The 79-year-old’s youngest victim, whom he offended against from childhood through to her late teens, said she now didn’t know who she was and constantly lived in survival mode.
“It was all I have ever known. This was simply my life.”
As a young child, she developed physical, compulsive behaviours to survive, and they had manifested themselves in ways that she was still discovering.
She thought she had been strong throughout the offending years, figured her behaviour was normal, but now doesn’t believe it will ever stop.
“I have been using physical pain to survive since childhood.
“I thought I was coping, but my body is making it clear that I am not.”
She was in a constant state of anxiety, causing her chest to be persistently tight, and her panic attacks were so intense she would vomit afterwards.
“I genuinely cannot remember the last time I breathed easily,” she said.
“I am under relentless stress. There’s no part of my day where I feel safe.”
Months after revealing Reeder’s abuse, she said she almost gave up on life entirely.
“I don’t feel confident that things will get better.”
She told Reeder he had not only stolen her past but also her future.
“The only thing left is justice, and I am asking for exactly that.”
According to the Healthpages’ website, Reeder ran an “integrative medical clinic” in Hamilton, at which he provided a range of options for chronic conditions “for which no suitable or acceptable mainstream option is available or successful”.
He had also previously worked in family medicine.
The Medical Council has confirmed he had been a practising doctor for 54 years.
At his sentencing, the court heard his offending stretched from the late 80s through to 2024.
‘Sexually predatious and cruel’
Crown prosecutor James Lewis characterised Reeder’s offending as “sexually predatious and cruel”, where he used his “superior” position as a doctor to offend against the victims.
“The defendant was held in high esteem by these families,” he said.
Reeder’s offending was consistent while he forced his victims to suffer in silence.
Lewis pushed for a starting point of six years’ jail with a 25% discount for his guilty pleas, which would send Reeder to prison.
He argued Reeder didn’t deserve any previous good character, given how long his offending had stretched.
Commenting on Reeder’s background and psychological reports, Lewis said any credit he was seeking for that should be offset by the fact “he is very much an intelligent man”.
Dr William James Reeder in the dock at Hamilton District Court, which heard his offending was consistent and he forced his victims to suffer in silence. Photo / Belinda Feek
“He is a doctor. He has been practising for a significant period of time. I understand that he is an obstetrician.
“In order to become a doctor, there are stringent checks and balances to ensure that you are fit to practise,” Lewis told the judge.
“The defendant passed those checks and balances on many occasions over many years, and by virtue of his intelligence of the position that he held in the community as a doctor, as a leader, he very much knew that what he had done was wrong.”
Defence counsel Russell Boot argued home detention was appropriate, stating that, while not wanting to minimise his offending, it wasn’t the worst of its kind.
Reeder was also 79 years old, had no previous convictions, and had lost his employment and reputation.
While the offending did stretch over multiple decades, sporadically, he should still get credit for his character before it began in his early 40s, Boot argued.
He said a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) was “unwarranted” given his age and Reeder had expressed a willingness to address his rehabilitative needs.
He also had a number of “medical conditions” that meant prison “would be harsher on him”.
‘Superficial remorse’
Judge Tompkins agreed with Lewis’ description of Reeder’s offending – that he “used his superior position to sexually offend”.
He praised the victims for giving their statements in court, describing them as “acts of very considerable courage”.
Judge Tompkins agreed with all of the Crown’s submissions, adopting an overall starting point of six years’ jail, before allowing a 25% discount for his guilty pleas.
A younger Dr William James Reeder pictured in his LinkedIn photo.
He noted Reeder’s comments in a pre-sentence report, which he said “records little, if any, insight into his offending and only superficial remorse”.
He’d also written a letter to the court, but that was, too, chastised by the judge.
“Indeed, that letter, as I read it, is redolent with self-pity.
“Although he describes himself as being sick to the core to realise the impacts on his victims … in my view, that insight and remorse are best described as superficial.”
Judge Tompkins jailed Reeder for four-and-a-half years and imposed an MPI of 50%, citing the “enormous and devastating” effect and scale of his offending.
The family of one of the victims told NZME that, given the length of Reeder’s offending, they were concerned there were possibly more victims.
“We urge anyone with any information or concerns to speak to the police,” they said.
‘A position of significant trust’
Responding to questions by NZME, Medical Council chairman Dr Kenneth Clark confirmed Reeder was first registered in New Zealand in 1971.
His practising certificate expired in November 2025.
Clark said the council’s primary purpose was to ensure doctors “are competent and fit to practise”.
“Doctors hold a position of significant trust.
“The public is entitled to expect doctors to act with integrity … and uphold high standards of ethical and professional conduct.
“Serious sexual offending falls far below the conduct … and professionalism expected of doctors in Aotearoa, New Zealand and is directly relevant to council’s consideration of a doctor’s fitness to practise.”
The council would step in to raise concerns where it could, he said in a statement.
“Privacy considerations limit what council can say about any individual notifications.”
The council and police can share information and when the council becomes aware of a criminal investigation, it liaises with the police.
“At times we may not be able to take any action whilst a police investigation is underway in order not to prejudice this.”
However, while the criminal proceedings took precedence, the council would monitor any situation that posed a risk and “take regulatory action where necessary to address any risk to public safety”.
Belinda Feek is an Open Justice reporter based in Waikato. She has worked at NZME for 11 years and has been a journalist for 22.