Charge Detail Summary

Return
File Number: Nur22/564P
Practitioner: Gareth Brendon Lee Lunar
Hearing Start Date:

Hearing End Date:

Hearing Town/City:
Hearing Location:
Charge Characteristics:


Additional Orders:

Name Suppression to Practitioner

Interim order of non-publication of the name of the practitioner (Mr R) and any identifying details

Interim name suppression for the practitioner lapsed on 15 March 2023

1274Nur22564P.pdf1305Nur22564P.pdf


Name Suppression to Complainant and/or Patient and/or client

Interim order of non-publication of the name of the person named in the charge and any identifying details

Permanent order of non-publication of the name of the person named in the charge and any identifying details

1274Nur22564P.pdf1305Nur22564P.pdf


Other

Interim order of non-publication of the name of the hospital and any identifying details

Permanent order of non-publication of the name of the hospital and any identifying details

1274Nur22564P.pdf1305Nur22564P.pdf


Appeal Order:



Appeal Decision:


Precis of Decision:

Charge

Between 20-22 February 2023 in Auckland, the Health Practitioner’s Disciplinary Tribunal heard a charge of professional misconduct laid by the Professional Conduct Committee appointed by the Nursing Council of New Zealand against Mr Gareth Lunar, a registered nurse of Auckland (the nurse).

 

The charge is summarised below and alleges that:

 

  1. While employed as a registered nurse, the Nurse behaved inappropriately and/or unprofessionally towards a female colleague, Ms N, which constituted sexual harassment amounting to professional misconduct. In particular:

 

    1. Making persistent attempts to take Ms N on a date despite her rejections;
    2. Making lewd and uncomfortable sexual remarks towards Ms N;
    3. Making lewd and explicit sexual gestures towards Ms N;
    4. Repeatedly asking Ms N to engage in sexual activity; and
    5. Physically pressing his body against Ms N and repeatedly asking her to have sexual relations with him.

 

The conduct alleged in Charge 1.0 amounts to professional misconduct pursuant to section 100(1)(a) and/or (b) of the Act and that it is conduct that brings discredit to the nursing profession. The full charge can be found in the decision on the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal website.

 

Background

 

At the time of the events leading to the charge, the nurse and Ms N were colleagues. The charge relates to ten incidents of sexual harassment experienced by Ms N in July 2018 and then further incidents in September of that year. The Nurse was a Senior Nurse Coordinator and was often paired with Ms N during shifts.

In July 2018, The Nurse repeatedly asked Ms N out on a date on her birthday. When she said no, he followed her to her car after work. Ms N enlisted the help of another colleague to drop the Nurse off at his car.

Following these incidents, in September that year the Nurse suggested Ms N was watching porn on her phone. A few days later, the Nurse made masturbating gestures to Ms N, called Ms N stupid in front of a patient, gestured to Ms N to sit on his lap, asked Ms N to masturbate herself, and pressed up against her asking her to have to have sexual relations with her. The Nurse admitted to behaving inappropriately towards Ms N and stated that he only did so when he knew no one was looking.

Ms N laid a complaint with Human Resources, which was found to be substantiated as it was conduct that was repeated, unwanted, unprofessional, and inappropriate behaviour. In November 2019 the Nurse’s employment was terminated and a letter of complaint was forwarded to the Nursing Council of New Zealand.

 

Finding

 

The Tribunal found that, when considered cumulatively, the conduct was inappropriate and unprofessional constituting a significant departure from acceptable standards. The Nurse’s conduct is malpractice in his scope of practice and conduct towards a colleague that is highly unprofessional and inappropriate, and likely to bring discredit to the nursing profession. The incidents did not individually amount to professional misconduct.

 

It was found that there was a need to protect both the public and the Nurse’s nursing colleagues, as such a disciplinary sanction was warranted. The nature and extent of the sexual harassment by the Nurse towards his colleague was such that his behaviour fell well short of conduct expected of a registered nurse.

 

Penalty

 

The Tribunal ordered the nurse be:

 

  • Censured
  • $8,000.00 fine.
  • Conditions of registration
  • Recommendation of apology to affected co-workers
  • Pay 25% of the costs of the PCC and Tribunal investigation, fixed at $20,000.00.

 

The Tribunal directed publication of the decision and a summary.