Pharmacist’s Suspended Sentence and Drug Misuse: GPhC Declares Fitness to Practise Restored

Date of Decision: July 29, 2025

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

Theft of medication from a pharmacy in breach of the Theft Act 1968
Possession of Class C Controlled Drugs (Zopiclone, Diazepam, Temazepam) contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
Working while under the influence of controlled substances and/or using non-prescribed controlled drugs

Outcome: No longer impaired; advice given

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 5 – Pharmacists must ensure they only practise when fit to do so
Standard 8 – Pharmacists must be open and honest when things go wrong

Case Summary

Allegations

This case concerned serious allegations against a pharmacist who had been practising since 1995 and was employed by Boots UK in Cirencester from March 2021 until her resignation in December 2022. The registrant was convicted of theft of medication from her employer and possession of Class C controlled drugs — Zopiclone, Diazepam, and Temazepam. These events constituted criminal offences under the Theft Act 1968 and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

Further, it was alleged and admitted that she had worked while under the influence of these substances on various occasions between 14 and 29 November 2022, and had consumed controlled drugs that were not prescribed for her. Witnesses had observed behaviour suggesting the registrant was not fit for duty during this period.

Findings

The original Fitness to Practise Committee found these allegations to be proven based on the registrant’s admissions. The Committee also found that the behaviour constituted both misconduct and criminal conviction. The registrant showed genuine insight into her actions, and her misconduct was acknowledged as seriously reprehensible. Importantly, the Committee noted the registrant’s health issues as a contributing factor, although these details were withheld from the public record for privacy.

The seriousness of the criminal conviction and professional misconduct, combined with the need to maintain public confidence in the profession and uphold standards, led to a finding of current impairment. Accordingly, a 9-month suspension was imposed to mark the gravity of the misconduct and allow the registrant time to serve her suspended sentence and initiate recovery efforts.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

At the review hearing on 29 July 2025, the Committee considered whether the registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired. By this time, the registrant had completed her suspended criminal sentence (by 31 December 2024) and had fully complied with the conditions of her suspension. While she had not presented CPD evidence or health-related documentation (due to personal challenges), the Committee noted that the previous finding of impairment was based solely on public interest and not on a risk to patients or public safety.

Both legal representatives agreed that since the registrant had completed her sentence and complied with her suspension, the wider public interest had been satisfied. Therefore, the Committee concluded that the registrant’s fitness to practise was no longer impaired.

Sanction

Given the absence of ongoing impairment, the Committee allowed the 9-month suspension to lapse without extension or additional conditions. Instead, it issued formal advice to the registrant as a means of reinforcing professional standards and responsibilities going forward.

“We remind you that it is your professional obligation as a pharmacist to practise only when fit to do so (Standard 5 of the Standards for Pharmacy Professionals, May 2017) and to be open and honest when things go wrong (Standard 8).”

The advice emphasised the need for self-awareness, fitness to practise, and honesty, especially in relation to self-reporting to the regulator when necessary.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

Health and Professional Accountability: The case underscores the impact that health conditions can have on professional conduct. While the Committee recognised health as a mitigating factor, it did not negate responsibility. Pharmacy professionals must seek appropriate help and refrain from practising if impaired.
Controlled Drug Misuse: Unauthorized possession and consumption of controlled substances — especially while practising — is a grave breach of trust. Pharmacists must adhere strictly to drug regulations and controlled drug handling protocols.
Criminal Convictions and Professional Consequences: Even if a criminal sentence is suspended, the regulatory body will assess the fitness to practise independently. Serious criminal behaviour linked to professional practice will attract regulatory sanctions.
Insight and Rehabilitation: Demonstrating insight, taking responsibility, and complying with sanctions are essential for rehabilitation in the eyes of the regulator. The Committee was influenced positively by the registrant’s compliance and the absence of further misconduct.
Public Confidence and Wider Interest: Regulatory decisions are not solely based on risk to patients. Upholding public confidence and professional standards plays a pivotal role in determining impairment and sanctions.

This case serves as a compelling example of how professional misconduct, even when driven by personal health challenges, can lead to significant regulatory action. Pharmacy professionals must remain vigilant in maintaining their fitness to practise and uphold public trust in their profession.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.