A locum pharmacist who "fiddled" his mileage claims has had his name removed from the register by order of the Statutory Committee. At its meeting on July 11, the committee inquired into the case of Mr Johur Husseen, of 46 Caistor Close, Chorlton, Manchester. A complaint had been received from the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society alleging that, while working as a locum pharmacist, Mr Husseen had submitted claims for travelling expenses for which he had claimed a total excess mileage of 8,886, resulting in an overpayment of over £2,000. It was alleged that this might amount to such misconduct as to render him unfit to have his name on the register. Mr David Bradly, of counsel, instructed by Mr G. R. F. Hudson (of Penningtons, solicitors), appeared in order to place the facts of the case to the committee. Mr Husseen was present at the inquiry and was represented by Mr G. S. A. Walker, of Horwich Farrelly (solicitors). The committee heard that, while engaged as a locum pharmacist, Mr Husseen had submitted fraudulent claims for mileage allowance in excess of the distances travelled. Between February, 1996, and December 31, 1998, Mr Husseen had claimed an excess mileage of 7,938 and between January 1, and April 30, 1999, he had claimed for an excess mileage of 948. As a result, he had received overpayments totalling £2,221.50. The offences had come to light when the mileage claims submitted by Mr Husseen were compared with the distances he should have travelled, calculated according to Routefinder, a computer program, and discrepancies found. When challenged, Mr Husseen had paid back the amount covered by the excess claims. There had been no criticism of his work as a pharmacist and references on behalf of Mr Husseen were submitted. Giving the committee's decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that membership of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society involved becoming part of one of the important professions within Britain and there had been a serious breach of trust on Mr Husseen's part. If Mr Husseen had had any good fortune in the matter, it was that he did not have to face criminal proceedings. The misconduct which had been admitted was, in the committee's view, a breach of trust of such a serious character as to render him potentially unfit to have his name on the register. The committee directed that his name should be removed. The chairman added that Mr Husseen would be well advised to take appropriate advice in due course about seeking to have his name restored, emphasising that there was no criticism of his work as a pharmacist. Mr Husseen had three months in which to appeal.