Charge Detail Summary

File Number: Nur23/577P
Practitioner: Maryam Rashidi
Hearing Start Date:

Hearing End Date:

Hearing Town/City:
Hearing Location:
Charge Characteristics:

Authority - Lied/misled (Established)

Additional Orders:

Name Suppression to Practitioner

Interim order for suppression of the name of the practitioner and suppression of any identifying details

No application was made for permanent name suppression


Appeal Order:


Full Decision 1369Nur23577P.pdf

Appeal Decision:

Precis of Decision:


A panel of the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal) convened on 4 September 2023 to hear a charge via audio-visual link.  The charge was laid by a Professional Conduct Committee (the PCC) appointed by the Nursing Council of New Zealand, against Ms Maryam Rashidi, a registered nurse of Auckland (the Nurse).

The charge relates to a number of dishonest and/or misleading statements the practitioner made in three applications submitted to the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) between 2018 and 2021. The Nurse was residing in New Zealand when she made each application.

A full copy of the charge can be found at paragraph 5 of the Tribunal’s decision.

The Nurse accepted the charge and accepted that it amounted to professional conduct and warraned disciplinary sanction.



The Nurse registered with the Nursing Council of New Zealand on 13 April 2005.

In July 2005 she was granted general registration in Australia under the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997.

In September 2017 after completing a performance assessment AHPRA placed an undertaking on her registration not to practise in Australia.  The Nurse’s registration subsequently lapsed and the notification was closed.

The Nursing Council of NZ (NCNZ) was advised and in July 2018 the Nurse was suspended in New Zealand pending completion of a competence review.

On 1 August 2018 the Nurse made dishonest and/or misleading declarations to AHPRA on a fast track application for registration in Australia.  She was not required to provide a ‘Certificate of Good Standing’. 

On 20 August 2018 a report from a competence review in New Zealand indicated the Nurse did not meet the required standard of competence.  Conditions were placed on her practice and in December that year she was suspended pending a competence review.

In February 2019 the Nurse’s fast track application to AHPRA was approved subject to conditions.

In March 2020 the Nurse advised the NCNZ she intended to return to New Zealand to practise.

At the end of 2020 the Nurse again submitted an application for non-practising registration to AHPRA making a number of dishonest or misleading declarations.  Her application was approved and in January 2021 the Nurse applied for general registration with AHPRA again making dishonest or misleading declarations.  This time the Nurse was required to provide a ‘Certificate of Good Standing’ from the NCNZ.  This certificate showed she had conditions on her practice, had had her registration cancelled or suspended and she was prohibited from practising in New Zealand.  She was also subject to a competence review.

The Nurse admitted that she had failed to disclose to AHPRA, her status in New Zealand. She said she had made an honest mistake when completing the applications and had not read the question carefully.

The Nurse’s application to AHPRA was refused and the NCNZ was advised of the Nurse’s conduct.



The Tribunal found the charge established as professional misconduct under sections 100(1)(a) and 100(1)(b).  The Tribunal agrees with Counsel that the Nurse should have been aware of the competency process she was involved in, the conditions on her practising certificate and her later suspension. The Nurse maintains she did not intend to deceive AHPRA and that she made an honest mistake. Even if this was the case, the Nurse cannot be said to have afforded the application the necessary attention and importance. As the Nurse was aware that there were live, relevant issues that had a bearing on her practice, she should have been forthcoming when completing the application. The Tribunal is particularly concerned that the Nurse sought to continue practising even while there were clear unresolved competency issues in her practice, and the risk this posed to her patients.

The Tribunal considers the Nurse’s failure to disclose relevant information that she was evidently aware of and had a direct bearing on her competency to practise constitutes malpractice and has brought the profession into disrepute.

The Tribunal is satisfied that the conduct warrants disciplinary sanction, given the importance of accurate disclosure of matters affecting the Nurse’s ability to practise, and the potential risk this conduct could have posed to the public.



The Tribunal made the following penalty orders:

  1. Censure
  2. Conditions on practice
  3. 10% contribution of costs

The Tribunal directed publication of the decision and a summary.