Pharmacist accused of professional misconduct after pushing over a child who bullied his son
A pharmacist who was accused of professional misconduct after he verbally abused and then pushed his son’s alleged bully has escaped sanctions.
The pharmacist’s 10-year-old son had reported being bullied at the hands of a bigger classmate for some 18 months.
He reported being slapped in the face, kicked, repeatedly punched in the head, placed in a headlock, excluded and having his hat put in the toilet.
The pharmacist said he raised the issue with the school numerous times, but it was not effectively addressed, leaving the boy upset and withdrawn.
Things came to a head in March 2022, when the pharmacist picked up his son from after-school care.
His son told him that his alleged bully had dragged him across gravel, filled his backpack with water and tossed his belongings out of reach.
When his son winced in pain, the pharmacist lifted his shirt and saw extensive gravel rash marks on the boy’s back.
“Seeing the marks on his back, [the pharmacist] became angry and asked his son to point out the classmate,” the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal said.
The alleged bully was kneeling on the ground with a group of other children.
“[The pharmacist] yelled at the classmate, leaning over him and saying aggressively, ‘I’ll fuck you up if you touch my son again’,” according to the tribunal finding.
“He pushed the boy in the chest, which made him fall backwards onto a pile of rocks, telling the classmate: ‘If you tell your dad about this and he confronts me about this, I will fuck him up too’.”
The pharmacist was charged with common assault and pleaded guilty in court; however the charges were dismissed by the Magistrate’s Court partly in response to his remorse and his voluntary community service.
But the Pharmacy Board of Australia referred the pharmacist to the tribunal, accusing him of professional misconduct and stating that he should be reprimanded.
The board said the conduct of assaulting a child was “inconsistent with the maintenance of integrity … and public trust in the profession.”
In addition, since the incident occurred publicly at a school, this reinforced the degree of “inconsistency with integrity”.
However, the tribunal dismissed the case, saying it was not satisfied he was unfit to hold registration at the time of the assault.
While the pharmacist’s behaviour was “reprehensible” there were contributing circumstances to the assault, it added.
His son had been bullied over a prolonged period and he’d just heard his son describe “what appeared to be a particularly cruel episode” of bullying.
In addition, the assault was at the lower end of the spectrum in terms of the level of violence.
“It is also relevant that [he] had been physically abused as a child, that he had symptoms of PTSD and that his own abuse as a child was likely a triggering factor.”
“When considering the assault in all of the circumstances, I am not persuaded that [his] conduct in committing it is inconsistent with him being a fit and proper person to hold registration in the profession.
“It demonstrates an uncharacteristic lapse of judgment and a ‘momentary brief aberration’ from his usual behaviour (to use the Special Magistrate’s words).
“[He] experienced, as he put it, as ‘tsunami of emotions’ on seeing the marks on his son’s back and failed to control them appropriately.”
The tribunal stressed that similar conduct by a different pharmacist could result in a finding they were not fit to be registered, based on their character and past conduct.
Last week, a GP who smacked a child’s bottom during a consultation — in response to the child flicking the lights on and off repeatedly — was found guilty of unprofessional conduct.
More information: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, decision 2025; 11 Jan
