Pharmacy Technician Suspended for Cocaine Possession and Misuse at Work

The registrant, a pharmacy technician, was working at St Pancras Hospital under the Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust when he was found to be:

• Under the influence of cocaine at work
• In possession of two wraps of cocaine
• In possession of drug paraphernalia, such as a snorting tube
• Using cocaine on Trust premises, including a toilet
• Convicted of possession of a Class A drug (Cocaine) in August 2023

He was arrested on 10 May 2023 after being selected for a random workplace search by a sniffer dog. He admitted using cocaine that morning and confirmed that the wraps of cocaine found on him were for personal use.

He was later convicted at Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court, fined £200, and self-reported the conviction to the GPhC.

Findings

The GPhC panel found the registrant’s actions to constitute serious misconduct and a breach of public trust:

• Attending work under the influence of cocaine posed a direct risk to patients and the public
• Using drugs in a healthcare setting was especially serious given the responsibilities of a pharmacy professional
• His behaviour breached hospital policies and damaged confidence in the profession

A quote from the Principal Hearing Committee stated:

“The Registrant’s actions reached the threshold of misconduct as he had in his possession and used class A drugs and drugs paraphernalia on hospital premises, which is particularly serious for a pharmacy professional.”

Although the registrant showed developing insight, he had not submitted the reflective statements, proof of rehabilitation, or drug test results that the committee had requested during his earlier six-month suspension.

Registrant’s Position and Representations

The registrant did not attend the hearing but sent a written statement expressing remorse, shame, and regret:

• He accepted responsibility and acknowledged he had “betrayed the public’s trust.”
• He shared that he had been supporting neighbours, enrolled in mentoring and management courses, and planned to start an adult social care course.
• He reiterated that he had no plans to return to the profession due to the disgrace he had caused.

Despite these reflections, the GPhC determined that his insight and remediation were insufficient to allow a return to practice.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The committee concluded that the registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired, due to:

• Risk of repetition stemming from unresolved drug misuse
• The need to maintain public confidence and uphold professional standards
• The lack of sufficient evidence to demonstrate rehabilitation or recovery from drug use

The committee was particularly concerned that:

• The registrant had not provided drug test results
• He had not attended the review hearing
• He had not submitted the full reflective materials requested

Sanction

The GPhC imposed a further 12-month suspension, reasoning that:

• The registrant’s misconduct was remediable, but not yet remedied
• A further suspension would allow time to demonstrate rehabilitation and insight
• Removal from the register would be disproportionately punitive at this stage but remains a possibility if remediation is not demonstrated

The panel specified that at the next review hearing, the registrant should ideally provide:

• A reflective piece on his misconduct and its impact on public confidence
• Evidence of rehabilitation from addiction, such as professional reports
• Drug testing results
• His attendance at the review hearing

An interim suspension was also imposed to ensure public protection during the appeal window.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

1. Substance misuse is incompatible with pharmacy practice – Especially when it occurs on healthcare premises.
2. Self-reporting is necessary, but not sufficient – Professionals must show active remediation and recovery.
3. Remorse must be matched with action – Reflection, testing, and rehabilitation must be evidenced.
4. Public trust and professional standards must be upheld – Even when professionals no longer intend to practise.
5. Failure to comply with regulatory expectations prolongs sanctions – Non-engagement and limited remediation hinder return to practice.

Conclusion

This case highlights the serious consequences of drug misuse within a healthcare setting, even when not directly linked to patient harm. The registrant’s continued lack of full engagement and evidence of rehabilitation led to an extended suspension. The 12-month suspension offers a final opportunity to demonstrate insight and recovery—but failure to do so may result in removal from the register.