Pharmacist Struck Off for Misconduct and Health Concerns Involving Controlled Drugs and Sexualised Conduct

Date of Decision: June 23, 2025

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

• Consumed prescription-only medication without authorisation or a valid prescription.
• Supplied prescription-only medicine outside the legitimate supply chain.
• Removed Oramorph and Tramadol from the pharmacy without permission.
• Entered pharmacy premises out of hours without authorisation.
• Made inappropriate and sexually motivated comments to two colleagues (Persons A and B).
• Touched both colleagues’ hair inappropriately.
• Engaged in sexually motivated conduct seeking gratification or sexual interaction.
• Was affected by a medical condition relevant to fitness to practise.

Outcome: Removal from the Register

GPhC Standards Breached:

• Standard 6 – Pharmacy professionals must behave in a professional manner, be trustworthy and act with honesty and integrity, maintaining appropriate boundaries.
• Standard 9 – Pharmacy professionals must demonstrate leadership, particularly in assessing and mitigating risks in care provision.

Case Summary

Allegations:
This case involved a registered pharmacist facing grave allegations spanning two periods of employment with different employers—Superdrug and Paydens. From May to December 2021, while managing a Superdrug pharmacy, the registrant made persistent and sexually explicit comments toward two junior colleagues, referred to as Person A and Person B. Despite clear discomfort expressed by Person A about discussing her disability, the registrant made repeated inappropriate comments about her gait and appearance. The conduct progressed to intrusive remarks on physical attributes and an unsolicited touch of her hair.

Similar behaviours were directed at Person B, including overtly sexual comments like “Yeah, I’ll do you” and “You can just give me a blow job,” alongside physically touching her hair. These actions were assessed as sexually motivated, with the panel determining that they were intended to obtain sexual gratification and in some instances, to initiate sexual interactions.

The second tranche of allegations involved misconduct during employment at Paydens Pharmacy. The registrant was found to have removed and consumed prescription-only medications—namely Tramadol and Oramorph—without authorisation or a valid prescription, often outside operational hours. These medications were obtained either from the pharmacy directly or through illicit sources described as “dealers.” The registrant admitted to entering the pharmacy on multiple occasions out of hours to obtain these controlled substances.

Findings:
The Committee proved almost all allegations, either through admission or evidence. Importantly, the most severe findings included dishonesty in the removal of controlled drugs and sexually motivated behaviours in the workplace.

In particular, the registrant’s explanations that the comments were merely part of workplace “banter” were dismissed by the Committee. They noted the clear absence of consent and contextual evidence from witnesses that such comments caused distress and were inappropriate. For example, Person B recounted: “The pharmacy professional had no permission to make physical contact in this manner with me at all and the contact was unwanted.” The panel determined this was an escalation of inappropriate conduct.

GPhC Determination on Impairment:
The panel found the registrant’s fitness to practise to be impaired on both grounds of misconduct and adverse health. A significant factor was the repeated dishonesty and the recurrence of inappropriate conduct despite previous GPhC guidance issued in 2020. The panel referenced the registrant’s prior finding of dishonesty in 2017 and noted a pattern of escalating behaviour.

Additionally, the registrant had been subject to drug testing and medical review, which confirmed ongoing opiate use, including substances obtained outside lawful supply channels. This behaviour posed serious risks to patient safety and public confidence.

In their reasoning, the Committee highlighted:

“The public expects health professionals and in particular pharmacy professionals to keep prescription medication entirely within the bounds of legal supply and not to abuse the trust placed in them by both the public and their employers to be the guardians of restricted medications.”

Sanction:
The final decision was removal from the GPhC register. The panel concluded that this was the only appropriate sanction given the registrant’s history, the severity and persistence of the misconduct, and the risks posed by ongoing health-related issues. Interim suspension was also ordered pending any appeal.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals:

1. Boundaries and Professionalism: Any personal comments—particularly of a sexual or suggestive nature—towards colleagues constitute a serious breach of professional boundaries. Consent, context, and the power dynamics in a workplace must always be considered.
2. Controlled Drug Accountability: Pharmacists are entrusted with safeguarding medicines, particularly controlled drugs. Misappropriation for personal use, especially with a history of addiction or dependency, can lead to removal from the register.
3. Dishonesty and Repeated Behaviour: A history of dishonesty, especially repeated after warnings or previous sanctions, weighs heavily in fitness to practise considerations. Regulators view recurrence as a sign of insufficient insight or remediation.
4. Substance Use and Fitness to Practise: Health conditions affecting a registrant’s ability to practise safely—such as substance dependency—must be managed transparently with appropriate medical and regulatory support. Failing to do so can result in loss of registration.
5. Genuine Insight and Remediation: While insight can develop over time, repetition of similar behaviours undermines claims of change. Pharmacists must engage meaningfully with reflective practice and demonstrate ongoing learning and change.

This case exemplifies how professional, ethical, and health issues can compound into serious regulatory consequences. It underscores the GPhC’s commitment to safeguarding public confidence and maintaining high professional standards.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.

Log in or Register for free to access.