General Pharmaceutical Council determination — substantive hearing

GPhC imposed five-month suspension on Mahmoud Muhiyye; dishonesty allegations rejected

The committee found pharmacy practice failings but rejected all dishonesty allegations. It recognised remediation and no current patient risk, imposing suspension on public-interest grounds without a review.

MedicWatch editorial · Published 27 June 2024 · Updated 22 September 2026

Suspension (suspended from practice) — 5 months

Data last checked: 22 September 2026Report a correction

What does “suspended from practice” mean?

The regulator imposed a fixed-term suspension in this decision. Its start date, appeal provisions and any later review affect whether it is currently in force. Check the official register for the practitioner's current status.

Concerning Mahmoud Muhiyye, pharmacist (General Pharmaceutical Council 2211528).

Decision date: 27 June 2024 · Hearing started 13 May 2024 and ended 27 June 2024

This sanction period has elapsed.

In plain English

The GPhC committee suspended Mahmoud Muhiyye for five months in June 2024 for pharmacy supervision, confidentiality and controlled-drug failings. It rejected all dishonesty allegations. The committee recognised genuine insight and remediation, found a low risk of repetition and no current risk to patients, but imposed suspension to uphold professional standards and public confidence. It did not require a review before the suspension ended.

Charges

The allegations concerned pharmacy supervision, confidential information on private devices, controlled-drug safeguards, staffing, records and payment claims during 2018–2019. The committee rejected the allegations of dishonest conduct and fraudulent medicine-use reviews.

Findings

The committee found misconduct in inadequate medicines supervision, confidentiality breaches, controlled-drug safeguards and instructions to inexperienced staff. It rejected all dishonesty allegations and found that an erroneous payment claim and failures to record short absences did not amount to misconduct. It recognised genuine insight, remediation and a low risk of repetition, finding impairment on public-interest grounds. It imposed five months' suspension without review and found no current risk to patients. The decision states that it takes effect on 26 July 2024.

Mitigating factors

a. The Registrant had taken immediate action by removing himself from all roles at the Pharmacy, once concerns had been raised with him. b. The events complained of had taken place 5 years ago. c. There was no evidence of harm to patients. d. There were no previous findings but the Committee balanced this with the fact that the Registrant had been at an early stage of his career at the material time. e. The Registrant had accepted his failings. f. He had taken significant steps to remediate and address the concerns, undertaking relevant CPD courses and providing comprehensive reflections. g. The Registrant had shown genuine insight, expressed remorse and regret. h. He had co-operated with the regulator and engaged fully with these proceedings. i. Excellent testimonials had been provided, some of which were from colleagues including pharmacy professionals who had worked with him since these events had taken place.

Aggravating factors

a. The misconduct had taken place over a number of months. b. The breaches were serious and wide-ranging, demonstrating multiple examples of poor pharmacy practises. c. In relation to allowing prescription only/pharmacy medication to be supplied to patients where there was no pharmacist on the premises, the breaches had been repeated many times over a period of just under 3 months. d. A number of the breaches had involved Controlled Drugs. e. The private personal and medication data of numerous patients had been stored on the personal device of a staff member for a number of months, including after that staff member had left the Pharmacy.

Source

All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published General Pharmaceutical Council determination linked below. MedicWatch does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.

Spot something incorrect?

If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.