NI Locum Pharmacist Suspended for Diazepam Theft and Dishonesty Granted Conditional Return

Date of Decision: May 16, 2024

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

Abuse of position as Responsible Pharmacist to unlawfully obtain controlled drugs (Diazepam)
Theft of over-the-counter toiletries from pharmacy
Criminal convictions for theft and unlawful possession of controlled drugs
Previous regulatory warning for similar misconduct in 2015

Outcome: Conditions imposed for 18 months following suspension

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 3 – Act with professionalism and integrity at all times
Standard 5 – Maintain and develop your knowledge and skills
Standard 6 – Be honest and trustworthy
Standard 9 – Demonstrate leadership

Case Summary

Allegations

The registrant, a pharmacist, faced serious allegations stemming from two incidents in June 2021 while working as a locum at Well Pharmacy in Newtownabbey. The first occurred on 8 June, when the registrant was observed taking five items, including toiletries valued at £30.35, from the pharmacy without paying. The second, more serious, incident happened on 11 June, when the registrant stole two boxes (56 tablets) of Diazepam 5mg—a controlled drug under Schedule 4 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations and Class C under the Misuse of Drugs Act—while acting as the Responsible Pharmacist. The Diazepam was placed in a white paper prescription bag and removed from the pharmacy without any prescription or authorisation. CCTV confirmed both thefts.

Subsequently, on 31 May 2022, the registrant pleaded guilty at Laganside Courthouse to three offences: theft of toiletries, theft of Diazepam, and unlawful possession of a controlled drug. He was sentenced on 7 July 2022 to 150 hours of unpaid community service.

This was not the registrant’s first regulatory breach. In 2016, a Scrutiny Committee issued a warning for misconduct involving unauthorized dispensing, false PMR entries, cash misappropriation, and misuse of vouchers—all of which occurred while he was employed at Boots in 2015.

Findings

The Committee found the registrant’s actions in June 2021 amounted to serious misconduct, involving dishonesty and a significant breach of trust. The registrant’s actions were particularly egregious given his role as Responsible Pharmacist, a position that demands high ethical standards and reliability.

The panel noted that he admitted the facts and accepted wrongdoing. However, during the initial hearing, the Committee determined that the registrant had not demonstrated sufficient insight or understanding of the broader impact of his misconduct. His testimony was considered inconsistent, and he failed to provide a convincing explanation for his behaviour or show understanding of the legal implications of possessing Diazepam without a prescription—despite being registered since 2014.

Further concern arose from the registrant’s past regulatory history. Despite the 2016 warning, he repeated similar misconduct five years later. The panel concluded that there remained a material risk of recurrence.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

In accordance with Supreme Court guidance (GPhC v Khan, 2016), the panel focused on the registrant’s current fitness to practise, assessing whether concerns identified in the original determination had been addressed. The panel acknowledged improvements made since the 2023 hearing.

The registrant submitted a “Declaration of Insight,” reflecting on his misconduct and the broader impact on the profession. He admitted feeling “de-skilled” after nearly three years out of practice but expressed a strong desire to return under supervision:

“If given the privilege to be reinstated on the register… I am aware and advocate the need for professional supervision… to re-establish my own confidence in my own ability to practice.”

The panel found the declaration aligned with previous expectations, particularly showing greater insight and a commitment to continuous professional development. However, due to his time away from practice and the seriousness of his misconduct, the panel found his fitness to practise remained impaired.

Sanction

Previously, the registrant had been suspended for 12 months. At the review hearing, the Committee determined that further suspension was unnecessary and that a more constructive approach would involve imposing conditions to facilitate supervised reintegration.

The imposed conditions, effective for 18 months post-suspension, require the registrant to:

Work only under close supervision of a GPhC-registered pharmacist
Avoid acting as Responsible or Superintendent Pharmacist
Develop and submit a personal development plan
Undergo regular audits and reflective practice
Submit biannual progress reports from the supervisor

These measures aim to ensure the registrant’s safe and professional return, safeguard public interest, and maintain confidence in pharmacy regulation.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

Trust is foundational: Pharmacists, particularly when acting as Responsible Pharmacist, must uphold the highest standards of integrity. Abuse of this trust, especially involving controlled drugs, gravely undermines professional credibility.
Controlled drug handling must be beyond reproach: Diazepam, while a Schedule 4 drug, is subject to strict legal controls. Unauthorised possession—even by a pharmacist—constitutes a criminal offence. Familiarity with drug schedules and dispensing authority is essential.
Past conduct informs future risk: Previous warnings and regulatory findings can significantly influence disciplinary outcomes, particularly if similar misconduct reoccurs. Regulators assess patterns of behaviour, not isolated incidents.
Remediation requires action, not just words: Insight and reflection are critical but must be paired with demonstrable efforts to address deficiencies—such as education, supervision, and structured development plans.
Public confidence matters: Even when misconduct is non-clinical, the impact on public and professional trust is profound. Regulatory decisions must reinforce the message that dishonesty and unethical behaviour will not be tolerated.

This case illustrates the rigorous standards applied by pharmacy regulators and the importance of personal responsibility, especially in roles involving controlled substances. Pharmacists must remain vigilant, ethical, and informed to maintain the profession’s reputation and protect public safety.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.