Pharmacist struck off for attempting to steal £540 worth of prescription drugs

Another bad apple shaming the membership. Why do they do it! I hope the GPhC does a complete job now and follows this investigation up with the bad apple doctor brother too via the GMC and not take the usual attitude of 'musn't upset doctor'. The GMC should then prosecute that brother for those 'private scripts' he provided as that was clearly aimed at perverting the course of justice. I doubt it though as the GMC is far too lax in policing its own membership and the GPhC won't have the guts.

This is one side of the story....until both sides are seen or heard then i think it is unfair to comment or make strong statements. I have known the pharmacist in concern for many years and i have seen documentation and his statements-and they differ from the version of events above. CCTV evidence which the police used to CLEAR him after their investigations was NOT submitted to the commitee by Tesco. As it was a civil case-therefore this was not a requirement for Tesco to do so.....why not? Also, again due to the civil case-the committee need to be 51% sure in terms of probability that there was dishonesty here and the onus is on the pharmacist to disprove this......which seems unfair. For criminal cases-it is more like 90% and the jury need to be very certain the decision is correct.

The case hearing was only confirmed as going ahead-a couple of weeks prior to the case as initially the GPhC had requested to delay the hearing-therefore the brother who was the key witness was not able to cancel the surgical list and attend. His statement was not given any weight at all seemingly as were other mitigating factors. Essentially it came down to his word against the Tesco witnesses-despite police clearing him based on the statements and CCTV evidence!

He admits being lazy and careless-in terms of not labelling the prescriptions and completing the Register entries, but certainly not dishonest!

I think surely the sanctions of the GPhC need to be throughly re-examined. There are cases whereby there is clear evidence and indeed admissions of guilt..........and the punishments given out will be a few months suspension or a warning issued. In other cases, such as this-the punishment issued is an erasure from the register.....5 years minimum off the register without appeal. The only way to appeal is via the High Court in London......which i believe Mr Ullah is instigating to appeal the decision and to clear his name. The GMC have been involved and looked at the situation and CLEARED his brother of any wrongdoing. Again, this is an example the GPhC should be following. Members are backed until they are proven guilty, Unfortunately, with our profession, we are not backed whatsoever and left to prove our innocence when a case is brought against us, instead of the guilt being proven!

Many pharmacists send unlabelled boxes to care homes, GP surgeries, vet clinics etc, and then the requisition or private script shows up with a cheque in the post Weeks later. What is the difference between this and what Mr Ullah did? It is very easy to get hold of a private script for almost anything. GPhC has got this totally wrong. It seems only the PDA has any really concern for pharmacists and pharmacy.

I agree with Caroline.

Khalil If you truly believe him to be innocent and believe he has done nothing wrong, what is stopping you and the rest of us just strolling out of the pharmacy with a bag full of POMs "for the family?"

Rik, i agree with you totally. I am certainly not condoning his actions and were totally wrong. I was just concerned that based on him being found dishonest, which only he knows is true or false-then the punishment is erasure from the records. Now if this was the wrong ruling then the pharmacist would have been struck off and injustice carried out. Based on the probability ruling used for the rulings....even the panel being 51% sure would lead to the decision being made unlike in common law where a much higher percentage is needed. I feel the system is perhaps unfair and certainly looking at past verdicts....inconsistent too! Many cases have seen pharmacists admit to their errors/activities with Controlled drugs and so on-yet the punishment was a warning or a few months suspension!