A journalist has gone on trial for forging pharmaceutical prescriptions after she handed over the medication she obtained to gardaí and told them she did it as research for a newspaper article.
Naomi McElroy (27), Grove Park Drive, Glasnevin, Dublin, a Sunday Mirror journalist, has pleaded not guilty to five charges of forging prescriptions and five of presenting them to north Dublin pharmacies on July 29th, 2004.
Dominic McGinn BL, prosecuting, told the jury at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court that it would be the prosecution's case that Ms McElroy had ordered 10 prescription pads over the phone from a printing company and had asked that one pad be ready as soon as possible.
She then used these to forge prescriptions to get various types of drugs from five pharmacies.
Anne O'Rourke, manager of Doctor on Duty, an out-of-hours on-call medical service, said the forms used in the forgeries were the same as those normally used by its employees for writing letters of referral or sick notes, but added that they were often used for prescriptions when it had run out of the usual prescription forms that were smaller in size.
Siobhán O'Reilly, from the Print Bureau, Ranelagh, said she placed an order in the name of Ms McElroy for 10 prescription pads with the Doctor on Duty letterhead after receiving a fax from the accused. One pad was collected the next day and the entire order was paid for in cash. The remaining nine pads were later delivered to the offices of Doctor on Duty.
Pharmacists from the five shops who handed over the drugs to Ms McElroy outlined the method used to detect forged prescriptions and acknowledged that the methods used were not foolproof and they would like to see the system improved.
Louise McCormack, a pharmacist in Boots in Jervis Shopping Centre at the time, told Mr McGinn she received a prescription from Ms McElroy for a week's supply of anti-anxiety drugs and a month's supply of antidepressant drugs.
She said the prescription was filled out on Doctor on Duty paper with Ms McElroy's name and was signed and dated. The correct terminology was used and it was a well written prescription.
She accepted that Ms McElroy's prescription did not include her address and said that although pharmacists usually looked for the patient's address it was quite common that doctors would leave this out. She asked for Ms McElroy's address and found from their system that the accused had given that address when she was prescribed medication a few months previously.
Ms McCormack said she would always take into account the clinical aspects of the drugs prescribed, the quantity and the type of the medication. She would also note the patient's demeanour to see if there were signs of agitation or nervousness.
She told Mr McGinn if she was suspicious about the authenticity of the prescription she would contact the doctor who allegedly prescribed it. If the doctor was not available she would keep the prescription and tell the patient she believed it was not genuine.
Ms McCormack said she had no cause for concern with the prescription presented by Ms McElroy.
Ms McCormack agreed with Paul Burns SC (with Luan Ó Braonáin BL), defending, that she was familiar with the Doctor on Duty forms but had not noticed that Ms McElroy's prescription was on larger paper than usual.
Ms McCormack, along with the other four pharmacists, agreed in cross-examination by Mr Burns that the system used to detect forgeries was not foolproof and there was room for improvement.
The trial continues before Judge Desmond Hogan and a jury of seven men and five women.