Hannah Belema Thom-Manuel, registration number 7651, was issued a three-month suspension by the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland (PSNI) after she was found to have stolen from her former employer.
In a hearing on August 15, the PSNI’s fitness-to-practise (FtP) committee heard that Thom-Manuel was convicted of theft at a Northern Ireland magistrates’ court in June 2024 and received “concurrent custodial sentences of three months suspended for a period of one year”.
Read more: NI pharmacist warned by regulator ‘prudent’ to close pharmacy
According to the hearing document, she pleaded guilty to stealing cash and toiletries amounting to around £55 from her former employer in July 2023 while on pharmacy premises.
It said that on July 27 2023, pharmacist Thom-Manuel stole cash “to the value of £20 or thereabouts”, as well as toiletries worth around £17.78.
The following day, she stole a further “£17.98 or thereabouts” in toiletries, it added.
Read more: Pharmacist warned for dispensing generics amid ‘lack of supply’
The regulator acknowledged that Thom-Manuel was “25 years old and in the early stages of her career” working “in a different country away from her home” and her “support mechanism” when the offences took place and was “otherwise of good character”.
But it stressed that she had “stolen from her employer while in their employment” and the actions “amounted to an abuse of trust”.
“Significant workplace difficulties”
The PSNI said that Thom-Manuel’s convictions could be considered “low-level offending” due to the “sum of cash and the value of the items” and recognised that the thefts involved money and toiletries rather than medicines.
The committee found that documentary evidence “clearly illustrated significant workplace difficulties” faced by her, including “apparent withholding of her pension contributions, not paying travel expenses, lone working and challenges with getting annual leave approved”.
It also acknowledged text messages to Thom-Manuel from her former employer that suggested she was “subject to manipulative behaviours”, such as “being told that if she didn’t do certain things then the Home Office or the PSNI would be contacted”.
Read more: Pharmacist suspended for ‘repurposing’ returned medicines
The regulator added that her actions “were not very sophisticated” and are “at the lower end” of the “spectrum of dishonest conduct”.
It said that while multiple thefts took place over two days, the “dishonesty did not persist for a protracted period” and this was “evidenced by the return of the items and cash as well her admissions and apologies”.
Read more: Pharmacist suspended for hugging colleagues ‘without permission’
The regulator also recognised that Thom-Manuel’s initial apologies “referenced the former employer treating [her] badly on a daily basis” and stated that her actions “were not those of a thief but someone overwhelmed by circumstances”.
But it “specifically noted that unlike parts of the documentary evidence, in her oral evidence [she] was unequivocal about the wrongness of her actions and the need for her to be accountable for them”, making no “attempt to justify her actions”.
“An angry response”
However, the committee also heard that Thom-Manuel’s actions “could not be described as a minor breach of the relevant standards”.
The PSNI said that her convictions for theft were “serious matters” and that there was an “element of concealment” around the offences.
It added that her actions “involved a degree of planning or forethought” and seemed to be “an angry response to her perception of mistreatment by her employer”.
Read more: Tech struck off for ‘attempted sexual communications’ with child
The regulator also stressed that convictions like Thom-Manuel’s impact “the reputation of the profession” and can “damage public confidence”.
The PSNI determined that a suspension was “appropriate” as it would highlight that Thom-Manuel’s actions are “unacceptable and unbefitting of a member of the pharmacy profession”.
It concluded that a three-month suspension would “adequately mark the seriousness” of her offences, but that any longer would be “disproportionately hard” on her.
Read the determination in full here.
