Pharmacist Suspended for Convictions Related to Controlled Drugs

Date of Decision: November 28, 2019

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

Conviction for possession with intent to supply a Controlled Drug of Class C (Tramadol)
Conviction for possession with intent to supply a Controlled Drug of Class C (Zolpidem)
Conviction for possession with intent to supply a Controlled Drug of Class C (Zopiclone)
Conviction for possession of a Controlled Drug of Class C (Lorazepam)

Outcome: Suspension extended for a further period of six months

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 6 – Act with honesty and integrity
Standard 9 – Demonstrate leadership

Case Summary

Allegations

The registrant, a pharmacist, was convicted on 30 November 2016 of several offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Specifically, the convictions included possession with intent to supply Class C controlled substances—Tramadol, Zolpidem, and Zopiclone—as well as simple possession of Lorazepam. These charges arose from the registrant’s personal conduct and directly implicated her professional responsibilities in handling controlled drugs. The principal Fitness to Practise Committee concluded that she accessed these medications solely due to her role as a pharmacist and exploited that access, fundamentally breaching public trust.

Findings

During the principal hearing, despite the registrant’s absence, she was represented by legal counsel. The Committee found that her convictions indicated serious misconduct that brought the profession into disrepute and violated core ethical principles. They emphasized the breach of trust, noting:

“She was only able to access the medication because of her position as a pharmacist and she abused the trust placed in her for her own purposes.”

A 12-month suspension was imposed, with expectations that the registrant would use the period to demonstrate insight, engage in remediation, and provide evidence of personal and professional rehabilitation.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

At the review hearing in November 2019, the Committee evaluated whether the concerns identified at the original hearing had been addressed. Central to this evaluation was whether the registrant had shown insight and taken steps to mitigate the risk of future misconduct. Unfortunately, the registrant failed to engage with the review process altogether. Despite having been properly notified, she neither attended nor submitted any documentation, including a reflective statement or medical reports as advised in the previous determination.

The Committee noted that her failure to demonstrate insight, remorse, or any remediation, coupled with no updates on her health status, left the risks of repetition unresolved. As such, all criteria in Rule 5 were found to be engaged:

There was a potential risk to the public.
Her actions had brought the pharmacy profession into disrepute.
She breached fundamental professional principles.
Her integrity was questioned.

Sanction

After concluding that the registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired, the Committee considered its sanction options. It ruled out taking no action, given ongoing public protection concerns. Conditions of practice were deemed unfeasible due to the registrant’s personal misconduct and her lack of engagement, which undermined confidence in her compliance with any imposed conditions.

The Committee decided against immediate removal from the Register. Despite the gravity of the convictions, the panel considered the possibility that the registrant might engage with the process in the future, noting her previous representation had indicated such intentions. Thus, it opted for an additional six-month suspension, with a firm reminder that continued non-engagement might lead to removal.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

Controlled Drug Handling Must Be Rigorously Compliant with the Law: Pharmacists have unique access to medications with high potential for misuse. Breaching this trust, especially by diverting drugs like Tramadol, Zolpidem, or Zopiclone, seriously undermines public confidence.
Insight and Remediation Are Crucial in Regulatory Proceedings: A critical component of fitness to practise evaluations is the professional’s ability to reflect on misconduct, show genuine remorse, and demonstrate steps taken to prevent recurrence.
Engagement with Fitness to Practise Reviews is Essential: The registrant’s total lack of participation in the review undermined her position. Regulators interpret non-engagement as an ongoing risk, often to the registrant’s detriment.
Personal Conduct Directly Affects Professional Standing: Misconduct outside clinical settings can still constitute professional misconduct if it contravenes legal or ethical expectations tied to pharmacy practice.
Regulatory Sanctions Are Progressive But Can Escalate Quickly: While the Committee extended the suspension rather than removing the registrant, it made clear that continued silence would likely result in erasure at the next review.

This case serves as a sobering reminder that pharmacists are held to high standards not only in their clinical decision-making but also in their personal integrity and legal compliance. Engagement, reflection, and corrective action are key to demonstrating continued fitness to practise.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.