On Friday, she appeared before the Health Practitioner’s Disciplinary Tribunal facing charges of misconduct brought against her by the New Zealand Psychologists Board.

She admitted the charges and the tribunal censured her and cancelled her practising certificate.

“I love my career and I miss it,” the woman, who was given interim name suppression, said at the hearing.

She spoke of wanting to return to work in developmental psychology but was “realistic about the situation”.

‘Falling for you has set me on fire’

According to the summary of facts, the woman had been a senior psychologist for the Department of Corrections for several years.

She ran both group and one-on-one therapy sessions with prisoners, one of whom was “Mr X”, a man in his 20s serving three years for aggravated robbery.

Mr X, who has permanent name suppression, began flirting with the woman during the sessions, leading her to tell her supervisor that she felt he might be attracted to her.

She was advised to adopt a “watch and wait” approach to see if his behaviour escalated.

However, about a year later, and following the breakdown of the woman’s marriage, the relationship between her and Mr X became intimate as the pair began professing their love for each other in handwritten letters.

“Falling for you has set me on fire, and all that before we’ve even touched,” one letter from the woman read.

“All I know is I want to be with you, and we’ll figure everything else out,” she wrote after Mr X expressed concern about how they would manage his gang connections.

The woman later sourced approval, under a false name, for Mr X to call her prison-registered cellphone. He phoned her up to four times a day and on some occasions, the pair had phone sex.

At Mr X’s request, the woman wrote a treatment report, as his psychologist, for an upcoming hearing before the Parole Board.

The report was presented and, after the board considered many factors, he was released the following month.

The psychologist was known as ‘his girl’

The man stayed at a relative’s house and the woman visited him and the pair had sex, the summary of facts stated.

However, a week later, Mr X was recalled to prison for failing a drug test.

Around this same time, prison officers observing the pair’s therapy sessions via CCTV noted Mr X making physical contact with the woman.

This, coupled with Mr X telling other prisoners at the facility that the woman was “his girl”, prompted Corrections to begin monitoring his calls, and their relationship was soon discovered.

Prison staff searched Mr X’s cell and found letters from the woman and she was banned from visiting the site.

The woman then informed her manager of the relationship and she was suspended.

Her patients were discharged from her care, and she resigned shortly after. Corrections terminated her employment a day before her four-week notice period expired.

Mr X was paroled a month before her dismissal and she moved in with him to continue their relationship outside the wire.

‘Calculated deception’

At the woman’s disciplinary hearing, Jo Hughson, counsel for a professional conduct committee of the Psychologists Board, said the woman’s conduct was not “spur of the moment” and continued for an extended period.

Hughson said it was a “calculated deception” to hide the relationship from her colleagues, the prison staff and the Parole Board.

“It can’t be said she didn’t think about what she was doing,” Hughson said.

“This is not a case where there is a grey area between what is right and what is wrong.”

With the misconduct charges accepted and proven, the tribunal censured her, cancelled her registration – meaning she cannot work as a psychologist or reapply for a certificate for five years – and ordered her to pay $11,000 in legal costs.

The tribunal will issue its full decision in writing at a later date. Her name suppression will lapse after the decision has been released.

Report was to ‘favourably influence the outcome’ of parole

Meanwhile, the Parole Board has responded to questions from NZME about what the woman’s psychology report now means for the man.

A spokesperson said its primary consideration when assessing an inmate for release was community safety.

In addition to specialist reports from health practitioners, such as psychologists, the board also considered what it learned through discussions with the offender, submissions from their supporters, their lawyer and any victims, details of the offending and any previous convictions, and an assessment prepared by Corrections.

“The board relies on the accuracy of information provided to it,” the spokesperson said.

“Having the reliability of any part of that information cast into doubt would be very concerning, but would not necessarily result in a recall in a case where an offender has been released.”

The spokesperson said in any case, the board would want to consider the specific circumstances to determine whether an offender was now an undue risk, and if so, would seek an immediate recall.

In Mr X’s case, a treatment report was provided by the woman. It outlined his progress during their sessions together, as well as an assessment of his risk.

According to the summary, the woman knew Mr X intended to present the report to the board to “favourably influence the outcome of his upcoming parole review”.

Despite being in an intimate, though not yet physical, relationship with Mr X when she wrote the report, she did not disclose the conflict of interest.

Department of Corrections chief psychologist Jessica Borg said that when psychology staff became aware of the allegations against the woman, they notified the Parole Board advising the accuracy of the treatment report couldn’t be relied upon.

“Corrections expects the utmost professionalism from our employees, and allegations of staff behaving inappropriately are taken seriously,” Borg said.

She said Corrections had developed practice guidance for managers of psychologists and had also developed guidance on managing professional boundaries.

“This has been regularly delivered to all psychologists for several years, and regular updates are made to the training to align with best practice.”

Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice reporter based in Manawatū covering courts and justice issues with an interest in tribunals. He has been a journalist for nearly a decade and has worked for NZME since 2022.