“Hero” Boots Pharmacist Suspended for Codeine Theft, Record Tampering, and Unsafe Supply Practices

Date of Decision: September 16, 2025

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

Removal of approximately 10–15 packs of Codeine 30mg without payment or permission.
Entered the pharmacy outside trading hours and amended records using staff initials without authorisation.
Dishonestly attempted to conceal codeine removal by falsifying records.
Knowingly supplied excessive Co-Codamol to a patient at risk of addiction, without medical justification.
Supplied medicines and retail items at discount or free of charge using a staff discount card, without employer permission.

Outcome: Suspension for 12 months (with immediate interim suspension)

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 2 – Pharmacy professionals must work in partnership with others.
Standard 5 – Pharmacy professionals must use their professional judgement.
Standard 6 – Pharmacy professionals must behave in a professional manner.

Case Summary

Allegations

In this case, the registrant—a long-serving pharmacist and manager at a Boots pharmacy—faced serious allegations stemming from sustained misconduct between January 2022 and April 2023. The central issues revolved around dishonesty, unsafe supply of controlled medicines, and abuse of professional authority.

The registrant admitted to removing 10–15 packs of Codeine 30mg (a controlled, habit-forming medicine) from the pharmacy without payment or proper authorization. Compounding this, they accessed the pharmacy outside of trading hours, tampered with digital stock records on the Columbus system, and falsely inputted colleagues’ initials to conceal their own actions.

There was also evidence that the registrant knowingly supplied excessive quantities of Co-Codamol to a patient with a known addiction history, bypassing clinical protocols. The supply was done without ensuring a legitimate medical need, in quantities exceeding what the GP had prescribed. Finally, the registrant used their staff discount card to provide medicines and retail items at reduced or no cost to patients without employer consent.

Each of these actions represented not only breaches of ethical and legal standards but also a disregard for the safe and professional practice expected from someone in a senior role.

Findings

The registrant admitted to all allegations, and thus all particulars were deemed proven. An internal investigation by Boots initially uncovered discrepancies in codeine stock levels—specifically, a shortfall of 4,300 tablets. The registrant was later found to have falsified entries on 14 occasions, showing that other staff had dispensed or “written off” the medication, when in fact, it had been unlawfully removed by the registrant.

The registrant’s interview with a Boots investigator revealed admissions that:

Codeine had been taken multiple times without payment.
Records were altered after-hours to falsely attribute removal to staff.
Additional Co-Codamol was knowingly supplied to an addicted patient, justified by the registrant as a misguided attempt to “limit her access to multiple pharmacies.”
Personal discount privileges were used to give away essential supplies, such as baby formula and wipes, to customers without authorisation.

Despite early denials, the registrant eventually took full responsibility, clarifying they never intended to implicate colleagues. Nonetheless, the repeated use of others’ credentials in record systems created serious concerns about integrity and accountability.

The registrant’s fall from grace was particularly striking given their previously distinguished career. Evidence presented included numerous testimonials and press coverage detailing acts of exceptional service to the community. One article from the Yorkshire Post in 2021 described how the registrant had been hailed as a “hero” for swiftly recognising symptoms of meningitis in a patient and ensuring immediate hospital admission—potentially saving a life. On another occasion, they calmly intervened during a crisis call with a woman who had taken an overdose, gathering crucial information and coordinating emergency services.

Additionally, the registrant had received national recognition, including being named Boots’ “Pharmacist of the Year” twice, receiving accolades at the Retail Week Awards, and even being invited to Buckingham Palace in 2024 to celebrate their community contributions.

Despite these achievements, the Committee was clear that such commendable conduct, while a mitigating factor, did not outweigh the seriousness of the misconduct:

“The registrant had a genuinely distinguished career before his misconduct… [but] this in no way excuses the conduct, though it does demonstrate it was genuinely out of character.”

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The Committee found that the registrant’s misconduct was serious and prolonged. While acknowledging the registrant’s prior exemplary service—highlighted by glowing testimonials, national recognition, and life-saving interventions during the pandemic—the Committee concluded that the misconduct struck at the heart of pharmacy practice: honesty, public trust, and patient safety.

A significant concern was the registrant’s persistent dishonesty and lack of fully developed insight, particularly around the falsification of records. While the registrant expressed remorse and demonstrated some understanding of their failings, the Committee was not convinced that full remediation had taken place or that similar conduct could not occur again under pressure.

“The registrant has breached fundamental tenets of the profession including the requirement to act honestly and exercise judgment in the best interests of patients.”

Moreover, the unsafe supply of Co-Codamol—an addictive combination of codeine and paracetamol—was particularly troubling. Despite good intentions, the registrant bypassed clinical safeguards, increasing the patient’s risk of harm and reinforcing dependency, contrary to best prescribing and supply practices.

Sanction

Given the registrant’s seniority and the seriousness of the misconduct—including prolonged dishonesty, patient risk, and record falsification—the Committee imposed a 12-month suspension, noting that this fell just short of removal from the register.

While the registrant was commended for their previous service and lack of financial gain, the gravity of breaching colleagues’ trust and public expectations necessitated a firm response. The Committee found that suspension was essential to:

Protect the public.
Maintain confidence in the profession.
Uphold proper standards.

An interim suspension was also imposed to take immediate effect, preventing the registrant from practising during the appeal window.

The Committee gave considerable weight to the registrant’s prior service record and community contributions. It acknowledged that the misconduct appeared to be an aberration in an otherwise exemplary professional journey. This strong mitigation helped the Committee conclude that removal from the register was not necessary, as the registrant’s behaviour—while serious—fell just short of being fundamentally incompatible with continued registration.

Ultimately, the panel imposed a 12-month suspension, stating that the prior good character and public service record were influential in deciding against the more severe sanction of erasure. However, they made it clear that suspension was still required to uphold public confidence and mark the seriousness of the offences:

“The mitigating factors were very powerful in this case… Nevertheless, the Committee found that the Registrant’s misconduct was very serious and concluded that, despite the powerful mitigation, a severe outcome was likely to be necessary.”

This case illustrates that while past excellence may influence sanction severity, it does not absolve a professional from being held accountable when core standards are breached.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

Dishonesty Undermines the Profession: Altering records and using staff credentials to conceal wrongdoing erodes trust not only within teams but also among the public and regulators.
Controlled Drug Protocols Must Be Followed: Pharmacists must not act outside the framework of evidence-based practice, even with benevolent intentions. In this case, supplying Co-Codamol in excessive quantities without medical oversight placed a patient at risk.
Duty to Colleagues: Implicating staff—intentionally or otherwise—by misusing their identifiers is a severe breach of professional and ethical responsibility.
Mitigating Circumstances Don’t Excuse Misconduct: While personal challenges and prior good character were acknowledged, they did not diminish the need for accountability or lessen the seriousness of the actions.
Record Integrity is Crucial: Pharmacy records are legal documents. Falsifying them can compromise investigations, audits, and ultimately patient safety.
Reflection and Remediation are Vital: GPhC panels expect clear, structured reflection and proactive steps to address past failures. Honest acknowledgment of faults and demonstrable learning are essential for rehabilitation.

This case serves as a stark reminder that trust, accountability, and professional integrity are non-negotiable pillars of pharmacy practice.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.