The Society

Statutory committee

Striking off order follows pharmacist's theft of dispensary stock
“Intimidation” no excuse in methadone dispensing case

Striking off order follows pharmacist's theft of dispensary stock

The Statutory Committee has ordered the removal from the register of a pharmacist who stole stock from his employer.

At its meeting on November 15, 2000, the committee considered the case of Mr Vijay Kumar Bansal, of 22 Mansfield Drive, Hayes, Middlesex. Information had been received that on December 20, 1999, at Staines magistrates' court, Mr Bansal had pleaded guilty to and been convicted of stealing a quantity of pharmaceutical products valued at £1533.42 from his employers. He had been sentenced to 240 hours of community service and ordered to pay £118 costs.

Mr Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors) appeared in order to place the facts of the case to the committee.

Mr David Reissner, of Charles Russell (solicitors), represented Mr Bansal, who was present at the hearing.

The committee heard that Mr Bansal had been working as a locum on Saturday, September 18, and Monday, September 20, 1999. On both days, he had ordered stock. On the Monday, the dispenser at the pharmacy, when checking off a drugs order, noticed an unusual quantity of Prograf. She had brought this to the attention of Mr Bansal, who had told her that the medicine was for a telephoned prescription.

Missing stock

The following day, when Mr Bansal was not working at the pharmacy, the dispenser noticed that the Prograf was not in stock, nor had it been dispensed on a prescription. She also noticed that a quantity of Seroxat tablets had been ordered, with no corresponding prescriptions in the pharmacy. She had alerted the pharmacy manager, who checked the order sheets and discovered that Mr Bansal had ordered a number of products that were not needed.

On September 27, 1999, when Mr Bansal was next working at the pharmacy, he was told he was under suspicion of having stolen stock the previous week. He had admitted having taken 12 packs of Prograf capsules, three packs of 30mg Seroxat tablets, six packs of 20mg Seroxat tablets and also six packs of 20mg Losec capsules.

Asked why he had stolen the medicines, he said he had just bought a new car for £23,000 and wanted to top up his savings. An acquaintance had suggested he could get money if he obtained Prograf and other drugs for him. Foolishly, Mr Bansal had agreed. He expressed regret for what he had done. The stolen goods had been returned to the police.

Giving the committee's decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that the case was a serious one. Although Mr Bansal had admitted his theft, and the drugs he had taken had been returned, the committee could not allow those pharmacists in a position of trust to breach it. References on his behalf had spoken highly of him, but the conviction was of such a character as to render Mr Bansal unfit to be on the register.

The committee ordered that his name should be struck off.

Mr Bansal was given three months in which to appeal.

“Intimidation” no excuse in methadone dispensing case

Dispensing three days' supply of methadone at once to two addicts when their prescriptions ordered separate daily dosages to be provided has resulted in a Scottish pharmacist being reprimanded by the Statutory Committee. The pharmacist claimed he had been threatened by one of the addicts.

At its meeting on November 14, 2000, the committee inquired into the case of Mr Graeme William Robertson, of 14 Marlee Road, Broughty Ferry, Dundee, Angus. Mr Robertson had been fined £300 at Dundee sheriff court on March 29, 2000, after pleading guilty to an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1985 and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

Mr Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors) appeared in order to present the facts of the case to the committee.

Mr Robertson was present at the inquiry and was represented by Mr William Mcreath, of Leavy & MacRae (solicitors).

The committee heard that the offence for which Mr Robertson had been fined related to two prescriptions for methadone dispensed for two drug addicts at Lloyds Pharmacy, Wellgate Centre, Dundee, of which he had been in charge. The prescriptions had been brought to the pharmacy on November 6, 1998, and had called for daily doses of methadone to be dispensed on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, November 6, 7 and 8, 1998. One of the prescriptions called for 36ml daily, to be taken under supervision; the other for 50ml daily, unsupervised. However, the whole amount had been supplied on November 6, 1998.

The matter had come to light when on the Saturday Mr Robertson, who was that day working at another pharmacy, telephoned the Wellgate pharmacy and asked another employee to make entries in the Controlled Drugs register in respect of the methadone that should have been dispensed that day but had in fact been dispensed the previous day. The employee had contacted her area manager, who had got in touch with the police.

Threatened

When questioned by his employer's head of security, Mr Robertson had admitted that he had supplied the methadone not in accordance with the prescription, claiming that he had been threatened by one of the addicts. He had not mentioned this when interviewed by the police, as his solicitor had advised him not to answer their questions.

Giving the committee's decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC), noted that under the provisions for supplying addicts, which were well known to all pharmacists, it would have been acceptable to have supplied two instalments of the prescription on the Saturday, to cover the following day, Sunday. However, that did not cover the supply on the Friday.

It was surprising that, if Mr Robertson had been threatened, that information had not been given to the police, the chairman said.

The committee wished to make it crystal clear that it could never be a legitimate excuse to plead intimidation in such circumstances. The arrangements made in the attempt to control the abuse of drugs depended on the professional integrity of the pharmacist. “If they give way to intimidation . . . the whole arrangement will collapse,” said the chairman. Pharmacies known as a “soft touch” would attract ever greater numbers of drug abusers.

The chairman emphasised that, far from recognising intimidation as a justification, the committee regarded it as showing an absence of professional integrity. If people felt they could get away with intimidation, they would continue to do it, he said.

It was also a matter for concern that Mr Robertson, knowing he had breached the regulations, had telephoned a junior employee to ask her to fill in the register. The committee was “very unimpressed” by such conduct.

The committee directed that Mr Robertson should be reprimanded. The chairman said that Mr Robertson should recognise how close he had been to having his name removed.