Two Pharmacists, accepting allegations relating to the procurement and supply of controlled drugs without the requisite licence, succeed in having their fitness to practise found to not be impaired after a 14 day Fitness to Practise Committee hearing

Over the period of a year, Victoria Rees, in collaboration with experienced barrister, Wendy Hewitt, worked closely with 2 pharmacists to help them to prepare for, and then represent them at, a principal hearing before the GPhC’s Fitness to Practise Committee in relation to allegations of procuring and supplying controlled drugs without the necessary wholesale licence.

Facts of the case

The pharmacists were directors and shareholders of a pharmacy business, with one of them also holding the role of Superintendent Pharmacist. The pharmacy had a Wholesale Dealer’s Authorisation, but not a Home Office Licence and during an 18-month period, the pharmacy procured and supplied significant quantities of controlled drugs, with much of this supply being exported, which was not authorised by the WDA in place.

The MHRA initially pursued this as part of a wider investigation into a number of pharmacies in the supply chain, but took no further action, other than referring the 2 pharmacists to the GPhC. The GPhC alleged that the pharmacists knew that their WDA did not allow for the export of controlled drugs but carried out the supply of large quantities of controlled drugs to the export market in direct contravention of the rules and requirements in place, with the intention of diverting controlled drugs out of the legal supply chain. The GPhC indicated that they believed the only appropriate sanction in this case was removal from the register.

The matter was referred to a Fitness to Practise Committee hearing.

Work Conducted

Both pharmacists admitted the vast majority of the allegations, acknowledging that they did not have the correct licence in place at the material time, but denying that they were aware of this. They accepted that it was their responsibility as pharmacists to know, understand and comply with the rules and regulations in place, but that their relative inexperience at the time led to this genuine oversight. They vehemently denied that they diverted any controlled drugs out of the legal supply chain.

Victoria Rees and Wendy Hewitt advised the pharmacists in relation to the training and reflection they needed to undertake to help demonstrate how they had sought to address their previous failings and remediate their conduct. Victoria Rees also instructed an expert in pharmacy regulation and a forensic accountant to help support the pharmacists’ position and rebut the GPhC’s argument for diversion out of the legal supply chain. In the run up to the hearing, detailed witness statements were drafted and defence bundles collated ready for the Fitness to Practise Committee hearing. The pharmacists were then represented by an experienced barrister at each of the 14 days of the hearing.

Outcome

All allegations, the vast majority of which had been admitted from the outset, were found ‘proved’ against both pharmacists, with the exception of the most serious allegation of supplying controlled drugs such that they were diverted out of the legal supply chain. Although the remaining, proven allegations were still serious, the Committee were persuaded, on the basis of the work the pharmacists had done, both in terms of reflection and their work since this period, that neither of the pharmacists’ fitness to practise was impaired and they were both issued with a warning that will remain on their entry on the register for 1 year.

If you are facing a Fitness to Practise Committee hearing and would like advice and assistance from our specialist pharmacist lawyers, please contact the team for assistance.