Open Justice — Te Pātītī
Amale nurse mentor told a young caregiver he wanted to have a blonde-haired blue-eyed baby with her and see her in a bikini at work. He went on to sexually harass two female student nurses he was mentoring, asking one if he could take a photo of her face for a sex robot and if she would be his “pimp” after exclaiming he’d like a prostitute to entertain him when he’s older.
The married father, who took his wife to a Health Health Pracititoners Disciplinary Tribunal hearing on Monday, has been found guilty of professional misconduct for the sexual harassment of the caregiver in 2017 and the students in 2022.
In the case of the student nurses, their placement at the man’s work ended prematurely after they complained, an outcome the Nursing Council professional conduct committee [PCC] said could have been avoided during a critical phase of their studies.
The man, who has interim name suppression, admitted both charges against him, including that he acted inappropriately toward the caregiver by making comments in the presence of residents and other staff at a rest home about her figure, what she wore, and whether she had a boyfriend.
The rest home and the victims have permanent name suppression.
The young woman complained to the chief executive who spoke to the nurse and the comments stopped for a while, the tribunal heard.
He apologised and told the caregiver he didn’t know his comments made her uncomfortable.
In March 2022, on the first day the two student nurses began their placement at the rest home, the man began talking to them in his office about a strip club and said he hated his wife and wasn’t joking.
That same week the man told one of the students something she said about money sounded like “a line from a porno” he had watched and laughed.
A few days later, he told the other student he was “not being creepy or a pedo” when he stared into her eyes saying they were fascinating.
The next day he made comments about leaving his wife, how one of the students was flirting with him and he wanted to wax her arms.
The same day he asked the student if he could take a photo of her face for reference for a sex robot and later sat so close to her he invaded her personal space.
It’s unclear what he said but other staff members told him it was inappropriate.
He responded by saying: “What, I’ve always wanted a blue-eyed daughter, like I’m not being weird, I’m just treating her like she’s my
An NZME initiative funded through NZ On Air
daughter”.
He also told the student on another occasion: “You should marry my son and don’t get knocked up young”, and commented on her Facebook profile picture.
The mentor lent over one student while she was on her computer and asked her to do accents, prompting other staff to intervene, and made comments that he “liked blondes” and wanted to take the student home prompting another staff member to say he “sounds like a sleazy old man”.
Counsel for the HPCC, Charlotte Taylor, said the comments were unprofessional, persistent and caused discomfort to the women and submitted the nurse be suspended for six months for bringing discredit to the profession.
She said there was a power imbalance that made it difficult for the complainants to raise concerns and it was to their credit that they did.
Though he admitted the charges the nurse, through his lawyer, said he was oblivious to the inappropriateness of his behaviour for which he now had “deep, deep remorse” and better insight since attending therapy.
His lawyer said the nurse had paid “emotionally and financially” for the offending, which she said was at the lower end of the scale because he had not touched the victims and the comments were made in front of others.
Under oath, the nurse told the tribunal he had grown up with a role model who made similar comments and did not realise it was unacceptable until he went to counselling.
Tribunal chairwoman Theo Baker asked the nurse what he learned from being spoken to by the chief executive in 2017 and how therapy had helped him to gain insight now.
The nurse replied that his former manager knew he liked to “joke” and he “took it for granted”.
He asked the tribunal for permanent name suppression to protect his wife and children who were in their formative years and should not carry the stigma and shame of his mistakes.
However, the tribunal declined permanent name suppression and censured the nurse, ordering that he not take on any leadership roles for one year.
It declined to suspend him and ordered he pay $5734 equating to 20 per cent of the tribunal’s total costs.
The nurse’s interim name suppression will lapse 20 working days after the tribunal’s written decision unless he appeals.