Locum NI Pharmacist Convicted for Diazepam Theft and Dishonesty Suspended for One Year
Date of Decision: April 21, 2023
Registrant's Role: Pharmacist
Allegations:
- Theft of toiletries from pharmacy premises on 8 June 2021
- Theft of two boxes of Diazepam 5mg (56 tablets total) on 11 June 2021
- Possession of Diazepam without lawful authority
- Abuse of position as Responsible Pharmacist
- Conviction for criminal offences related to theft and drug possession
Outcome: 12-month suspension from the register with a review; interim suspension imposed during appeal period
GPhC Standards Breached:
- Standard 3.1 – Act with honesty and integrity at all times
- Standard 3.1.1 – Adhere to accepted and acceptable standards of personal and professional conduct at all times both inside and outside the work environment
- Standard 3.1.2 – Maintain public trust and confidence in your profession by acting with honesty and integrity in your dealings with others
Case Summary
Allegations
The case revolves around a pharmacist who, while working as a locum and acting as the Responsible Pharmacist at Well Pharmacy in Rathcoole, Northern Ireland, committed two acts of theft in June 2021. On 8 June, the registrant stole toiletries valued at £30.35. Then, on 11 June, he stole two boxes of Diazepam 5mg—classified as a Class C controlled drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971—without any prescription or authority. CCTV footage confirmed both incidents. These actions formed the basis for charges of misconduct and criminal conviction.
Findings
Continue Reading the Full Case
Create a free account or log in to access the complete case summary.
- Full allegations considered by the GPhC
- Panel findings and reasoning
- Outcome of the investigation
- Sanctions considered and imposed on the Pharmacist
- Key professional learning points
Original Case Document
View the Full Determination Document
The original determination transcript is available to registered users.
- Download the official GPhC determination
- Full hearing transcript
- Detailed findings of fact
- Sanction reasoning
- Details of the pharmacy professionals involved