Pharmacist Suspended for 12 Months After Conviction for Supplying Controlled Drugs Without Proper Licensing

The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) Fitness to Practise Committee investigated a pharmacist following his conviction for unlawfully supplying Class C controlled drugs.

Between January 2014 and April 2016, the pharmacist operated a wholesale business supplying diazepam, zopiclone, zolpidem, and nitrazepam. However:

• He did not hold a Home Office Controlled Drugs Licence (HOCDL), which is legally required to distribute controlled drugs.
• An inspection by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in April 2015 found that he knew by this time that he needed the licence but continued supplying drugs illegally for nearly a year afterward.
• He distributed almost two million tablets of controlled substances without the appropriate authorisation.

The MHRA launched an investigation, leading to criminal charges under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

Findings:

The Fitness to Practise Committee reviewed the facts and determined that the pharmacist’s actions constituted serious misconduct, considering:

1. Failure to Hold the Proper Licence Despite Knowing It Was Required:
   • The pharmacist admitted in 2015 that he needed an HOCDL but continued making wholesale supplies anyway.
   • This was a deliberate breach of legal requirements.
2. High Volume of Unlawfully Supplied Controlled Drugs:
   • Over 70,000 boxes (nearly two million tablets) of Class C controlled drugs were distributed without proper oversight.
   • This posed a serious risk of diversion and misuse.
3. Breach of Public Trust:
   • Pharmacists are expected to follow strict legal and regulatory frameworks when handling controlled substances.
   • Supplying drugs illegally undermines confidence in the profession.
4. Conviction Resulting in a Suspended Custodial Sentence:
   • The Crown Court judge imposed a 24-month sentence, suspended for 12 months.
   • The judge noted that had the case been heard earlier, an immediate prison sentence would likely have been imposed.

The committee ruled that his fitness to practise was impaired, given the seriousness of his actions and the criminal conviction.

GPhC Determination on Impairment:

The committee ruled that the pharmacist’s conduct was fundamentally incompatible with registration.

Key considerations included:

• The unlawful supply of controlled drugs is one of the most serious offences in pharmacy practice.
• The pharmacist was fully aware of the licensing requirements but chose to ignore them.
• His conviction significantly damaged public confidence in the profession.

While the pharmacist expressed remorse and had no further regulatory issues since 2016, the committee found that suspension was necessary to protect public confidence.

Sanction:

The committee imposed a 12-month suspension, considering:

• Aggravating Factors:
  • The pharmacist knowingly continued supplying controlled drugs for nearly a year after being told he needed a licence.
  • Large quantities of drugs were unlawfully distributed.
  • His actions could have enabled the misuse or illegal distribution of controlled drugs.
• Mitigating Factors:
  • The pharmacist pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity.
  • He had no previous regulatory or criminal history.
  • No direct patient harm was identified, although the potential for harm was significant.
  • The MHRA’s delayed response to the case impacted proceedings, with the case only reaching trial in 2022 for offences committed in 2014-2016.

The committee ruled that removal from the register was unnecessary, as:

• The pharmacist had ceased wholesale supply in 2016 and had since worked as a locum pharmacist without further concerns.
• A review hearing would be required before reinstatement, ensuring the pharmacist could demonstrate insight and compliance with professional standards.

Review Requirements Before Reinstatement:

Before being allowed to return to practice, the pharmacist must provide:

1. Evidence of continued professional development (CPD) related to controlled drug regulations.
2. A reflective statement demonstrating a full understanding of the seriousness of the misconduct and its impact on public trust.
3. Testimonials from professional colleagues showing commitment to ethical practice.

Failure to provide sufficient evidence at the review hearing could result in an extension of the suspension or further sanctions.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals:

This case highlights critical lessons regarding controlled drug regulations, professional integrity, and regulatory compliance.

1. Pharmacists Must Ensure Full Compliance with Licensing Laws:
   • Wholesale supply of controlled drugs requires proper licensing—failure to comply is a serious criminal offence.
   • Ignorance or misunderstanding of licensing requirements is not a valid defence.
2. Failure to Follow Legal Requirements Can Result in Criminal Convictions:
   • The pharmacist was convicted under the Misuse of Drugs Act, showing that regulatory breaches can lead to severe legal consequences.
   • A suspended prison sentence could have been an immediate custodial sentence if the case had been heard earlier.
3. Public Confidence in Pharmacy Requires Strict Adherence to Drug Regulations:
   • Pharmacists are held to high standards regarding controlled drugs.
   • Even technical breaches of licensing laws can undermine trust in the profession.
4. Regulatory Sanctions Can Have Long-Term Consequences:
   • The pharmacist must now prove full remediation before returning to practice.
   • Failure to demonstrate learning and compliance could lead to an extended suspension.
5. Early Recognition of Licensing Issues Can Prevent Misconduct:
   • The pharmacist could have avoided criminal charges by applying for the correct licence as soon as he became aware of the requirement.
   • Seeking regulatory guidance early is critical in preventing compliance failures.