Striking-off for theft of medicines worth £26,000
A locum pharmacist who stole medicines worth £26,000 from branches
of Superdrug, and then sold them on to a proprietor pharmacist acquaintance,
has been removed from the Register of Pharmaceutical Chemists on the
order of the Statutory Committee.
On 14 December 2004 the committee inquired into the case of James Robert
Cranston Tugby, whose registered address was Eastview, 1 Western Drive,
Claybrook Parva, Leicester. On 1 July 2003, at Chester Crown Court, Mr
Tugby had pleaded guilty to and been convicted of conspiracy to steal,
for which he had been sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment and
subjected to a confiscation order in the sum of £26,195.18 to be
paid within 56 days. The pharmacist to whom Mr Tugby had supplied the
drugs, Amin-Ur Rashid (see report below), was his alleged co-conspirator
at the trial, but the case against Mr Rashid was withdrawn and a “not
guilty” verdict entered.
College friend
David Bradly, for the Society, told the committee that from March 1998
to December 2002 Mr Tugby worked a total of 512 days for Superdrug,
receiving in total just over £112,000 by way of fees and expenses
over that three-year period. However, in addition to carrying out his
duties as a locum pharmacist, he was also stealing medicines from the
pharmacies and selling them on to Mr Rashid, a friend from their college
days, for use in Mr Rashid’s own pharmacy in Chickenley, Dewsbury,
West Yorkshire. The precise value of the medicines concerned was not
known, but Mr Rashid had paid Mr Tugby a total of about £26,000.
Interviewed by the police, Mr Tugby had explained that valuable amounts
of in-date medicines were returned by patients for destruction, and he
had proposed to Mr Rashid that he should supply such medicines cheaply.
He said that Mr Rashid, although knowing from the outset that the medicines
were patient returns, had never been aware that they were stolen.
From systematically stealing patient returns, Mr Tugby went on to steal
new dispensary stock. Sometimes he swapped patient returns for newer
unused stock of the same product. Sometimes expensive patient returns
went back onto the dispensary shelves and he took other products of similar
value.
At interview, Mr Tugby explained that Mr Rashid made lists of medicines
he was interested in and Mr Tugby looked out for items from the lists
while carrying out locums. Mr Rashid placed his orders by text message
or phone call.
This state of affairs continued until December 2002 when the regular
pharmacist in a Superdrug branch noticed that stock worth about £500
had apparently gone missing while Mr Tugby was standing in for her on
the previous day. When Mr Tugby next worked for Superdrug, later that
month, he was searched and significant amounts of medicine were found.
Superdrug put the matter in the hands of the police, who in due course
searched Mr Tugby’s house and car, finding a total of 85 medicines
and a list of 632 medicines wanted by Mr Rashid.
Mr Tugby told the committee that he did not spend any of the money from
the thefts. His only concern was to ensure that his mother was “financially
OK” after the death of his father in 1998.
He went on: “I am extremely ashamed and sorry for having to come
before you and the shame I have caused to my profession and Superdrug.
It was a gross breach of trust. It repulses me to think what I have done.
I have let my family down badly.”
After his release he worked 12 hours a day seven days a week as a pharmacist
to pay £30,000 compensation. He also paid a further £26,000
to Superdrug to cover the company’s losses and prevent a civil
case.
Mr Tugby claimed that he became depressed and thought about killing himself
after his father’s death. He had been taking a high dose of antidepressant. Breach of trust
Giving the committee’s determination, the chairman, Lord Fraser
of Carmyllie, QC, said that Mr Tugby was remorseful and ashamed of the
manner in which he had let down his profession. But, like the trial judge,
the committee was bound to take a serious view of his breach of trust
and had no option but to direct the removal of his name from the Register.
He added: “We are concerned that Mr Tugby now has serious medical
problems and should be pursuing whatever assistance and support is available
to him. In our view, he should be concentrating on this and should he
seek restoration to the Register in due course, the Committee would obviously
want to be confident that these problems that at present afflict him
are behind him.”
Mr Tugby had three months in which to appeal against the decision. His
name was removed from the register on 16 March.
Back to Top
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal