Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal
Director of Proceedings v Mr William McPhail, 1371/Nur23/580D (1 March 2024)
The Director of Proceedings filed a charge of professional misconduct against Mr William McPhail, in the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal (“the Tribunal”). The charge related to professional boundary breaches, including sexual intimacy with a patient or former patient (“Ms N”), whom the practitioner had cared for in his capacity as a mental health nurse, while employed at Southern District Health Board (“SDHB”).
Mr McPhail was a registered nurse with 46 years’ experience in mental health and psychiatric nursing. He had worked for SDHB since 1977 and for Emergency Psychiatric Services (“EPS”) since 2010.
The charge alleged that Mr McPhail:
- Breached his professional boundaries with Ms N including by communicating with her via cell phone and social media, meeting her outside the professional context, giving her gifts, money and food, and sharing personal information about himself.
- Failed to take appropriate steps in relation to three incidents, including when Ms N experienced episode(s) of dissociation while at a motel with Mr McPhail, when Ms N alleged that she had had sexual relations with another staff member, and in respect of a serious incident subject to suppression orders.
- Engaged in sexual and/or intimate contact with Ms N.
Mr McPhail accepted some aspects of the charge but denied others, including that he engaged in sexual contact with Ms N. He alleged that Ms N had been blackmailing him and threatening to make false accusations of sexual assault if he did not comply with her requests. Ms N acknowledged that she threatened to expose their relationship but denied threatening sexual assault The Tribunal found it was more likely than not that Mr McPhail engaged in sexual contact with Ms N and breached boundaries before she made threats to expose their relationship.
The Tribunal found that Mr McPhail’s failure to set and maintain professional boundaries in relation to his communications and meetings with Ms N constituted negligence and malpractice. It found that Mr McPhail’s failure to take appropriate steps when Ms N dissociated and made worrying disclosures constituted negligence and malpractice. It found that Mr McPhail’s intimate and/or sexual contact with Ms N also constituted negligence, malpractice, and conduct likely to bring discredit to the nursing profession.
With one small exception (being whether Mr McPhail gave Ms N a bracelet and pendant), the Tribunal found all particulars of the charge satisfied and, on their own, sufficiently serious to warrant a disciplinary finding amounting to professional misconduct. Mr McPhail was censured and his registration cancelled. While Mr McPhail has since retired, if he seeks to return to practise he must meet a number of conditions. The Tribunal did not impose a fine as they considered the penalty combination of cancellation, conditions and censure were sufficient for the maintenance of standards and the deterrence of others. The Tribunal ordered 35% costs against Mr McPhail and declined his application for permanent name suppression. Mr McPhail lodged an appeal against the Tribunal decision in the High Court, which he discontinued subsequently.
A link to the Tribunal’s decision can be found at: