Pharmacist’s Application for Restoration Refused After Conviction for Theft and Misuse of Medicines

The registrant had previously been removed from the register following:

• The misappropriation of a large quantity of medicines for personal purposes, including uncontrolled supply of Zolpidem.
• A pattern of serious, dishonest conduct over an extended period.
• Failure to safeguard against misuse and diversion of potentially dangerous drugs.

At the time of removal, the Committee stated:

“The abuse of trust necessarily entailed is serious enough, but the wanton disregard for the basic system for control of medicines… strikes at the very heart of the caring and patient-focused ethos of the pharmacy profession.”

They concluded that his actions were fundamentally incompatible with continued registration.

---

Application for Restoration

At the 2020 hearing, the registrant submitted a portfolio including:

• CPD (including a 6-week e-learning programme and a 4-day return to practice workshop)
• Evidence of shadowing a community pharmacist for 40 days
• Employment history as a charity fundraiser and carer for people with dementia
• A statement of remorse and personal rehabilitation

He had no prior concerns about competence, and the external assessor was satisfied with his learning activities.

However, the Committee found that:

• The registrant failed to volunteer information about substance misuse or dependence, despite this being central to his past misconduct.
• His reflections focused primarily on the personal impact of his conviction, rather than the wider public risk or professional consequences.
• He lacked openness with the pharmacist who supervised his shadowing, failing to disclose the true nature of his regulatory history or secure a full testimonial.
• His submissions showed limited awareness of how to prevent similar risks in the future.

“The concerns are not matters which could be dealt with adequately by an order for conditional registration.”

---

GPhC Determination on Impairment and Public Interest

The Committee determined that:

• The registrant’s failure to reflect on the external impact of his crimes and lack of openness made restoration not in the public interest.
• While they accepted the offences were not so severe as to rule out restoration permanently, they concluded he had not yet demonstrated the full insight and readiness required.
• Restoration would not uphold public confidence or professional standards at this time.

“The public and pharmacy professionals would not expect an applicant who had shown that lack of frankness simply to be waved back onto the register regardless.”

---

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

1. Misuse of medicines and theft from the pharmacy supply chain are among the most serious professional breaches.
2. Restoration requires full and honest reflection—including understanding how one’s actions impacted public trust, patient safety, and professional integrity.
3. Insight must include an understanding of addiction, misuse, and safeguarding responsibilities.
4. Lack of openness with supervisors or the regulator can derail restoration efforts—frankness and credible testimonials are essential.
5. Rehabilitation is possible—but only through robust evidence, long-term reflection, and professional transparency.

---

Conclusion

This case underscores the challenges of returning to practice after serious misconduct involving medicines and dishonesty. Despite positive steps taken by the applicant, the GPhC determined that key gaps in insight, candour, and risk awareness meant that restoration was not currently in the public interest. The registrant may apply again in the future but must demonstrate full insight into the risks posed by misuse and dishonesty, as well as clear plans to practise safely and transparently.