Full Breakdown
Sentencing of Bay of Plenty Ambulance Operators for Deception in Controlled Drug Use
3/23/2026, 8:43:50 PM
Overview of the Case
Rebecca Couchman and Craig Lohgan, private ambulance operators in Bay of Plenty, were sentenced for their involvement in a scheme that involved deception regarding the use and access to controlled drugs, specifically morphine and fentanyl. The investigation was initiated after a locum pharmacist alerted Medsafe about suspicious quantities of controlled drugs being prescribed. An audit revealed that the pair had altered patient report forms to misrepresent their use of these narcotics.
Key Findings from the Trial
The trial centered on the defendants' intentions when they modified patient report forms, which included falsifying treatment details and changing dates to fit within the audit period. Couchman and Lohgan claimed that their actions were part of training exercises, asserting that they had injected fruits with morphine and fentanyl. They denied any wrongdoing regarding the unauthorized ordering of controlled drugs and contended that forged qualifications displayed in their office were merely a “vision board.”
The Crown prosecutor, Daniel Coulson, described the situation as “deception upon deception,” emphasizing that the defendants’ actions were deceitful and that any negligence on the part of the medical directors should not mitigate their culpability. The jury ultimately found them guilty on multiple charges, including administering controlled drugs without proper authorization.
Sentencing Details
Judge David Cameron sentenced Couchman to 30 months in prison and Lohgan to 36 months. The sentences were adjusted based on various factors, including the defendants' health conditions and their roles as caregivers to five special needs children. The judge acknowledged the potential devastating impact of their imprisonment on the children but ultimately deemed the severity of their offenses warranted significant prison time.
Couchman received a 10-month home detention sentence, while Lohgan was sentenced to 12 months of home detention, reflecting the court's consideration of their family circumstances and health issues.
Criticism of Medical Oversight
During the trial, the role of the medical directors came under scrutiny. Several GPs who had signed off on the standing orders for the defendants failed to verify their qualifications, leading to claims of negligence. However, the Crown argued that this should not excuse the defendants' actions, likening it to a bank robber blaming a security guard for inadequate protection.
Official Statements
Crown prosecutors maintained that the defendants’ deceitful actions were the primary cause of any negligence by the medical directors. They argued that the defendants should not receive leniency based on the failures of others. Judge Cameron, while acknowledging the family dynamics, emphasized the need for accountability and the seriousness of the offenses committed.
Conclusion
The case highlights significant issues regarding the oversight of medical practices and the responsibilities of healthcare providers in ensuring the proper administration of controlled substances. The sentences reflect the court's commitment to addressing these issues while considering the broader implications for the defendants' family. The situation underscores the critical need for stringent checks and balances in the healthcare system to prevent similar incidents in the future.
