Pharmacist Removed from Register Following Conviction for Supply of Controlled Drugs and Forgery

The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) Fitness to Practise Committee investigated the registrant’s fitness to practise following convictions for the unlawful supply of controlled drugs and forgery. The case was triggered by an investigation by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), which found that between 2014 and 2017, the registrant had:

• Supplied over 27 million Class C controlled drug tablets (Diazepam, Zolpidem, and Zopiclone) without the required licences.
• Fabricated an invoice to conceal the true nature of the transactions.

The registrant was convicted at Southwark Crown Court in 2020 and later sentenced in May 2024 to a 24-month suspended prison sentence and 200 hours of unpaid work. Additionally, they were required to pay a confiscation order of £720,881.59, which was settled in full.

Findings

The GPhC panel found that the registrant’s convictions demonstrated a fundamental departure from professional standards, including:

• Abuse of a position of trust by supplying controlled drugs unlawfully.
• A serious financial gain from misconduct, with profits exceeding £100,000.
• Deliberate deception by falsifying documents to mislead authorities.
• Potential harm to public safety due to the uncontrolled distribution of prescription drugs.

The committee rejected the registrant’s claims that their pharmacist status was irrelevant to the offences. Instead, it found that their professional standing played a direct role in facilitating the illegal supply of drugs.

During the hearing, the registrant stated:

“I just happened to be a registered pharmacist at the time.”

However, the committee ruled that this statement lacked insight and accountability, as the registrant had used their professional knowledge and contacts to commit the offences.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The panel ruled that the registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired on multiple grounds, including:

• Public protection – The large-scale supply of controlled drugs without regulation posed a direct risk to patient safety.
• Maintaining professional standards – The registrant’s breach of integrity and deception was deemed irreconcilable with the pharmacy profession.
• Public confidence – Given the scale of misconduct, failure to act would undermine trust in pharmacists and the regulatory system.

The committee also noted a lack of full remediation, as the registrant:

• Attempted to downplay the seriousness of their actions.
• Claimed to have shadowed a pharmacist for a year but could not provide evidence.
• Failed to complete specific training on professional ethics and dishonesty.

Sanction

The Fitness to Practise Committee ruled that the only proportionate sanction was removal from the GPhC register. Lesser sanctions, such as suspension or conditions, were deemed inadequate due to the severity of the offences.

Key factors in the decision included:

• The prolonged nature of the misconduct (spanning three years).
• The intentional deception through forgery.
• The financial gain from unlawful activity.
• The high risk to public safety from the distribution of controlled substances outside regulated supply chains.

Additionally, the committee imposed an interim suspension, preventing the registrant from practising while awaiting the formal removal date or any potential appeal.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

This case highlights several critical lessons for pharmacists:

1. Pharmacists Are Held to High Ethical Standards – Even actions outside direct patient care can result in removal if they compromise public trust.
2. Controlled Drugs Require Strict Compliance – The unregulated supply of prescription medicines can have severe legal and professional consequences.
3. Deception and Forgery Are Incompatible with the Profession – Any attempt to mislead regulators or authorities is treated as a serious breach of integrity.
4. Financial Gain from Misconduct Does Not Justify Actions – The committee ruled that profits exceeding £100,000 did not lessen the severity of the wrongdoing.
5. Public Confidence in Pharmacy Must Be Protected – The GPhC will prioritise professional integrity over personal circumstances, even after long delays in prosecution.

Conclusion

The removal of the registrant from the GPhC register reinforces the regulator’s commitment to ensuring public safety and maintaining trust in pharmacy professionals. The case serves as a strong warning that serious ethical and legal breaches will lead to permanent exclusion from the profession.