Charge Detail Summary

File Number: Nur21/532P
Practitioner: Rama Mafua
Hearing Start Date:

Hearing End Date:

Hearing Town/City:
Hearing Location:
Charge Characteristics:

Theft and/or Burglary (Established)

Communication inadequate/inappropriate


Authority - Lied/misled

Professional boundaries breached  

Additional Orders:

Name Suppression to Practitioner

Order for interim suppression of the name and identifying details of the practitioner (Ms A)

Interim order for suppression of the practitioners name lapsed 


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

Order for interim suppression of the name and identifying details of the patient and her husband 

Permanent suppression of the names of the patient and her husband


Appeal Order:


Full Decision 1267Nur21532P.pdf

Appeal Decision:

Precis of Decision:


On 29 March 2022 by audio visual link 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 Ms Rama Mafua a registered nurse of Wellington (the nurse).

The charge alleged that the nurse:

1.  On 5 November 2020, while employed as a registered nurse at [X] Medical Centre, (“the Medical Centre”) misappropriated funds from a vulnerable patient, [ ]. In particular:

1.1 Removed [the patient’s] credit card from her wallet, which had been left unattended in a doctor’s room during her appointment and used it to pay an internet bill in the amount of $95.09;

1.2 Stole cash in the amount of approximately $90.00 from [the patient’s]’ wallet;

1.3 Having used the credit card to pay the internet bill, placed it back into [the patient’s] wallet.

2. That during the period 5 November 2020 to 9 November 2020 made contact with [the patient] for reasons unrelated to her medical care, in breach of professional boundaries. In particular:

2.1      On 5 November 2020, called [the patient] after work hours to discuss the missing money;

2.2      On 9 November 2020, visited [the patient] at home to discuss the missing money.

3.         On 9 November 2020, while at [the patient’s] house, were dishonest to [the patient]. In particular:

3.1      Accepted having used [the patients]’ credit card on 5 November 2020, but denied having taken the cash, and falsely attributed this to another member of staff;

3.2      Falsely told [the patient that you had used her credit card under threat of physical harm from her partner, which was not true.

4.         On 9 November, were dishonest to the Medical Centre’s management staff. In particular:

4.1      Denied having taken the cash;

4.2      Denied having called [the patient].

The PCC charged that the particulars separately and/or cumulatively amounted to professional misconduct.

The nurse accepted the charge and agreed that it amounted to professional misconduct and warranted disciplinary sanction.


Two months after the nurse started working at the medical centre, a patient found cash had gone from her wallet while she was undergoing treatment at the medical centre.  Later, four $20 notes were found by the patient’s GP under the end of a bed at the centre.  The same day, the patient’s husband discovered that the patient’s debit card had been used while the patient was still at the medical centre.  The couple reported this to the Police.

Later in the evening the nurse rang the patient saying she wanted to check on her and told the patient that a male nurse had taken the money and that she had called him and got him to return it.

After finding out that there was to be a Police investigation, the nurse visited the patient and her husband, telling them that her boyfriend had forced her to use the debit card to pay a bill.  The nurse denied taking the money.

The medical centre staff spoke with the nurse.  She admitted taking the debit card but again denied taking the cash.  She also denied she had called the patient after the incident.  However, the nurse emailed the centre a short time after admitting she had taken the cash, later returning it to the GP’s room and confirmed she had used the debit card.


The Tribunal found the charge established.  Particulars 1.1, 1.2, 3.1 and 3.2 each individually were serious enough to warrant disciplinary sanction.  Particulars 2.1, 2.2, 4.1 and 4.2 when considered together with the other particulars also required disciplinary sanction.


The Tribunal ordered the nurse be:

  • Censured
  • Fined $2,500
  • Suspended from practice for six months
  • Conditions on practice for a period of one year
  • Pay $7,500 amounting to 30% of the investigation, prosecution and hearing costs