Pharmacy Technician Suspended for Six Months After Romantic Letter Exchange with Prisoner

Date of Decision: April 9, 2025

Registrant's Role: Pharmacy technician

Allegations:

Exchanged personal and romantic letters with a prisoner while working as a pharmacy technician at HMP Five Wells.
Failed to report the inappropriate relationship to prison authorities or the superintendent pharmacist.

Outcome: Suspension from the register for six months

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 1 – Provide person-centred care
Standard 2 – Work in partnership with others
Standard 5 – Use professional judgement
Standard 6 – Behave in a professional manner
Standard 8 – Speak up when things go wrong

Case Summary

The registrant, employed at HMP Five Wells as a substance misuse worker while remaining registered as a pharmacy technician, engaged in:

A short romantic correspondence with a prisoner, referred to as Patient A, over a two-and-a-half-week period in early 2023.
Exchanged three to four handwritten letters with content described as “a sort of made-up fantasy, escapism kind of thing.”
Failed to report this interaction to supervisors or the prison’s safeguarding teams.

Her actions were discovered when prison staff found one of the letters during a cell search. During a challenge meeting, she admitted to writing the letter and was subsequently dismissed.

Findings

The GPhC Committee found that:

The registrant admitted all allegations.
Patient A was a vulnerable person due to his custodial status.
The registrant failed to maintain professional boundaries, acted without professional judgement, and breached the duty of candour by not reporting the relationship.
Although the misconduct was not prolonged, it was repeated and only stopped because it was discovered by others.
The registrant had received prior training on maintaining professional boundaries and safeguarding but did not apply it.

The Committee said:

“By engaging in a personal or romantic relationship with a vulnerable patient and not disclosing this to her employer, the registrant brought the pharmacy profession into disrepute.”

While she showed some insight and remorse, the Committee judged her reflection as incomplete and found no evidence of remediation.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The Committee concluded that the registrant’s fitness to practise is currently impaired, citing both:

Personal misconduct – due to limited insight, potential for repetition, and breaches of professional trust.
Public interest concerns – as public confidence in the pharmacy profession would be undermined if such behaviour went unaddressed.

The Committee noted:

“The registrant has shown remorse, but her insight is not complete. She has not fully reflected on why she responded to the prisoner or what she would have done had she not been caught.”

The Committee also found that her integrity could no longer be relied upon, referencing her deliberate concealment of the correspondence.

Sanction

The panel rejected lesser sanctions such as a warning or conditions of practice, determining they would not be sufficient to:

Reflect the seriousness of the misconduct
Prevent repetition
Maintain public confidence

Instead, a six-month suspension was imposed, with a formal review hearing required before return to practice.

The Committee also issued an interim suspension, effective immediately.

They advised that the registrant should complete:

A full reflective piece, addressing why the misconduct happened, how she would act differently, and how she would maintain professional boundaries in the future
Safeguarding and pharmacy technician training
Evidence of engagement with mental health support, where appropriate
Character references from colleagues who are aware of the case

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

Maintaining professional boundaries is critical, especially with vulnerable populations such as prisoners.
Failing to report misconduct is itself a breach of standards.
Remorse must be matched by insight—understanding why the behaviour occurred and how to prevent recurrence is essential.
Personal stress or mental health issues do not excuse professional misconduct, though they may explain context.
GPhC sanctions aim to protect the public, not to punish—remediation and reflection are necessary for return to practice.

Conclusion

This case demonstrates the serious consequences of boundary violations between healthcare professionals and vulnerable patients. Although the registrant’s behaviour did not involve physical contact or criminality, the GPhC determined that trust had been breached, and that a suspension was necessary to uphold public confidence in the profession. The door remains open for the registrant to return—but only if meaningful insight, remediation, and evidence of safe future practice are provided.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.