Pharmacist Removed from GPhC Register for Fraud and Possession of a Class A Controlled Drug

The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) Fitness to Practise Committee investigated a pharmacist following his conviction for fraud and possession of a Class A controlled drug (fentanyl).

Between March 2019 and February 2020, he:

1. Fraudulently obtained employment by submitting a fake reference and failing to disclose pending regulatory investigations.
2. Possessed fentanyl patches without a prescription, concealing them in his trousers during a pharmacy inspection.
3. Provided false statements about the origin of the fentanyl, claiming they belonged to a relative who had never been prescribed the drug.

The GPhC was alerted after the pharmacist was caught during a spot check at Day Lewis Pharmacy.

Findings:

The Fitness to Practise Committee found that the pharmacist’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct, considering:

1. Dishonest and Fraudulent Job Applications:
   • He lied on job applications and recruitment forms, failing to disclose:
     • That he had been dismissed from Day Lewis Pharmacy.
     • That he was under police investigation.
     • That he was facing disciplinary action from the GPhC.
   • He submitted a fake reference from Day Lewis Pharmacy to secure employment at St Albans City Hospital, earning £9,000 fraudulently.
2. Possession of a Class A Controlled Drug (Fentanyl):
   • He was caught with fentanyl patches concealed in his trousers during a routine inspection.
   • When questioned, he falsely claimed they belonged to a relative, but police checks confirmed that this was untrue.
   • The fentanyl patches had not been available on the UK market when he claimed they had been prescribed, further proving his dishonesty.
3. Court Conviction and Sentencing:
   • He pleaded guilty to two counts of fraud and drug possession.
   • He was sentenced to 9 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, and ordered to carry out 80 hours of unpaid work.
   • The judge remarked:“The Registrant’s actions demonstrate a pattern of deliberate deception, fraud, and dishonesty. The possession of fentanyl in these circumstances is particularly concerning.”

GPhC Determination on Impairment:

The GPhC ruled that the pharmacist’s fitness to practise was impaired, citing:

• Serious dishonesty and fraudulent conduct over an extended period.
• A criminal conviction that fundamentally undermined public confidence in the profession.
• No evidence of insight, remorse, or remediation.

The committee found that:

“The Registrant’s repeated dishonesty, including falsifying job applications and providing fraudulent references, is fundamentally incompatible with professional registration.”

Furthermore, the committee noted:

• He had not repaid the £9,000 he fraudulently earned.
• He failed to demonstrate any insight into his actions.
• He refused to engage with the GPhC fitness to practise process.

Given these factors, the committee concluded that removal from the register was the only proportionate sanction.

Sanction:

The committee imposed removal from the GPhC register, considering:

• Aggravating Factors:
  • Repeated dishonesty over an extended period.
  • Fraudulent financial gain of £9,000.
  • Possession of a Class A controlled drug under deceptive circumstances.
  • Failure to engage with the GPhC investigation or provide mitigating evidence.
• Mitigating Factors:
  • The pharmacist pleaded guilty in court.
  • He was sentenced to rehabilitation activities and unpaid work.
  • However, the committee found that his failure to engage with regulators outweighed any mitigating factors.

The committee ruled that:

“The serious nature of the pharmacist’s offences and his repeated dishonesty make it impossible to maintain public confidence in the profession if he remains on the register.”

An interim suspension was imposed immediately, preventing him from practising before final removal.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals:

This case highlights critical lessons regarding professional integrity, honesty in job applications, and controlled drug regulations.

1. Dishonesty on Job Applications Can Lead to Removal:
   • Lying about employment history, disciplinary actions, or criminal records is a serious offence.
   • Submitting fake references is fraudulent and can result in criminal prosecution.
2. Possession of Controlled Drugs Without Proper Authority is a Major Offence:
   • Being caught with fentanyl patches without a valid prescription is extremely serious.
   • Attempting to conceal controlled drugs worsens the situation and raises regulatory concerns.
3. Failure to Engage with the GPhC Can Lead to Severe Consequences:
   • The pharmacist failed to cooperate with the investigation, which weighed heavily against him.
   • Lack of insight, remorse, or evidence of rehabilitation led to removal from the register.
4. Public Trust in the Profession Must Be Maintained:
   • The committee highlighted the damage to public confidence caused by the pharmacist’s actions.
   • Serious dishonesty and criminal behaviour are fundamentally incompatible with the responsibilities of a pharmacist.
5. Regulatory Sanctions Are Severe for Criminal Convictions:
   • The GPhC removed the pharmacist from the register due to the severity of the dishonesty and fraud.
   • Even suspended sentences carry serious regulatory consequences.