Andilla Neise Parsons found not guilty of falsely claiming to be registered midwife

A Gold Coast woman accused of falsely claiming to be a registered midwife has had a stunning result in court. Here’s why the charges were thrown out.

Andilla Neise Parsons has been found not guilty of falsely claiming to be a midwife. Picture: Charlton Hart.

A Gold Coast woman accused of falsely claiming to be a registered midwife has successfully fought to clear her name in court.

Andilla Neise Parsons faced Southport Magistrates Court on Monday charged with claiming to be registered under the health practitioner regulation national law and taking a title, name, or description indicating the person is a health practitioner.

The latter charge was dropped ahead of the trial after a successful challenge by Parsons’ Barrister Tom Polley, instructed by EV Law.

Andilla Neise Parsons found not guilty of falsely claiming to be a midwife. Picture: Charlton Hart.

He argued the evidence supplied by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulatory Agency (AHPRA), the industry body prosecuting the charges, was inadmissable to the court.

Mr Polley said social media and website posts and emails relied upon by the prosecution, which were alleged to depict his client advertising midwifery services under the business name Wise Woman Consultancy, had not been properly validated.

He said there was no evidence provided to the court either to prove his client had ownership or control of the website and social media accounts of Wise Woman Consultancy.

Magistrate Pamela Dowse accepted the submissions by the defence and ruled the material could not be relied upon. The prosecution formally withdrew the charge and offered no evidence. Parsons was discharged.

She pleaded not guilty to the remaining offence to which she stood trial.

Crown prosecutor Jesika Franco, acting for AHPRA, told the court Ms Parsons voluntarily surrendered her registration as a midwife in January 2022.

Following an anonymous complaint received by the regulator the following year, Ms Franco said an investigation was launched into Ms Parsons.

Posing as an expectant mother, the court was told an investigator contacted a phone number which was said to be linked to the business Wise Woman Consultancy, seeking to obtain midwife services for an upcoming pregnancy.

Text messages tendered to the court were said to show arrangements to provide services, including a face-to-face meeting between a representative of the business by the name of Andilla, to take place at Upper Coomera. The face-to-face meeting never eventuated.

Evidence of a phone record from telco TPG was provided to the court which showed the mobile number that the texts were sent from was registered to a Neise Parsons of Upper Coomera.

The court was told the date of birth on the phone record, and the suburb were the same as those listed on the surrendered midwife registration in the name of the defendant Andilla Neise Parsons.

“It’s my submission that your honour can find that the phone was owned or used, at least that number was allocated to the defendant, by Neise Parsons,” Ms Franco said.

“Neise Parsons, then by surrendering of her (registration) certificate also goes by Andilla Neise Parsons. There is also further inference that she resides in Upper Coomera.”

Ms Parsons’ barrister Tom Polley said there was no evidence to support the charge against his client. Picture: Charlton Hart.

That claim was rejected by Mr Polley, who said there was no evidence the phone was owned by his client or that she was the author of the text messages.

“There is no evidence, and a lack of evidence in a situation where your honour should expect that there should be evidence about Wise Woman Consultancy,” Mr Polley said.

“Your honour is being asked to convict on an inference that the TPG document, which doesn’t prove a telephone number at all, provides evidence that these text messages are from Neise Parsons.

“My client’s name on the charge sheet is Andilla Neise Parsons and on various documents before the court various names. There is no proof there.”

Magistrate Dowse accepted that the prosecution had not proven to the requisite standard that Ms Parsons did send the messages. She found her not guilty and the case was dismissed.