• William McPhail’s 46-year nursing career ended after a finding of professional misconduct. 
• The tribunal determined he engaged in sexual intimacy with a patient, despite his denials. 
• McPhail was censured, had his registration cancelled, and was ordered to pay $70,000 in costs. 

A mental health nurse’s almost half-century career ended when he was found to have been sexually intimate with a patient in his care. 

William McPhail, who had 46 years of experience in mental health and psychiatric nursing, had his registration cancelled after a charge of professional misconduct was found against him by the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal. 

But McPhail denied any physical contact with the patient, instead claiming the patient’s mental health diagnoses meant she was “prone to fabrication”. 

Speaking to NZME, he said he still denied what was said to have occurred. 

“I gave truthful evidence on this matter to the tribunal,” he said. 

“I never have and I never will agree with the patient’s account, however, I have no option but to accept the tribunal’s decision.” 

The tribunal’s decision, which was made last year but only publicly released this week, stated the patient “clearly knew a number of McPhail’s personal matters”. 

It found that this helped to establish that sexual and intimate activity had occurred. 

Doctor meets patient 

According to the decision, McPhail had been employed by the Southern District Health Board (and its predecessors) in Dunedin since 1977. 

He had worked for the Emergency Psychiatric Services (EPS) team since 2010 and had previously worked as a registered nurse in an acute psychiatric inpatient unit. 

The disciplinary charge followed allegations McPhail had breached boundaries, including sexual intimacy with a patient whom he had cared for in his capacity as a mental health nurse, over four months. 

William McPhail had been employed by the Southern District Health Board (and its predecessors) in Dunedin since 1977. Photo / NZME 

His meeting with the patient, initially in police cells and then in hospital, was followed by the two meeting in person on several occasions, including at a carpark, a retail store and a motel. 

While the patient said that they were engaged in sexual intimacy and provided detailed evidence of what had occurred, McPhail denied any physical aspect to their encounters. 

He instead claimed he had been blackmailed and that he was trying to placate the woman to stop her from making false accusations of sexual assault. 

The unnamed patient, who had been using mental health services since she was a teenager, had been admitted to hospital, discharged and then readmitted on a date redacted from the decision. 

She was referred to the emergency psychiatric service, where she was assessed by McPhail and then admitted to a ward. 

‘Secret chats’ 

There was no dispute that the pair met in person after a text message exchange or that they had phone conversations, communicated via Facebook’s “secret chat”, and had further conversations via Messenger and SMS. 

In one exchange, he replied they had to be careful about being seen together. 

However, McPhail did not accept responsibility for all the messages he was said to have sent her because the patient had told him that she had “cloned his phone”. 

Neither was it in dispute that McPhail either lent or gave the patient various items. 

However, the nature and circumstances of the ongoing contact were disputed. 

The woman disclosed to hospital staff when readmitted later that she had been “involved in a relationship” with McPhail, and she was then interviewed by the Southern DHB. 

McPhail was advised of the allegations, and when the DHB’s proposed investigation process was explained to him, he took special leave. 

He returned to work on alternative duties that did not involve contact with patients. 

McPhail then retired from EPS, saying he no longer regarded his workplace as safe, because of what he said were false claims and how they were being handled by the DHB. 

The HDC investigates 

The DHB could not complete its investigation after McPhail resigned. 

The patient then reported the matter to the Health and Disability Commissioner, with support from her mental health team and advocacy services, and the matter was then referred to the Director of Proceedings, who laid the charge of professional misconduct. 

Expert evidence indicated the patient had a series of complex disorders that belonged in a category where people were not always accurate in their account of events, sometimes giving exaggerated or otherwise misleading accounts and often being very inconsistent. 

Another’s evidence showed the patient had never been unclear on the facts or events that happened, just on the intent of the person associated with those events. 

The evidence revealed that at no point did the team have any doubts about the patient’s ability to correctly recall or relay information. 

The tribunal said it applied a recognised set of principles to the evidence when assessing the credibility of the witnesses, including McPhail. 

Having found the charges proved, the tribunal said the conduct amounted to negligence, malpractice and behaviour likely to bring discredit to the nursing profession. 

It was a “very significant breach of standards” irrespective of the patient’s vulnerability. 

McPhail was also censured and ordered to pay $70,000 in costs. 

Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was previously RNZ’s regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government for the Nelson Mail.