The Society

Statutory Committee

Striking-off for leaving lay staff in charge [more]

Committee refuses forger's application for restoration [more]

Reprimand for pharmacist who neglected CD register [more]

No restoration after theft, fraud and driving offences [more]

Striking-off for leaving lay staff in charge

The Statutory Committee has directed the removal from the register of an Essex pharmacist who had repeatedly left her pharmacy open during normal working hours without a pharmacist being present.

At its meetings on 21, 22 and 23 May and 14 October 2002, the committee inquired into the case of Rabinder Thind, of 21 Walden Road, Hornchurch, Essex. At the time of the complaint, Mrs Thind owned two pharmacies, one at 132 High Street, Braintree, Essex, the other at 102–104 Lacey Street, Ipswich. A complaint had been received from the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society alleging that on a total of 44 dates in the first four months of 2000 she had allowed the Braintree pharmacy to remain open without a pharmacist in charge during some or all of the normal working hours. It was also alleged that on those occasions, prescriptions were dispensed without the supervision of a pharmacist. For example, on 19 January 2000, a prescription for diclofenac retard 100mg capsules was dispensed for a named patient and on 8 March 2000 a prescription for erythromycin 250mg tablets was dispensed for another named patient.

Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors) attended the hearings on behalf of the Society to present the facts of the case.

Lord Kingsland, QC, of counsel, instructed by Charles Russell (solicitors), appeared on behalf of Mrs Thind. Mrs Thind was present at the hearings.

During the May 2002 hearings the committee was told that an assistant at the pharmacy had contacted the Society in September 2000 to express concerns that she had been left in charge of the premises while no pharmacist had been present. The assistant, who had a degree in biochemistry but was not a pharmacist, had been employed by Mrs Thind since 1997, at first working on a research project called "health measures" but increasingly involved in the pharmacy. She told the committee that she had been expected to be in charge while Mrs Thind was away from the pharmacy for short periods. She had been given no instructions to stop dispensing or stop selling pharmacy-only medicines in Mrs Thind's absence. In 2000, the absences from the pharmacy had become more extended.

The assistant left Mrs Thind's employ in September 2000 in circumstances said to have been less than wholly amicable, and telephoned the Society. She had provided a list of occasions on which she had been left in charge of the premises between January and April 2000.

Giving the committee's decision at a resumed hearing on 20 November 2002, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that while the assistant's credibility had been attacked, it was clear that there had been whole days and mornings when she had dispensed and sold pharmacy-only medicines without a pharmacist being present. The committee believed she had been telling the truth.

Another assistant had provided strong corroborating evidence, adding that she had had no instruction from Mrs Thind regarding what she could or could not do. She had believed the other assistant to be a pharmacist as, when she was present, no other pharmacist would be in the pharmacy unless Mrs Thind called in before going on to the Ipswich pharmacy.

The chairman said the committee was "singularly unimpressed" that Mrs Thind had sought to persuade that assistant to change her evidence. Her own evidence had been difficult to follow and she had failed to answer more than one question put to her.

While making no findings in relation to the two specific examples of unsupervised dispensing, the committee concluded that repeatedly during January, February, March and April 2000, Mrs Thind had allowed the Braintree pharmacy to remain open without a pharmacist in charge. That amounted to misconduct such as to render her unfit to be on the register. Before the committee decided whether to make a direction for removal, the chairman asked whether anything was known that might affect that decision.

It was reported that Mrs Thind had been reprimanded by the committee in July 1999 for allowing the Ipswich premises to operate as a pharmacy while not properly registered and for allowing the sale of pharmacy-only medicines while no pharmacist was present (PJ, 8 January 2000, p53).

On Mrs Thind's behalf, the committee was told the incidents complained of had taken place during a time of great personal stress and that no complaint had been made by any patient.

The committee ruled that Mrs Thind's departure from the standards required by the law and insisted upon by the Society, and against the background of the previous reprimand, was such that she should be removed from the register.

Mrs Thind has appealed against the committee's decision.

Committee refuses forger's application for restoration

An application for restoration to the register by a former pharmacist who had tried to mislead the Royal Pharmaceutical Society with a forged a certificate of professional indemnity has been refused by the Statutory Committee.

At its meeting on 20 November 2002, the committee heard the application of Chhaganbhai D. N. Mistry, of 17 South End Road, London NW3. Mr Mistry's name had been ordered to be removed on 20 May 1999. An appeal against the decision had been dismissed on 1 March 2000 and the removal had taken effect on 2 March 2000.

Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors), appeared in order to present the facts of the case to the committee. Mr Mistry represented himself at the hearing.

The committee heard that at the original hearing, Mr Mistry had faced two complaints. The first related to the supply of incorrect and incorrectly labelled medicines. The second matter, regarded more seriously, was that he had sent to the Society what purported to be a certificate of professional indemnity which was a forgery. The first count was judged to have merited a reprimand but the finding of forgery led to the striking-off order. The chairman of the committee at the time (Gary Flather, QC) had said "We make a note for the future that this misconduct shows a disrespectful and even contemptible attitude to the supervising powers of the Society".

Giving the committee's decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie) said that his predecessor had said at the conclusion of the 1999 meeting that Mr Mistry had "reluctantly and somewhat ambivalently" admitted that what he had done was dishonest and had been done with intent to deceive the Society.

On appeal, the divisional court had not interfered with the committee's decision. The appeal judge had said that the committee "having had the benefit of hearing Mr Mistry give evidence and be cross-examined they are entitled to reject his explanation that he had behaved throughout perfectly innocently".

Lord Fraser, continuing, said that it seemed that what Mr Mistry was seeking to do at the present hearing was to invite the committee to revisit the factual basis on which it had reached its "stern conclusion" in May 1999. Nothing in his demeanour or in what he had said revealed a real change of heart or any shift in his attitude towards the statutory role of the Society or the statutory function of the committee.

The committee refused the application for restoration. If Mr Mistry at some stage wished to renew his application for restoration, said the chairman, the committee would expect, at the least, evidence that he understood what he had done, what led to his removal and some genuine regret for what he had done, without seeking to blame others for his misfortune.

Reprimand for pharmacist who neglected CD register

A London pharmacist who neglected to make entries in his Controlled Drugs register for 13 months has been reprimanded by the Statutory Committee.

At its meeting on 20 November 2002, the committee considered the case of Rajnikant J. Patel, of Rains Chemist, 2 Staplehurst Road, Hither Green, London. Information had been received that on 13 July 2001 Mr Patel had pleaded guilty to and been convicted of six charges of offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 relating to the supply on prescription of Controlled Drugs when no dose was specified; and failing to record the receipt and supply of CDs; a further 205 offences were taken into consideration. He had been fined a total of £1,050.

Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors) presented the facts of the case to the committee.

David Reissner, of Charles Russell (solicitors), appeared on behalf of Mr Patel, who was present at the inquiry.

The committee heard that the offences had come to light when a police drugs inspector had made a routine visit to Mr Patel's pharmacy on 14 May 2001 to examine the CD registers. Mr Patel had said they were at his home and was asked to produce them the following day, when the officer returned. Mr Patel handed him the registers, along with 74 NHS prescriptions, 17 private prescriptions and 46 invoices from a wholesaler, all relating to the obtaining or supply of CDs. Mr Patel said that none of those had been entered. When the officer examined the registers, he formed the opinion that a number of entries in the morphine, pethidine and amphetamine sections had been made at the same time. Mr Patel admitted that he had written a total of 38 entries overnight. Further examination revealed that no entries had been made in any of the registers since the previous March 2000.

It was said that the prescriptions dispensed with no dose specified were for a single patient, whose medication was administered by a nurse for the relief of pain. However, the prescriptions had stated "as directed", which did not satisfy the regulations.

The hearing was told that Mr Patel was the sole pharmacist in his business and that he also helped his wife manage the newsagent's shop she ran in adjoining premises. He had also been under stress because of the illness of his parents.

References were presented on Mr Patel's behalf.

Giving the committee's decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that Mr Patel had not attempted to excuse his failures in respect of record keeping or dispensing. In the case of the prescriptions, he had not been careless or indifferent to the patient's needs. He considered that what he was supplying was in accordance with the prescriber's necessarily flexible regime for that patient. It was clear that Mr Patel had now taken steps to ensure that any prescription he dispensed would meet the statutory requirements.

The failure to make records in the CD registers, said Lord Fraser, was harder to understand. Mr Patel knew that his registers would be inspected by the police from time to time. Oddly, he had kept all the prescriptions with the registers. Furthermore, it appeared he had entered accurately into is computerised patient medication records all that he had dispensed and had never submitted the prescriptions for payment.

He had explained that during the relevant periods his parents had been seriously ill and that was why he had failed to keep the register up to date for some 13 months. As an experienced pharmacist, Mr Patel knew, or should have known, that he was bound to record on the day in question, or the next day, any transaction which required to be entered in the CD register. His failure to do so was a matter that made it an option for the committee to direct that Mr Patel's name should be struck off.

However, he had been fined for the offences, he had received no financial advantage, there had been a marked improvement in the way he had kept the register since his conviction, and he had had a full set of references. There was no concern that there was likely to be a repetition of the conduct.

The committee advised Mr Patel to ensure that he understood that his priorities as a pharmacist took precedence over everything else, and certainly over any other business in which he had an interest. It seemed, said the chairman, he had been in danger of finding himself "too busy to make a proper assessment of his priorities".

The committee ordered Mr Patel to be reprimanded.

No restoration after theft, fraud and driving offences

A pharmacist whose name was removed from the register for non-payment of fees after he had been convicted of driving under the influence of drugs, theft and fraud will not have his name restored, the Statutory Committee has ruled.

At its meeting on 21 November 2002, the committee inquired into the case of Anthony P. Farrell, of 250 Grimshaw Lane, Middleton, Manchester. Information had been received that on 20 April 2001, at Bury magistrates' court, Mr Farrell had been convicted of driving while unfit though drugs, for which offence he had been disqualified and received a community service order for 100 hours and ordered to pay costs of £69.

In addition, at Tain sheriff court, on 15 July 2002, Mr Farrell had been convicted of three offences: stealing £42 from the Co-op Pharmacy, 96 High Street, Alness, Ross and Cromarty; obtaining from an hotel alcohol on credit without paying and intending not to pay; and obtaining from another hotel board and lodging to the value of £48.10 without paying or intending to pay. For each offence, he had been fined £200.

Further, a complaint from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society alleged that between November 2000 and January 2001, while working as a locum pharmacist in Altrincham, his conduct and appearance had deteriorated and his behaviour became erratic. He was sent home on 19 January; his car was stopped by the police on the journey and the driving conviction resulted.

On another occasion, while working as a locum at the Alness pharmacy on 30 January 2002, Mr Farrell's behaviour was erratic and he had been advised to return to his hotel.

Then, between 4 and 6 March 2002, when he was employed at a pharmacy at Mytholmroyd, West Yorkshire, his appearance had been extremely untidy and his behaviour had become increasingly erratic, culminating in his dismissal on 6 March.

The Society alleged that such behaviour amounted to misconduct that would render Mr Farrell unfit to be on the register.

Mr Farrell's name was removed from the register for non-payment of his retention fee on May 13, 2002; the matters under inquiry occurred while he was still registered.

Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors) presented the facts of the case to the committee.

Mr Farrell had indicated that he would not attend the hearing, nor would he be represented; the committee proceeded with the hearing in his absence.

Evidence was heard from witnesses including police officers, pharmacists and staff of the pharmacies at which the behaviour complained of had occurred.

Giving the committee's decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that the convictions for theft and fraud alone, which were proved, were sufficient to render Mr Farrell unfit to have his name on the register. But there were further allegations relating to his employment as a locum pharmacist at three separate pharmacies. It would appear that he had been under the influence of drink or drugs, or both. The committee found that the misconduct in each of the pharmacies had been proved. That information alone would also have been sufficient for the committee to decide that he should not be on the register, or restored to it.

Taking both the convictions and the misconduct together, it was decided that Mr Farrell's name should not be restored to the register until the committee directed otherwise.

He had three months in which to appeal.