The Society

Statutory Committee

Theft leads to striking off order
Reprimand for fraudulent locum expenses claim
Reprimand for unsupervised sales and “filthy” premises

Theft leads to striking off order

A Newcastle pharmacist who had been convicted of stealing cash from his employer has been struck off the register by order of the Statutory Committee

At its meeting on 15 January, the committee considered the case of Anthony Clive Jones, of 13 Wood Street, Burnopfield, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear. Information had been received that on 7 June 2000 Mr Jones had been put on probation for 18 months, ordered to do 80 hours of community service, and ordered to pay £80 costs, after pleading guilty to two charges of stealing cash from his employers. The amounts involved were £794.39 and £328.15; two similar offences had been taken into consideration.

Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors), was present to place the facts of the case before the committee.

Mr Jones was present at the hearing and was represented by Julia Weatherall, of counsel, instructed by Stainsby O’Neill (solicitors).

The committee heard that in January 2000 Mr Jones had had financial problems. When, on 24 January, a cheque for £794.39 from a local doctor’s surgery had been received at the pharmacy he was managing, he did not pay it into the business’s bank account but held on to it. Then, on 9 February, when paying in that day’s takings, he had withheld cash to the amount of the cheque, which was paid in as part of the takings. During March another cheque, this time for £328.15 had been received from the surgery; again, Mr Jones had held on to it.

On 15 May his employers had become aware that cheques from the surgery were not being banked when they had been received and had marked bank notes in the pharmacy. Then, on the following day Mr Jones had banked the second cheque as part of the takings, holding back cash to the same amount. The matter was reported to the police; some of the marked notes were found among his belongings and more found at his home. He had admitted the offences and said it had been his intention to repay the money.

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said there were sad elements to the case; it was clear that Mr Jones’s financial affairs had been in a chaotic state for some time. However, there was no basis on which to excuse his conduct. On an earlier occasion, when he had been removing money from the takings, his employer, rather than dismissing him, had been good enough to advance him an interest free loan.

What emerged was a picture of someone in a position of trust who, having been given one break, had gone on to steal significant amounts of money. The committee could not accept that it was realistically his intention to repay those sums; no attempt had been made to do so.

Those were significant breaches of trust, and pharmacists should have the most careful regard of what is required of them in terms of that trust, said the chairman.

Mr Jones’s name was ordered to be removed from the register. He had three months in which to appeal.

Reprimand for fraudulent locum expenses claim

A Manchester pharmacist who made a fraudulent claim for locum expenses has been ordered to be reprimanded by the Statutory Committee

At its meeting on 16 January, the committee inquired into the case of Mohammed Abdul Majid Siddiqui, of 382 Mauldeth Road West, Chorlton, Manchester. A complaint had been received from the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society alleging that Mr Siddiqui had completed a locum payment form in respect of six hours’ work undertaken by his wife, also a pharmacist, at the pharmacy at which he had been employed when in fact she had not been present on that particular day. Further, Mr Siddiqui had not been authorised to sign such forms and had initially denied making any such claim.

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

Mr Siddiqui was present at the inquiry and represented himself.

The committee heard that in August 1999 the security manager of Superdrug, the company employing Mr Siddiqui at the time, had been asked to investigate the payment of £127 in fees to Mr Siddiqui’s wife for working as a locum pharmacist on 13 June, a Sunday. The form claiming payment had been submitted by Mr Siddiqui but the duplicate forms recording details of the payment had been removed from the claims book kept at the pharmacy.

Mr Siddiqui had at first denied making a fraudulent claim, maintaining that his wife had indeed worked at the pharmacy on that day. However, two members of staff who had worked on 13 June had identified him as the pharmacist in charge on that day, and stated that his wife had not been present. Mr Siddiqui had been suspended from duty. Subsequently, he had admitted that although payment had been received, his wife had not worked that day and that he had removed the duplicate forms from the claims book.

The matter was not reported to the police but Mr Siddiqui had been immediately dismissed.

The company stated it had notified the Society of the event by letter in October 1999. However, there was no record of the letter and it had not been found at the Society’s offices. Some time later, in May 2000, the company contacted the Society to enquire if any action had been taken and an investigation was immediately launched.

Aggrieved

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that Mr Siddiqui’s explanation for his action was that the pharmacy company had indicated that it was going to change the rate of pay for pharmacists working on a Sunday from double time to time-and-a-half. He had felt aggrieved by this and sought to make up the prospective deficit by making the fraudulent claim.

That could not be an acceptable explanation for any such fraudulent activity, said the chairman. If the payments made by his employers were regarded by Mr Siddiqui as inadequate it was for him to make representations to them or to seek employment at the level of remuneration he felt was appropriate for his professional experience and expertise.

If the case had come before the committee on the basis of a conviction, or if it had heard the case some time ago, the committee would have found Mr Siddiqui’s conduct such as to render him unfit to be on the register and would have immediately directed the removal of his name, said the chairman. The committee was concerned that it should not give any signal to employed pharmacists that they could, in any circumstances, act in breach of the trust they owed their employers.

However, the committee was uncomfortable with the delay that had occurred in the case. Although it was said that the company had written to the Society in October 1999, it was only in May 2000, that it had inquired into what had transpired. The Society had immediately put the necessary wheels in motion; but there had been a very considerable delay from the time of the conduct complained of.

Both Superdrug and Mr Siddiqui’s present employers had been prepared to accept that this had been a one-off fraudulent claim. It was against the background of those exceptional circumstances, and the time that had elapsed, that the committee had decided not to direct that his name should be removed from the register, but to order that he should be reprimanded.

Pointing out that a reprimand was not simply a slap on the wrist, the chairman warned Mr Siddiqui that if any comparable matter came before the committee, he would find that he would be struck off.

Reprimand for unsupervised sales and “filthy” premises

The state of his pharmacy premises and his absence from his pharmacy while medicines were sold have resulted in a London pharmacist being reprimanded by the Statutory Committee “as sternly as we can”.

At its meeting on 16 January, the committee inquired into the case of Prashant Patel, of Clockwork Pharmacy, 400 Mare Street, Hackney, London E8. Information had been received that at Thames magistrates’ court on 14 April 2000, Mr Patel had pleaded guilty to two charges of selling a pharmacy medicine when no pharmacist was present to supervise the sales, for which offences he had been fined a total of £800 and ordered to pay £1,000 costs.

Further, it was alleged that Mr Patel had permitted the pharmacy to remain open on 1 July 1999, between 2.30 and 4pm when no pharmacist was present, that he had permitted untrained, inexperienced staff to serve on the medicines counter without the supervision of a pharmacist, that he had stored medicines returned by patients in the dispensary where they could have been used for dispensing, that he had allowed the storage areas, toilet and sink to be in an unsatisfactory state on that date, and that he had permitted a bottle labelled methadone to remain on dispensary shelves for approximately three months, all of which, if proved, might amount to misconduct such as to render Mr Patel unfit to have his name on the register.

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

David Reissner, of Charles Russell (solicitors) represented Mr Patel, who attended the inquiry.

The committee heard that one of the Society’s inspectors had visited Mr Patel’s pharmacy at Mare Street on 1 July 1999. She had asked if the pharmacist was present and had been told that he had “popped out”. Staff members said that he had left the premises at 2pm and would be back “probably between 4pm and 5pm”.

The inspector had then purchased 12 Solpadeine capsules and 20 Day Nurse capsules. She had established that the two assistants in the shop were inexperienced and had had no recognised training in the sale of medicines. One of them, however, had said that she knew it was wrong to sell the medicines when a pharmacist was not present.

While on the premises, the inspector had found in the dispensary a cupboard containing a variety of medicines including items with labels indicating that they had been dispensed by other pharmacies. They included a bottle of reconstituted amoxycillin oral suspension. There was no bin for disposing of returned medicines. On a shelf nearby was a bottle labelled methadone 1mg/1ml with the date of dispensing shown as February 1998. The inspector had found the premises to be in a filthy condition: rubbish was piled on the dispensary waste bin to a height of 4ft; the storage areas were cluttered and untidy; the WC was dirty, as was the sink used for hand-washing.

The inspector had then left the premises, leaving a telephone number on which Mr Patel could contact her. He did so at 4.15pm; the number he called from was that of one of the four other pharmacies he owned.

When interviewed on 13 July 1999, he had said his absence from the premises was because he visited a patient with diabetes.

Mr Patel told the committee that the premises, which he had purchased in January 1998, had been untidy because he was waiting for a builder to carry out renovations, which had since been done.

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said the committee felt that the evidence given at the hearing by Mr Patel did not reveal the unvarnished truth. For example, he had claimed that a protocol for the unqualified staff had been available since he took over the premises in January 1998 when the date on the protocol was August of that year.

Further, the time taken by Mr Patel to deliver medication to the diabetic patient and conduct a blood sugar test was suspiciously long and appeared to be an account designed to fill the whole period he was away from the pharmacy.

Although Mr Patel had indicated that there had been a rota for cleaning the sink and the WC, it was abundantly clear that that was not so. Other parts of the premises were neglected and had not been in good order for a long time, if ever.

It was the duty of a professional putting his case to the committee to be frank and forthcoming. “I regret to say we cannot be confident that this has been done on this occasion,” said the chairman.

The committee found the convictions proved and the misconduct established, the chairman said. If the committee had had the option of being able to impose a severe fine, it would have considered doing so. But that was not within its power. The committee had pulled back from a decision to remove Mr Patel’s name from the register because the premises had now been put in order and Mr Patel, who had four other pharmacies, had had no other complaints made against him in the 20 years he had been on the register.

The committee ordered that Mr Patel should receive as stern a reprimand as it could administer.