [F2 The facts referred to in subsection (1A)(a) of this section are]-

(a) that [F3 the offence, misconduct or failure in question] was instigated or connived at by the board or by a member of the board, or by the representative, as the case may be;

[F4 (b) that, in the case of a body corporate, a member of the board, or an officer of, or person employed by, the body corporate had, at some time within the twelve months immediately preceding the date on which the offence, misconduct or failure occurred, been guilty of a similar offence or failure or of similar misconduct and that the board had, or with the exercise of reasonable care would have had, knowledge of that previous offence, misconduct or failure;]

(c) that, in the case of the representative, he or a person employed by him had, at some time within twelve months before the date on which the offence or misconduct in question occurred, been guilty of a similar offence or similar misconduct and (where it was a similar offence or similar misconduct on the part of an employee) that the representative had, or with the exercise of reasonable care would have had, knowledge of that previous offence or misconduct;

(d) if [F5 offence, misconduct or failure in question is a continuing offence or failure or is continuing misconduct], that the board, or the representative, had, or with the exercise of reasonable care would have had, knowledge of its continuance;

(e) in the case of an offence in respect of a contravention of an enactment contained in any of the relevant Acts, that the board, or the representative, had not exercised reasonable care to secure that the enactment was complied with.

Textual Amendments

F1 S. 81(1)(1A) substituted for s. 81(1) (27.9.2010) by The Pharmacy Order 2010 (S.I. 2010/231), art. 1(5), Sch. 4 para. 1(15)(a); S.I. 2010/1621, art. 2(1), Sch.

F2 Words in s. 81(2) substituted (27.9.2010) by The Pharmacy Order 2010 (S.I. 2010/231), art. 1(5), Sch. 4 para. 1(15)(b)(i); S.I. 2010/1621, art. 2(1), Sch.

F3 Words in s. 81(2)(a) substituted (27.9.2010) by The Pharmacy Order 2010 (S.I. 2010/231), art. 1(5), Sch. 4 para. 1(15)(b)(ii); S.I. 2010/1621, art. 2(1), Sch.

F4 S. 81(2)(b) substituted (27.9.2010) by The Pharmacy Order 2010 (S.I. 2010/231), art. 1(5), Sch. 4 para. 1(15)(b)(iii); S.I. 2010/1621, art. 2(1), Sch.

F5 Words in s. 81(2)(d) substituted (27.9.2010) by The Pharmacy Order 2010 (S.I. 2010/231), art. 1(5), Sch. 4 para. 1(15)(b)(iv); S.I. 2010/1621, art. 2(1), Sch.

Modifications etc. (not altering text)

C1 S. 81: Power to amend conferred (15.3.2000) by 1999 c. 8, s. 60(1)(2)(4), Sch. 3 para. 2(3)(a); S.I. 2000/779, art. 2(1)