NI Pharmacist Suspension Replaced with Conditions After POMs Theft

Date of Decision: September 26, 2025

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

Dishonest appropriation of Neupro (2mg) patches without authorisation.
Unlawful obtaining of Neupro patches without a prescription.
Dishonest appropriation of various retail items and Metronidazole tablets.
Unlawful obtaining and failure to record supply of Metronidazole without prescription.
Abuse of professional position to unlawfully obtain medicinal and retail goods.

Outcome: Conditions of practice order imposed for 12 months

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 2.1.2 – Effectively control and manage the sale or supply of medicinal and related products.
Standard 2.1.6 – Ensure actions do not create risk to patient care or public safety.
Standard 2.1.11 – Avoid treating yourself or close contacts except in minor or emergency cases.
Standard 2.3.1 – Complete records promptly and accurately.
Standard 3.1.1 – Adhere to professional conduct standards at all times.
Standard 3.1.2 – Maintain public trust through honesty and integrity.

Case Summary

Allegations

The case involves a pharmacist with 24 years of unblemished service who, while employed as a Pharmacist Manager at Gordon Chemists in Belfast, engaged in a pattern of serious misconduct over a span of several months from October 2023 to February 2024. The allegations include multiple incidents of dishonesty and breaches of professional and legal responsibilities. Specifically, the registrant was found to have:

Stolen Neupro (2mg) transdermal patches, a prescription-only medicine (POM), without authorisation or a valid prescription.
Unlawfully acquired Metronidazole tablets, another POM, again without a prescription, and failed to record their supply.
Appropriated various retail products on two other occasions, again acting dishonestly.
Abused his trusted role as a pharmacist and manager to unlawfully access medicinal and retail products.

These actions amounted to criminal conduct under the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 and clear violations of pharmacy practice standards. Particularly troubling was the registrant’s misuse of controlled stock and the lack of any corresponding documentation or justification.

Findings

The facts of the case were admitted by the registrant at the principal hearing, which took place in March 2025. The Committee found the misconduct to be particularly serious due to its repetitive nature, the dishonesty involved, and the abuse of a position of trust. Importantly, the registrant’s actions occurred within a regulated pharmacy setting and involved prescription medications that must be managed with strict controls to ensure patient safety.

The panel noted the registrant’s behaviour demonstrated:

A breach of the fundamental principle of integrity expected of pharmacists.
A disregard for essential record-keeping protocols.
Attempts to mislead during employer investigations, only acknowledging wrongdoing when faced with irrefutable CCTV evidence.
A potential risk of patient harm, even though no actual harm was reported.

The findings were compounded by the registrant’s initial lack of insight, minimal remediation, and a vague explanation for his misconduct. Although he eventually apologised, it remained unclear why such a breach occurred after decades of satisfactory professional conduct.

PSNI Determination on Impairment

The Committee’s assessment concluded that the registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired. While acknowledging the registrant’s prior record and the absence of patient harm, the panel underscored the seriousness of the dishonest conduct.

“The Committee does not consider that the Registrant has satisfied the persuasive burden lying upon him to demonstrate sufficient insight and remediation, and consequently there remains some risk of recurrence.”

This conclusion was supported by the fact that the registrant’s reflective statement and CPD engagement came very late—just prior to the review hearing—and lacked depth, particularly in explaining how he intended to avoid future misconduct.

Sanction

Initially, a 6-month suspension was imposed in March 2025. At the review hearing in September 2025, the Committee considered whether that sanction remained appropriate or should be modified. While the registrant had begun some voluntary work under supervision and completed two CPD courses, these efforts were both late and limited in scope.

Ultimately, the Committee imposed a 12-month conditions of practice order. These conditions include:

Practising under close supervision.
Not working as a Responsible or Superintendent Pharmacist.
Developing and submitting a personal development plan.
Providing periodic reports from a supervisor and himself to demonstrate progress.

The Committee deemed this approach proportionate, protecting the public while encouraging remediation.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

This case serves as a potent reminder of the expectations placed on pharmacists in both their professional and ethical conduct:

Integrity is Non-Negotiable: Dishonesty—even involving low-value items—can have severe professional consequences. The trust the public places in pharmacists is foundational to the profession.
Record-Keeping is Critical: The absence of proper documentation when handling POMs like Metronidazole constitutes a serious breach, regardless of patient harm. Good record-keeping ensures accountability and traceability in pharmacy practice.
Self-Medication Protocols Must Be Followed: Supplying oneself or close contacts with POMs without a prescription is a breach of Standard 2.1.11 and risks both patient safety and regulatory action.
Early Insight and Remediation Matter: The registrant’s late reflective submission and delayed CPD efforts significantly undermined his case for unsupervised practice. Engaging promptly and sincerely with reflective practice is critical in remediation.
Abuse of Position Damages the Profession: Misusing a managerial role to unlawfully obtain medicines reflects not just personal failing but harms the reputation of the profession as a whole.
Understanding and Preventing Recurrence: Professionals must not only acknowledge wrongdoing but also develop and implement a clear plan to prevent recurrence. Insight alone is insufficient without demonstrable steps toward behavioural change.

This case reinforces that even experienced professionals are not immune from errors in judgement—but recovery depends on timely, genuine, and proactive efforts to rebuild trust and meet professional standards.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.