The Society

Statutory Committee

Locum struck off for drugs thefts
False prescriptions conspiracy leads to striking off
Striking off for theft of money from employer
Superintendent reprimanded for insufficient control

Locum struck off for drugs thefts

A pharmacist who stole Controlled Drugs from his employer to satisfy his addiction has had his name removed from the Register of Pharmaceutical Chemists on the order of the Statutory Committee.

At its hearing on December 13, 2000, the committee inquired into the case of Mr Rajiv Mohanlal Aggarwal, of 94 London Road, Langley, Slough, Berkshire. Information had been received that at West Berkshire magistrates’ court, on May 16, 2000, Mr Aggarwal had pleaded guilty to, and been convicted, of four offences of theft and one of possession of a Class A Controlled Drug. A further eight offences of theft had been taken into consideration by the court. At Reading crown court on June 23, Mr Aggarwal had been put on probation for two years, a condition of the probation being that he received treatment under the direction of Birdsgrove House; he was also ordered to pay compensation of £239.89.

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

Mr Aggarwal was present at the inquiry and was represented by Mr D. M. O. Curley, of Friend & Co (solicitors).

The committee heard that, acting on information, the police had arranged for a stock check to be carried out at the pharmacy where Mr Aggarwal had been employed as a locum in March, 2000. The check revealed that a number of drugs were missing, including diamorphine and pethidine. A covert video camera had been installed on March 21; the video surveillance had shown Mr Aggarwal, on five occasions between March 21 and 26, removing items from the dispensary, putting them in a plastic bag and, at closing time, leaving the pharmacy with the bag. When Mr Aggarwal’s car was searched, empty ampoules were found; at his home a number of items relating to the charges were found. The drugs involved included: diamorphine ampoules 100mg, 15; diamorphine ampoules 30mg, 10; pethidine ampoules 50mg, 20; pethidine ampoules 100mg, 30; pethidine tablets 50mg, 50; Sevredol tablets 30mg, 56; and Oramorph, 500ml. In addition, there were temazepam, diazepam and Maxolon tablets.

When challenged by the police, Mr Aggarwal had admitted taking the drugs. He said they were for his own use. Initially, he claimed they were for severe back pain; eventually, he accepted that he was addicted.

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that it was an unfortunate case. Mr Aggarwal had stolen from his employers, a serious breach of trust that was compounded by the fact that he was stealing drugs. The committee would deal with the case on the basis that he had stolen the drugs for his own use and that he had an addiction problem.

In view of the convictions, the committee had no option but to order the removal of Mr Aggarwal’s name from the register. There were aspects of the case, said the chairman, on which it was the committee’s view that it would in many respects be helpful if such matters could be dealt with on a health basis, but that was not yet an option.

Mr Aggarwal was a young man; if it were his intention to seek to have his name restored at some time, the committee would wish to be satisfied that he had carried through the treatment he had been ordered to undergo and that he could provide references testifying that he was free from drugs, concluded the chairman.

False prescriptions conspiracy leads to striking off

The name of a Durham pharmacist has been removed from the Register of Pharmaceutical Chemists on the order of the Statutory Committee following convictions for conspiracy to defraud and false accounting.

At its meeting on December 13, 2000, the committee considered the case of Mr Zia Ul Haq, of “Fairfields”, 2 North Road, Spennymoor, County Durham. Information had been received that, at Teesside crown court, Mr Ul Haq had pleaded guilty to and been convicted of conspiracy to defraud Durham Health Authority by causing false prescriptions to be issued, and of false accounting by providing information that oxygen cylinders had been delivered to members of the public when no such deliveries had taken place. For the first offence, Mr Ul Haq had been sentenced on June 9, 2000, to six months’ imprisonment and on the second, to 21 months, the sentences to run concurrently.

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

Mr Ul Haq was present at the hearing, and represented by Mr Harry Steinberg, of counsel, instructed by Freeman Johnson (solicitors).

The committee heard that Mr Ul Haq had been employed at a pharmacy in Shilton, County Durham, since 1987. In October, 1995, the Durham health authority had found that one of the medical practices in the area was issuing prescriptions for oxygen at a rate 40 times higher than average.

On investigation, it had emerged that a system going back to 1989 had operated by which the doctor concerned would order goods from Mr Ul Haq’s pharmacy for which payment would be made in the form of prescriptions issued by the doctor. Although made out in the names of patients, they had been written so that payment could be claimed to cover the cost of the goods supplied.

After starting on a small scale, the amounts of money involved had begun to rise. In September, 1995, Mr Ul Haq had invoiced the doctor for £1,271.94 for “flu vaccines supplied”. He had subsequently obtained from the doctor prescriptions with a value about £100 short of that figure; they had been signed by the doctor and by Mr Ul Haq as “patient’s representative” and presented to the health authority for payment.

Interviewed by the police, Mr Ul Haq had conceded that the arrangements had been going on for some years and had not related solely to ’flu vaccines. That was the background to the charge of conspiracy.

The second charge, of false accounting, arose from fees claimed for the delivery of oxygen cylinders to patients. Investigations showed that there were large discrepancies between the number of cylinders actually obtained by the pharmacy and the number ordered on prescriptions. Mr Ul Haq claimed a personal delivery fee on cylinders that had not in fact been supplied. The amount involved, covering the period 1992 to 1998, was some £17,681.

For Mr Ul Haq, it was said that at the time the offences began he had been relatively young and inexperienced and had been influenced by the very strong character of the doctor.

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC), said that, on the first charge, the doctor involved (who had also been convicted) had received the sole, or greater, benefit. That had been reflected in the higher prison sentence he had received. Nevertheless, it was a serious matter; the greatest concern was that it was a conspiracy to defraud the Durham Health Authority carried on by arrangements put in place by Mr Ul Haq’s employers. That represented a significant breach of trust.

With regard to the second conviction, although there might be some dispute as to the amount by which Mr Ul Haq had personally benefited, it represented an alarming breach of trust for a professional man involved in pharmacy.

The committee had taken into account references on Mr Ul Haq’s behalf, and the fact that he had worked satisfactorily since the events described. However, the matter was so serious, and the standard of the profession so important, that there was no alternative but to direct that Mr Ul Haq’s name should be removed from the register.

Mr Ul Haq had three months in which to appeal.

Striking off for theft of money from employer

A pharmacist who stole cash from his employer has been removed from the Register of Pharmaceutical Chemists on the order of the Statutory Committee.

At its meeting on December 11, 2000, the committee inquired into the case of Mr Chima Oko Olughu, of 6 Luxor Street, Camberwell, London SE5. Information had been received that on August 10, 1999, Mr Olughu had pleaded guilty at Camberwell Green magistrates’ court to stealing £60 from Boots the Chemists, for which offence he had been fined £500 and ordered to pay Ł30 costs.

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

Mr Olughu was present at the inquiry but was not legally represented.

The committee heard that Mr Olughu had been employed as a relief pharmacist for Boots in South London. On June 17, 1999, as part of a surveillance operation, security staff had asked members of staff at the branch at which he was working to turn out their pockets. Mr Olughu had produced £60 in notes from his back trouser pocket. He was asked about the notes and said the money had fallen out of his bag on to the floor, which was why he had put it into his back pocket.

When a video recording taken on that day was viewed, it showed Mr Olughu remove some notes from where the counter cash was kept, put them in his left hand and walk out of view of the camera towards the dispensary.

Questioned by security staff, Mr Olughu had immediately admitted that the money in his back pocket had in fact been taken from the counter cash.

When interviewed by police, Mr Olughu was unable to give any reason why he had taken the cash; he said he had no financial difficulties. He was bailed and charged, and co-operated with the police fully.

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that the case involved a serious breach of trust. Stealing money from employers was an activity that could not be contemplated by the Society. The committee ordered that Mr Olughu’s name should be removed from the register.

He had three months in which to appeal.

Superintendent reprimanded for insufficient control

A Liverpool pharmacist has been reprimanded by the Statutory Committee after large quantities of codeine linctus were sold, and unsupervised sales of medicines made, at pharmacies owned by the company of which he was superintendent pharmacist.

At its meeting on November 16, 2000, the committee inquired into the case of Edwin Marshall Clein, of 16 Burnham Road, Allerton, Liverpool, and Barrow Nesbitt & Co Ltd, which operated pharmacies at Smithdown Road and Baycliffe Road, Liverpool. Mr Clein, a self-employed locum pharmacist, was a director of the company and had been appointed its superintendent pharmacist in August, 1995.

A complaint had been received from the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society alleging that Mr Clein had failed to exercise control of the sale of codeine linctus, had failed to ensure that a pharmacist was in personal control at all times the pharmacy was open for business on March 20 and April 17, 1999, had failed to ensure that no sales of pharmacy medicines took place in the absence of a pharmacist on April 17, 1999, had failed to ensure that no dispensing or supply of prescriptions took place in the absence of a pharmacist on March 20 and April 17, 1999, and had failed to ensure compliance with the Misuse of Drugs (Safe Custody) Regulations 1973. Finally, it was alleged that he had failed to appreciate and discharge his duties and responsibilities as a superintendent pharmacist.

Mr David Bradly, of counsel, instructed by Penningtons (solicitors), appeared in order to present the facts of the case.

Mr Clein was present and represented himself. Mr M. Aaronberg, of counsel, instructed by Charles Russell (solicitors), appeared on behalf of Barrow Nesbitt & Co.

The committee heard that, following an allegation to the Society that there had been excessive sales of codeine linctus from the company’s Smithdown Road pharmacy, an inspector had visited the premises. On six occasions between October 15 and 22, 1998, the inspector had bought a 200ml bottle of codeine linctus without being challenged about the purchase.

Inquiries brought to light that during the six months from May to October, 1998, the two pharmacies had received about 120 litres of codeine linctus and that only 7.75 litres had been dispensed; some 100 litres were unaccounted for except by way of retail sale.

When interviewed by the inspector on November 2, 1998, Mr Clein had been asked if he was the superintendent pharmacist. He had replied: “I do not know about that. I do not get paid as a superintendent. I have no jurisdiction over the other shop.”

Subsequently, on an occasion in March, 1999, a locum pharmacist asked at short notice to provide cover at the Smithdown Road premises arrived to find a non-pharmacist, the son of one of the company’s directors, dispensing medicines, and about a dozen bottles of dispensed methadone, with corresponding prescriptions, waiting for collection.

A further complaint related to the sale at the Baycliffe Road premises on April 17, 1999, of pharmacy medicines, Sudafed and Veganin, to one of the Society’s inspectors when no pharmacist was present. On April 19 Mr Clein was again interviewed by the inspector and asked who arranged locum cover. He had replied that the members of the other director’s family did that.

Mr Clein had resigned as superintendent pharmacist since those incidents had taken place.

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie) said that, so far as the sales of codeine linctus were concerned, Mr Clein had argued that the sales, averaged out over the period, could not be described as excessive. And it was true that the Society had stated that the excess of purchases over supplies on prescription was below, but close to, levels that had resulted in the committee striking off a pharmacist. If the Society had relied only on the excess of codeine purchases over supplies on prescription, there would have been considerable force in that argument, said the chairman.

But that was not the case. The inspector had bought codeine linctus at the Smithdown Road pharmacy on no fewer than six occasions over eight days, without challenge. That had been explained away by Mr Clein on the basis that the inspector would have been respectably dressed and would not have aroused suspicion of potential abuse. The chairman said it was surprising that “respectable dress” should be suggested as a mitigating factor. Mr Clein had also emphasised that he had been present on only one occasion when the purchases were made.

With regard to the methadone, Mr Clein said that he had made it up early on the day concerned, leaving on other business before the locum had arrived. He had claimed that he did not know, and could not have been expected to know, that the locum had not been due to arrive before 10am. “If he did not know, he ought to have known,” commented the chairman. He should have arranged for the methadone to be kept under locked control until a pharmacist arrived.

The committee also found the fact of sales of pharmacy medicines at the Baycliffe Road premises, in the absence of a pharmacist, had been proved. Mr Clein claimed that in practice he had no jurisdiction over that pharmacy, but he did, in law, and it was for him as superintendent pharmacist to assert his authority.

The committee concluded that the breaches in the law identified in the Society’s complaints amounted to misconduct that would render Mr Clein unfit to be on the register. However, it was decided that a reprimand would be imposed. No further action would be taken against the company.