The Board is proposing to take immediate action in relation to your registration as a registered pharmacist on the basis of the above concerns about your alleged conduct.

In circumstances where you are prepared to make the undertaking in the form attached you are invited to:

1. provide a written submission to the IAC care of Ms Rachel Griffiths, AHPRA Legal Officer by email Rachel.Griffiths@ahpra.gov.au or facsimile (03)87089003 by no later than 4.00 pm on Monday 27 June 2011; and/or
2. make verbal submissions to the IAC. Should you wish to make a verbal submission, please advise Ms Griffiths as soon as possible (via telephone (03)87089050 or via email), but no later than 4.00 pm today 24 June 2011.

However, in circumstances where you are not prepared to make the undertaking, you are invited to:

1. provide a written submission to the IAC care of Ms Rachel Griffiths, AHPRA Legal Officer by email Rachel.Griffiths@ahpra.gov.au or facsimile (03)87089003 by no later than 4.00 pm today Friday 24 June 2011; and/or
2. make verbal submissions to the IAC. Should you wish to make a verbal submission, please advise Ms Griffiths as soon as possible (via telephone (03)87089050 or via email), but no later than 3.30pm today 24 June 2011.

The seriousness of the notification is the basis for the short timeframe provided for a response in circumstances where you are not prepared to provide an undertaking to the Board as proposed. Your written submission will be forwarded to the IAC for consideration.

The purpose of providing a written submission to the IAC and/or making verbal submissions in response to this show cause notice is to give you an opportunity to:

- address specifically any concerns raised in the notification (as described above) and provide the IAC with evidence, where it exists, to confirm your suitability to practise; and

- provide evidence to the IAC as to why you do not pose a serious risk to persons in your practice as a health practitioner and why immediate action is not necessary.

1. It is clear to the tribunal that the letter conveyed to the applicant that the respondent, through the IAC, was proposing to take immediate action in relation to the applicant's registration as a pharmacist on the basis of the oral notification made in a telephone call from an investigating police officer.
2. The applicant gave a written undertaking to the respondent not to work as a pharmacist until advised of the decision of the IAC.[5] He gave a similar further undertaking on 27 June 2011.[6]
3. Also on 24 June 2011, AHPRA received a written notification in relation to the applicant's conduct as a pharmacist from Detective Senior Constable Dale Lapham. That notification was on the letterhead of the Purana Task Force of the Crime Department of Victoria Police.[7]
4. The letter advised of a joint taskforce of police that had been investigating one Mohammed Oueida and his associates and how that investigation had implicated the applicant. The letter further advised investigations had 'established that Oueida and one Weightman were involved in the joint manufacture of'[8] illicit drugs including ecstasy. Investigators suspected Oueida was being supplied with the drug DXM for his drug-making activity by the applicant. The letter alleged the applicant was supplying Oueida with DXM which was being used in the manufacture of ecstasy as a substitute for the drug MDMA.
5. According to the letter, police, acting on those suspicions, monitored the applicant's pharmacy where the applicant's brother Riza also works both in the pharmacy and on the financial side of the business. The written notification set out a table of what are described as 'known importations' by the applicant's pharmacy of the drug DXM between 5 July 2010 and 31 May 2011. In that period, the evidence shows the applicant imported 350.5 kilograms of DXM. That was not disputed in this tribunal.
6. The notification said 'in total these shipments make Farmacologica Compounding Pharmacy the largest importer of DXM in Australia in the last 12 months'.
7. The written notification also advised of police undercover operations which revealed Oueida, or his associates, have sold drugs containing the drug DXM within 50 metres of the applicant's pharmacy. Those drugs had been examined and tests found them to contain DXM. The written notification included the following:

Evidence in possession of investigators including electronic and physical surveillance which links Oueida to the Farmacologica Compounding Pharmacy and Ali and Riza Kozanoglu. This evidence demonstrates a pattern of behaviour inconsistent with normal customer relationships and is heightened at the time of the various importations of DXM. Furthermore it can be reasonably inferred from other evidence of similar nature that Oueida was providing Weightman with DXM around the time of the Farmacologica importations.

1. On 23 June 2011, police executed search warrants at the applicant's pharmacy and at his home. The written notification records what was found in the following terms:

13. A number of items were seized from Farmacologica Compounding Pharmacy including, but not limited to: 1 x sawn off shotgun with ammunition located in a rear storage area, 2 x handguns with ammunition located in a large safe which is used for storage of Schedule 8 poisons and Schedule 11 drugs of dependence, approximately 25 kilograms of DXM, numerous empty drums labelled as containing DXM, all computer storage equipment, a customer file relating to Mohammed Oueida, invoices relating to the purchase and receipt of DXM shipments, two flick knives, $16,900 cash secreted in silver bags in a box next to a large safe with documentation listing various figures of interest to investigators. A number of empty barrels labelled as containing DXM were located at the home address in Templestowe.

14. In total the packaging located accounted for all known DXM imports to the pharmacy apart from 3 x 25 kilogram blue drums imported on 3 August 2010. Of the 350.5 kilograms of DXM imported by Farmacologica Compounding Pharmacy in the past 12 months, approximately 25 kilograms of DXM is all that has been located.

15. Both Ali and Riza Kozanoglu were arrested and interviewed in relation to trafficking methorphan, the located firearms and cash. Ali made partial no comment to questions regarding DXM and supplying DXM to Oueida. Riza made a full no comment interview. Both have been released pending further investigation and evaluation of computer records. It is the belief of investigators that charges will be laid against both Ali and Riza Kozanoglu in this matter once the examination of the records is completed.

1. As a result, police intend to charge the applicant and his brother with drug offences.
2. On 26 June 2011, the applicant, through his solicitor, Mr Butera, advised AHPRA that he intended to make oral submissions to the IAC.[9]
3. The IAC convened a telephone conference on Wednesday 29 June 2011 at 1.45pm.[10] At that time, the applicant, through his senior counsel, made oral submissions. He did not give evidence or call other evidence. The applicant did not make any written submission to the IAC. It was not argued that the IAC could not act without hearing evidence viva voce from the notifiers. The applicant's counsel submitted to the IAC the only evidence it could act on was the fact of the importation of 350.5 Kgs of DXM and the fact of the finding of weapons at the pharmacy.
4. On 29 June 2011, the IAC decided to take immediate action in relation to the applicant. It determined to impose conditions on the applicant's registration. A letter of 29 June 2011 to the applicant includes the following:

Specifically, the IAC determined to impose a condition on Mr Kozanoglu's registration that:

2. Mr Kozanoglu not hold the keys to any pharmacy; and

1. Mr Kozanoglu not attend the premises of Farmacologica Compounding Pharmacy, unless in circumstances where he is required to attend in order to comply with legislation regulating his ownership of the pharmacy.[11]
2. The conditions do not prevent the applicant continuing to operate his pharmacy, but effectively mean he can play no active part in the operation of it. The pharmacy continues to operate. The letter advising the applicant of the IAC's determination summarises the submissions made by the applicant's senior counsel to the IAC via the telephone conference and sets out the reasons for the decision. Relevantly, the letter advised:

The IAC's decision was based on the information provided by Martin Robertson of Purana Task Force in his verbal notification and Dale Lapham of Purana Task Force in his written notification on 24 June 2011, and the information contained in your verbal submissions.

In particular, the IAC considered the evidence that:

• your pharmacy has imported 350.5 kilograms of DXM within the last 12 months;
  • 350.5 kilograms is an unusually large amount of DXM, considering the usual dosage of this drug is between 10-20 milligrams. In the view of the IAC, 350.5 kilograms is, on face value, an unreasonable quantity, well beyond what the pharmacy would dispense (between 17.5 million and 35 million doses) even if your claim of spoilage is accepted; and
  • DXM is a known drug of abuse and a Schedule 4 drug, which accordingly is strictly regulated by the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act (Vic) 1981 and its regulations; and
  • you have not provided a clear account of, or any evidence in relation to, how the imported DXM was dispensed and/or disposed.
• you appear to have practised unsafely in that:
  • until 23 June 2011 you practised with 3 unlicensed firearms on your professional premises;
  • from 24 June 2011 until on or about 29 June 2011, you allowed your pharmacy to open in circumstances where the pharmacist practising had no access to computer records to check patients' medication records and prior prescriptions for any prescriptions that may have adverse interactions and therefore likely to have practised in a manner that would fall significantly short of acceptable practice standards as a pharmacist and relevant regulations; and
  • you do not appear to understand the importance of your responsibilities as a pharmacist, including your reporting obligations in relation to dealings of a pharmacy with Schedule 4 drugs, which is evidenced by your submissions that:

(i) the importation of this quantity DXM alone is not a concern; and

(ii) your inability to properly account for the DXM is not a serious risk to the public.

1. The letter advised the decision of the IAC to impose conditions was an interim measure and that the Board will conduct its own investigation.
2. On 5 July 2011 the applicant applied to the tribunal to review the decision of the Board.[12]
3. It is necessary to consider relevant legislation. The IAC acted here exercising the power contained in s 156 of the Act. Relevantly, that section provides as follows:

1. A National Board may take immediate action in relation to a registered health practitioner or student registered by the board if -

(i) because of the registered health practitioner's conduct, performance or health, the practitioner poses a serious risk to persons; and

(ii) it is necessary to take immediate action to protect public health or safety.

1. Section 156 is found in Part 8 of the Act. That part of the Act deals with notifications, preliminary assessments of them and, action that may follow from investigations following a notification. Section 156 is in a division dealing with 'immediate action'. In summary form, the section permits the Board to take immediate action of the kind set out in s 155 in relation to a pharmacist if the Board 'reasonably' believes that because of the pharmacist's conduct he poses a serious risk to persons and, because of that risk, it is necessary to take immediate action to protect public health or safety.
2. Mr Morfuni SC, who appeared for the applicant before the tribunal, on the applicant's application to review the Board's decision, submitted that where s 156(1)(a)(i) requires the tribunal to consider the applicant's 'conduct', it is required to consider whether the 'conduct of the applicant amounted to professional misconduct' as that term is defined in the Act in the definitions section, namely:

Professional misconduct, of a registered health practitioner, includes -

(c) conduct of the practitioner, whether occurring in connection with the practise of the health practitioner's profession or not, that is inconsistent with the practitioner being a fit and proper person to hold registration in the profession.

1. Mr Morfuni submitted, that on a proper construction of s 156, the tribunal was obliged to consider the applicant's conduct as a pharmacist and decide whether he is 'a fit and proper person to continue to hold registration'. That he submitted required the tribunal to look at all aspects of the applicant including his past conduct.
2. The tribunal rejects that approach. The tribunal approaches its task on the basis that s 156 requires it to consider the applicant's conduct as shown by the evidence before it. Here, it is the applicant's conduct as notified. The tribunal must decide on the evidence whether it reasonably believes the evidence shows that the applicant's conduct poses a serious risk to persons such that it is necessary for the taking of immediate action to protect public health and safety. The tribunal is not obliged on the hearing of a review of the decision of the Board made using the power in s 156 to decide whether the conduct of the applicant shows him to be not a fit and proper person to be registered as a pharmacist. It must assess the conduct of the applicant relative to the risk posed by the conduct to public health and safety and decide what (if any) action of an immediate nature needs to be taken. The intent of s 156 is to provide a power entirely protective of the public.
3. On the hearing of the application for review the tribunal received a number of documents into evidence. Exhibit A was statement of Mark David Feldschuh, a pharmacist, who was called to give evidence and was cross-examined.[13] Exhibit B was an affidavit of Rachel Claire Griffiths and a number of exhibits.[14] These documents are the documents pertaining to the decision below. Exhibit C was a second affidavit of Ms Griffiths sworn 12 October 2011.[15]
4. Exhibit D was an instrument of delegation by which the IAC is delegated the Board's functions under s 156. It is necessary to record why this document went into evidence. It was tendered during submissions, after the respondent had closed its case and after the applicant had called no evidence. The applicant objected to its tender.
5. In submissions objecting to the late tender of the delegation document, Mr Morfuni submitted the respondent should not succeed because the document delegating power to the IAC had not been produced into evidence as part of the respondent's case. Before the IAC, when submissions were made, no such point had been taken.
6. The tribunal allowed the document delegating power to the IAC to be tendered, albeit late, because, on review, the point had been taken very late in the piece. At the time the tribunal allowed the delegation to be tendered we indicated we would give reasons later.
7. This is a merits review proceeding. The tribunal is obliged to review the decision of the Board. Before the IAC the point now taken was not there advanced. The fact of delegation had previously been assumed as a matter not necessary of proof. The respondent was rightly taken by surprise when the point was taken for the first time on review. In permitting the delegation to be tendered late the tribunal applied ss 97 and 98 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 ('the VCAT Act').
8. In this tribunal, the respondent's case was bolstered by the expert evidence of Mr Feldschuh. He is a pharmacist of long-standing with a specialised knowledge of compounding pharmacy. Amongst other documents, he was provided with a copy of the written notification and the letter from AHPRA to the applicant dated 24 June 2011. He was asked to provide an opinion about the nature of the drug DXM, its effects on people, what it is normally used for and the quantities of the drug that would normally be used or administered by a compounding pharmacist. He opined as follows:

1. Dextromethorphan hydrobromide (DXM) is an antitussive, for non-productive coughs.

The therapeutic purpose of DXM is for cough suppression. It has an antitussive effect similar to that of codeine and in this regard is considered to be stronger than an equivalent dose of codeine. It also has some use in pain relief in combination with opiod medication, in decreasing the amount of opiods needed. This indication is what is called 'off label use' and may be prescribed by a medical practitioner, on an individual basis.

1. DXM is usually sold over the counter as a Schedule 2 pharmacy medicine under the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 and the regulations made under that Act. For this purpose it is sold as an oral mixture. The adult dose is 10-20 milligrams orally every four hours or 30 milligrams orally every 6-8 hours, usually once at night (in this dose). The maximum dose is 120 milligram per day. The largest bottle size that is commercially sold contains 600 milligrams per bottle (see S2 comments below).

If DXM is prescribed, for pain relief, a prescriber would try to establish a therapeutic dose that would be effective and also safe. This is because it would be an off label use of a medicine. Off label use refers to the prescribing of a registered (on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG) register) for a use that is not included or is disclaimed in the product information. DXM has a low therapeutic index which means that the dosages used would not normally be much increased. Hence a dosage of no more than 120 milligrams a day for an adult would normally be considered.

1. Under the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 and the regulations made under that Act, dextromethorphan is a Schedule 2 medicine when supplied in a pack containing 600 milligrams or less of DXM and with a recommended daily dose of 120 milligrams or less for dextromethorphan. It is a Schedule 4 prescription only medicine except when included in Schedule 2.
2. There is no restriction under this Act as to the import for therapeutic purposes, by the pharmacist in an approved pharmacy. Where DXM powder is imported for/acquired, prior to compounding it it is an S4 medicine. When compounded for an individual patient it then becomes an S2 product. Hence it needs to be considered as an S4 until that issuance to an individual patient with appropriate safety and legislative safeguards.

Under the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Regulations 2006 there are provisions for the supply, storage and record-keeping. There is also a general requirement as to sale by wholesale that should prohibit resale in this matter.

The DXM used for pain relief, if this is the case, will have prescriptions that cover those dispensings. The guide to these regulations 2006, as issued September 2010, summarises these regulations. For this use of DXM, the appropriate sections include regulations 16 (pharmacist certification); regulation 29 (date of recording); division 4 (storage); division 5 records - regulations 38 and 39, which also includes destruction and disposal.

For the use DXM as a cough suppressant the onus would be on the pharmacist to prove that the product thus compounded would not be an S4. Hence the record-keeping, it may be posited, should be more stringent. The guide is attached.

1. An adult, strong cough mixture, as per the compounding pathway, contains no more than 600 milligrams (keeping it S2). I am unaware of anyone contemplating the use of anything like, or more than say 100 grams a month (this would equate to more than 166 bottles a month). This amount would probably be an upper limit for any one pharmacy. For this amount of DXM used, there needs to be the corresponding recording of the patient and product details and the recording of other components of any ingredients used. There is also an expectation that there are containers of equal numbers to the products compounded.

If there was a mistake in the first large quantity received (150 kilograms) there would be an expectation that there would not be any re-ordering of that product.

For the prescription pain pathway, as noted previously, it could be expected that there would be a hesitancy by any medical practitioner to prescribe any unusual strength of this product. It is also only indicated for acute, most post-operative use. Here the quantity that may be used would be well below 100 grams a month.

Hence I cannot see any justification for importing or (sic) 350 kilograms in a 12 month period.

1. DXM dependence may occur, but rarely, especially following prolonged use of high doses, which would be rare in Australia as the S2 exemption is only up to 600 milligrams per one bottle per patient. There has been many reports in the United States as to abuse, and have appeared as substituting or mimicking some effects MDMA (ecstasy). Please note the limits of my expertise.
2. DXM is not a drug that is generally known by pharmacists to be used in illicit drugs. The normal recording mechanisms have so far protected the supply chain to a large extent in Australia. Please note the limit of my expertise.
3. Again, as per 21, I cannot see any legitimate reason for a pharmacy to acquire 350.5 kilograms of DXM within a 12 months period.
4. In evidence Mr Feldschuh said a pharmacist should have written records of any dispensing of DXM in a compounded medicine even if in the form of an over the counter sale of cough mixture without prescriptions. In cross-examination, Mr Feldschuh agreed that it was not unlawful to import DXM into Australia in any quantity. But he added in re-examination it must be used for therapeutic purposes.[16]
5. He also said DXM can be used as a substitute for the drug MDMA in the manufacture of ecstasy.[17] He said DXM has similar characteristics and produces similar symptoms as MDMA.[18]
6. At page 49, in re-examination, he gave evidence as to the obligations on a pharmacist relating to the keeping of records in instances where DXM is dispensed either as a schedule 4 drug or as a schedule 2 drug:

Just for clarity for the tribunal, what are the obligations of a pharmacist? What do they have to record regarding that schedule 4 drug when it's dispensed?When it's dispensed as a schedule 4, it needs the name and address of the patient. It needs the name of the practitioner that prescribed it. It needs the name of the chemical or the product, the dosing requirements, and the quantity.

And if it's dispensed as a schedule 2, that is, it has been - the DXM has been compounded with other medications or other substances - what are the recording requirements for the dispensing of that medication?Well, since it's - it can be compounded and - call it "dispensed". And it's then - the minute - the minute it's dispensed and the patient has it in their possession, it becomes an S2 at that stage. Therefore, the - it's the same obligations as to recording and - in fact, if not more.

But there wouldn't be a prescription in that case?Correct.

So is it right to say that for an S2 compounded medication, including DXM, the pharmacist is required to record the name of the customer or patient to whom it has been provided?Yes - on every occasion.

The address of the customer ­ ­ ­?On every occasion - yes.

1. The applicant did not give evidence before the tribunal and did not call or produce any other evidence.
2. The tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr Feldschuh. In his witness statement and in his evidence he made clear his opinion that he cannot see any 'legitimate reason' for a compounding pharmacist to acquire 350.5 kilograms of DXM over a 12 month period. By 'legitimate' the tribunal understood Mr Feldschuh's evidence to be there would be no therapeutic purpose or reason for a compounding pharmacist in Australia to import DXM in such large volumes.
3. There is no evidence produced, nor would it appear were there any documents found when the search warrants were executed, that would give any indication the quantity of DXM imported was professionally destroyed or used in compounding any medication. Whilst Mr Feldschuh conceded in cross examination the large volume of DXM could have been professionally destroyed if found to be contaminated or, used in compounding medication, there is no evidence that either of these posited scenarios occurred in fact.
4. The tribunal has had regard to the evidence of Mr Feldschuh that DXM can be used as a substitute for MDMA in the manufacture of ecstasy. The tribunal accepts this evidence.
5. The tribunal has considered all of the information disclosed by the written notification. The tribunal accepts that illicit drugs have been detected by police that contain DXM. The tribunal accepts the evidence disclosed by the written notification that Oueida and Weightman may have been involved in the manufacture of illicit drugs for sale that contain DXM. The tribunal also accepts that Oueida is a customer of the applicant. A customer file in Oueida's name was found at the pharmacy.
6. The tribunal observes that DXM was imported by the applicant over an 11 month period. The first shipment was relatively small, only 0.5 kilograms in a 500 gram plastic container. The next shipment, one month later, was 150 kilograms in six 25 kilogram drums. There was a further shipment of 150 kilograms in February 2011, followed by a further shipment of 50 kilograms in May 2011.
7. The tribunal accepts that without further evidence, the large shipments cannot be explained as being necessary for any therapeutic purpose by a suburban compounding pharmacy in Melbourne. The volume of DXM imported by the applicant is simply too large to have been used to compound schedule 2 medications by one pharmacy. The tribunal draws the inference that the large quantities of DXM imported by the applicant have been used to supply others with DXM which may have been used in the manufacture of illicit drugs. The tribunal has reached this opinion comfortably on the evidence on the balance of probabilities.
8. On the evidence available to it, particularly the written notification and the evidence of Mr Feldschuh, the tribunal reasonably believes that the applicant's conduct in the supplying of DXM to others poses a serious risk to persons who may subsequently purchase any drugs illegally manufactured with DXM as an ingredient and it is necessary to take immediate action to protect public health or safety in those circumstances. The conditions imposed by the Board are designed to eradicate any possible repetition of the applicant's conduct in importing DXM in large volumes in the public interest whilst the police and the Board complete investigations and possibly lay charges.
9. In submissions, much was made of the rule in Jones v Dunkel. Ms Keeling, who appeared for the respondent, urged us to draw adverse inferences against the applicant because he did not give any evidence that might explain the use to which he put the DXM imported by him.
10. The evidence is the applicant and his brother will be charged with criminal offences. In those circumstances, the tribunal understands why the applicant and his brother have not given evidence. To do so would abrogate their respective rights to silence.
11. The tribunal has not, in those circumstances, drawn any adverse inferences against the applicant because neither he nor his brother gave evidence before us. The tribunal did not need to do so. The tribunal regards the quantity of the drug DXM known to have been imported by the applicant as being so large that on the balance of probabilities it is most unlikely to have been used for a proper therapeutic purpose. The tribunal has concluded on the balance of probabilities the applicant passed some 325 Kg of the drug DXM to others who probably used it to manufacture illicit drugs.
12. Had there existed proper records of the use made of the DXM, for example, if the drug imported had been properly or professionally destroyed or compounded into schedule 2 medications, the tribunal would have expected a witness (other than the applicant) with knowledge of such matters to produce and explain such records. The fact that no such witness was called by the applicant enables the tribunal to reach the conclusions it has on the evidence on the balance of probabilities and with a comfortable degree of satisfaction.
13. The tribunal reasonably believes the conduct of the applicant in importing large quantities of DXM into Australia and passing it on to others poses a serious health risk to persons who may ultimately come to use part of the DXM imported in a drug that has been illicitly manufactured and sold. The tribunal also reasonably believes that it is necessary in the circumstances to take immediate action to protect public health and safety. However, the tribunal is of the opinion that the risk to public health and safety posed by the applicant's conduct is best addressed by the imposition of conditions on the applicant's registration as a pharmacist that differ from those imposed by the Board.
14. The tribunal is conscious of the fact the applicant has not presently been charged with any criminal offence and he is entitled to the full benefit of the presumption of innocence until convicted of any criminal offence. The tribunal has decided in the circumstances to impose conditions on the applicant's registration as a pharmacist that will permit him to continue to practice but under full supervision. The applicant will also be prohibited from importing into Australia any scheduled drug until further order and he will also have other conditions imposed that will restrict him in his practice as a pharmacist. The tribunal has included in the conditions a requirement for a supervising pharmacist who is to report in writing to the respondent on the work of the applicant in his pharmacy over the previous seven (7) days. In that way the tribunal is satisfied the work of the applicant as a pharmacist can be properly monitored by the respondent and any risk posed by his conduct as revealed in the notification in writing will be addressed.
15. The tribunal has also considered the allegations in the notification that weapons were found at the pharmacy. That fact also was not challenged in this tribunal by the applicant. On the basis those weapons have now been seized and, absent any evidence the applicant has access to other weapons, the tribunal imposes no conditions that relate to those matters on the basis there is no evidence of any ongoing risk to public health and safety on that account.
16. For these reasons, the decision of the IAC made 29 June 2011 to place conditions on the applicant's right of registration is amended and other conditions are now imposed on the applicant's registration as a pharmacist as follows:

Unless permitted otherwise by the Board in writing or, until further order, the following conditions are imposed upon the applicant's registration as a pharmacist:

1. The applicant is not permitted to practise as a pharmacist unless he is at all times supervised by another registered pharmacist who shall be approved in writing by the respondent and who will report weekly in writing to the respondent as to the pharmacy work carried out by the applicant. ('the supervising pharmacist').
2. The supervising pharmacist shall be employed at the cost of the applicant.
3. The applicant is only permitted to practise as a pharmacist, under the supervision of the supervising pharmacist, at Farmacologica Compounding Pharmacy, 54-56 Sydney Road, Coburg Victoria ('the pharmacy').
4. The applicant is only permitted to attend at the pharmacy when the supervising pharmacist is present including when he is required to attend the pharmacy to comply with legislation regulating his ownership of the pharmacy.
5. The applicant is prohibited from holding the keys to the pharmacy or the drug safe at the pharmacy.
6. The applicant is prohibited from importing into Australia any drug or chemical listed as a scheduled drug in the Drugs Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981.
7. The applicant is prohibited from employing his brother Riza Kozanoglu at the pharmacy.

[12] The right of review is found in s 199 of the Act.

[13] See witness statement at Tribunal Book pages 101-115 and Transcript pages 19-50.