Vora Snehlata Jayantilal 2017737 19-02-2013.pdf - General ...

13only telling Betsy that she could not afford it, because she said she is not rich to pay themoney, she did not have enough money on her. She said she has not got any money in thepocket". We do not believe that, in the context of the exchange on 14 July, Miss Vorawould have been taking the time to provide an explanation to Betsy Valand in the presenceof Mrs McKenzie or that the latter misunderstood. Why would Mrs McKenzie make thepoint, (as we accept she did) to Miss Vora that these were separate matters, and also makethe point that Miss Vora's attitude left Mrs R with no option but to make a complaint to theGeneral Pharmaceutical Council. We consider it most unlikely that this would haveoccurred if Miss Vora had provided any explanation to contradict the assertion that she hadwrongly retained dispensed medication.Another aspect of Miss Vora's evidence that was troubling was her assertion made, that on13 July she had shouted, as Mrs R went out of the door, "I have put everything in yourbag". Miss Vora also said that Mrs R asked her from the door "'Have I got everything?', andI said 'Yes you have', just loud enough so she could hear her.” This evidence, given on anumber of occasions, had every appearance of being an afterthought.Miss Vora's evidence was also confused concerning her denial that she had acknowledgedto Mrs R on 14 July that it was wrong to retain medication. She said - and this is at page108 of the transcript: "I did not know it was illegal", and said this had never even crossedher mind. But shortly afterwards at page 109 she said, "I asked her if I could retain it. Iasked her permission because we are not allowed to keep medication when it is authorisedofficially by the doctors".Having considered all of the evidence in the round, we accept the evidence of Mrs R andMrs McKenzie. We do not believe Miss Vora's account in relation to the disputed issues.We simply do not credit that Mrs R has or had any reason or motive to complain aboutMiss Vora unless she was confident about what had happened, and unless events shedescribes had occurred. We considered, but rejected as highly improbable, the faintsuggestion made that Mrs R had been given the inhaler but did not know that she had it inher possession. We do not consider it necessary to make a finding as to how manycompacts were damaged. It is clear on the evidence that some compacts were given to MrsR and that she took them away. Whether it was two (as per Mrs R's evidence) or five (asper Miss Vora's evidence) really matters not. Whether Miss Riley was or was not shownone or more compacts is not in our view a factor that casts any significant doubt upon thecredibility and/or reliability of Mrs R's core account.We accept that on 13 July Miss Vora's attitude was that the item was to be withheldpending the payment of a further £2.99. We find that Miss Vora took out one browninhaler from the bag because of the dispute about the amount of damages to be paid. Wefind that she acknowledged the very next day that she knew that this was wrong, but sherefused to return the item.We now turn to consider the evidence in more detail in respect of the allegation that MissVora said to Mrs R and Mrs McKenzie "Get out of my shop, you bitches". MrsMcKenzie's evidence was that she heard Miss Vora say words to this effect. She said that