Statutory Committee

Convicted drug dealer not allowed back on Register more

Former pharmacist denied restoration to the Register, for second time in less than 10 years more

Convicted drug dealer not allowed back on Register

A former pharmacist with convictions for unlawful dealings in Controlled Drugs and driving offences has been refused restoration to the Register of Pharmaceutical Chemists by the Statutory Committee.

On 26 and 27 April, the Statutory Committee inquired into the case of Michael Turner (former registration number 67819), of Selby, North Yorkshire, who was seeking restoration to the Register after having had his name removed in 2003 for non-payment of fees.

The committee had received information that on 17 January 2003 at Selby Magistrates’ Court, Mr Turner had pleaded guilty to and been convicted of driving a motor car without due care and attention, failing to stop after an accident and failing to report an accident, contrary to the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, for which he was fined a total of £600, ordered to pay Crown Prosecution Service costs of £45 and had his driving licence endorsed.

The committee received further information that on 16 July 2004, Mr Turner had pleaded guilty to and been convicted of two counts of supplying a Class A Controlled Drug (methadone), three counts of supplying a Class C Controlled Drug (diazepam), and one count of possessing a Class B Controlled Drug (amphetamine) with intent to supply, all in circumstances that contravened provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. He had been sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, given a suspended sentence supervision order for 12 months and ordered to pay costs of £2,000.

The committee had also received a complaint from the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society alleging that misconduct such as to render Mr Turner unfit to have his name restored to the Register of Pharmaceutical Chemists may have been demonstrated by:

His unlawful possession of Controlled Drugs found during a search of his home
Having at his home large quantities of prescription-only medicines
Failing to make records in the CD register of methadone purchases and supplies
Failing to make records in the CD register of amphetamine purchases and supplies
Unlawful supplies of methadone and/or diazepam to a man referred to as “CB”
Providing false information to police officers on 15 January 2003
Providing false information to police officers at interview on 6 September 2003

The committee heard that, during a search of Mr Turner’s home on 6 September 2003, the police had found the following Controlled Drugs — 8,157 diazepam 2mg tablets, 17,609 diazepam 5mg tablets, 5,508 diazepam 10mg tablets and 634 co-proxamol tablets. The following prescription-only medicines were also found on the premises — 1,227 omeprazole 20mg capsules, 14 Losec 20mg capsules, 30 ranitidine 300mg tablets and 306 fluoxetine capsules.

On 8 September 2003, during the course of a visit to the pharmacy that Mr Turner then owned, a Society inspector found CD register entries for the purchase of quantities of methadone 5mg tablets and amphetamine tablets that had not subsequently been recorded as supplied but were no longer on the premises.

The committee also heard that between 1 August 2002 and 31 August 2003 Mr Turner unlawfully supplied unknown quantities of methadone and/or diazepam to “CB”.

During a police interview on 20 November 2003, Mr Turner accepted that “pharmaceutical drugs” had been found at his home, explaining that they may have been moved there among items he had taken home immediately before the sale of the pharmacy on 1 September 2003. They had not been for his personal use and were not intended to be supplied to others.

When asked about the supplies of diazepam and methadone to “CB”, he told the police interviewer that over 12–18 months he had supplied “CB” with diazepam 10mg tablets and methadone powder in quantities that were more than “CB” could have taken himself. He also described how “CB” had blackmailed him. This admission was contrary to what he had told police officers on 15 January 2003, Mr Turner also admitted to having made supplies of various CDs and POMs to a number of people in Selby without the authority of a prescription. At an earlier interview on 6 September 2003 he had falsely denied making such supplies.

Giving the committee’s determination, the chairman of the committee, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC, said that Mr Turner had had a number of convictions and had also conducted himself in a way that fell far short of the standards of a pharmacist. Mr Turner had been lucky to receive only a two-year suspended sentence for his Controlled Drug offences. It was clear that he had been supplying Class A drugs not just to a drug user but to someone whom he recognised as being a drug dealer. The committee was amazed that he had not been jailed for an extended period.

“ We order that his name should not be restored to the Register, … notwithstanding his original removal from the Register was only for non-payment of his dues rather than any misconduct. We cannot envisage the circumstances in which it might be proper for Mr Turner to be restored to the Register.”

Former pharmacist denied restoration to the Register, for second time in less than 10 years

A disgraced former pharmacist has been told for the second time that he cannot have his name restored to the Register of Pharmaceutical Chemist.

At its meeting on 25 April, the Statutory Committee considered an application for restoration from Michael John Wallace Haynes (former registration number 62305). Mr Haynes, who now lives in Spain, was struck off in 2000 after having sold 39,200 Valoid (cyclizine) tablets to one customer over a six-month period from a pharmacy he had run in St Helier, Jersey (PJ, 2 September 2000, p326). He had previously been removed from the Register on the order of the committee in 1988 and restored in 1998.

Giving the committee’s determination, the chairman, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC, said: “Notwithstanding that this is a second application for restoration since Mr Haynes was removed from the Register by the Statutory Committee, we cannot conclude that Mr Haynes should be restored. When we first considered the complaint against him, … his misconduct was described as ‘very, very serious’.

“When he was restored in February 1998, after the approval of the Privy Council, we noticed that after the last time he made application for restoration, in just over a year he had embarked on a course of action which led to the second and current removal from the Register.

“It is factually correct that nearly six years have passed since he was removed. Nevertheless, we have grave doubts whether there would be public confidence in the profession if he were to be restored now. From 1998 until today’s date he has only practised for something like two and-a-half years. We have some sympathy with the fact that he has had difficulty in getting on the right courses. We appreciate that is not easy. Nevertheless, he did not demonstrate today any real professional knowledge as a pharmacist, and for all those reasons we refuse the application for restoration.”