Charge Detail Summary

File Number: Mid17/385P
Practitioner: Tracey Jayne Goff

Hearing Start Date:

Hearing End Date:



Hearing Town/City: Palmerston North

Hearing Location:

The Hearing Room, Distinction Palmerston North Hotel and Conference Centre, 175 Cuba Street, Palmerston North, commencing at 9.00 am

Charge Characteristics:

Practising while suspended from practising (Established)

(Not Established)

Additional Orders:

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

Complainant and colleague granted suppression of name and identifying features


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

Complainant and colleague granted permanent name suppression


Name Suppression to Practitioner

Practitioner declined permanent name suppression


Appeal Order:


Full Decision 927Mid17385P.pdf

Appeal Decision:

Precis of Decision:


A Professional Conduct Committee laid a charge of professional misconduct against Ms Tracey Jayne Goff, a registered midwife of Palmerston North (the Midwife).

The charge alleged that the Midwife provided midwifery services to a Patient when she knew or ought to have known that her registration had been suspended pursuant to an interim suspension order by the Midwifery Council.

The charge alleged that the Midwife:

  1. arranged for blood tests and scans for the Patient by sending the necessary forms to the relevant radiology and pathology clinics:
  2. requested the Patient's current maternal weight and height;
  3. completed and signed the form entitled 'Registration with a Lead Maternity Carer' using the name of midwife Ms L without Ms L's knowledge, and in doing so purported to register Ms L as the Patient's lead maternity carer (LMC);
  4. on three ocassions took the Patient's blood pressure, supplied a urine stick for her to provide a sample, palpated her abdomen and used a foetal heart monitor on the Patient to listen to her baby's heartbeat; and
  5. falsified the form entitled 'Registration with a Lead Maternity Carer' when she completed and signed the form using Ms L's name as the Patient's LMC.


The Tribunal found all of the above bullet points established except particular 5.  The Tribunal found the Midwife's conduct in this case, involved not only practising without a current practising certificate but significant dishonesty.  Her conduct was sufficiently serious to justify the imposition of a disciplinary penalty.

When considering particular 5 above the Tribunal was not prepared to conclude that the Practitioner had forged Ms L's signature without any expert evidence on this point.  The Midwife's evidence was that she did not intend to write either her own signature or that of Ms L.  She said she had just made a mark there, so that the form would appear to have been signed.


The Tribunal censured the Midwife and ordered cancellation of her registration.

The Tribunal directed publication of its decision and a summary.