It is former Green Party MP Golriz Ghahraman’s mini shoplifting spree late last year – not the convictions that resulted – which may pose a threat to her returning to a legal career now she is no longer in Parliament.
That was the conclusion Auckland District Court Judge June Jelas reached last week as she denied the former politician a discharge without conviction.
The judge briefly touched upon her reasons for the decision in court on Thursday before announcing her sentence: $1600 in fines and court costs of $260. This morning, the court released her full 18-page judgment.
“I am not satisfied the entry of convictions will have a disproportionate adverse consequence for her future application to the New Zealand Law Society for a certificate to practise as a barrister and solicitor in New Zealand,” the judge wrote at the outset of her judgment. “The future assessment into Ms Ghahraman’s fitness to practise is primarily triggered by her offending.
“The entry of the convictions will be a factor undoubtedly considered by the Law Society but not a determinative factor. The factors that would be considered by the Law Society extend well beyond the entry of a conviction.
“I have reached a similar position in respect of consequences for future employment prospects overseas. Any international organisation’s assessment of Ms Ghahraman’s suitability to work as counsel before an international court or tribunal is an inevitable consequence flowing directly from the offending itself.”
Ghahraman resigned from Parliament on January 16, just less than a week after NZME’s ZB Plus broke the story of the first of what would be four shoplifting allegations. She had given up her portfolio, which included serving as the Green Party’s justice spokeswoman, days earlier.
In theory, Ghahraman could have faced up to seven years’ imprisonment for charges relating to the theft of more than $7800 worth of clothing during two trips to Scotties Boutique in Ponsonby in the week before Christmas last year. She also faced a sentence of up to one year’s imprisonment for pilfering $695 worth of clothing from Cre8tiveworx in Wellington last October and up to three months’ imprisonment for filching a $389 cardigan from Standard Issue in Newmarket during the same three-day period when she targeted the Ponsonby store.
But in practice, maximum sentences are rarely if ever imposed – especially for a first-time offender convicted of a non-violent crime. Judge Jelas said at the outset of a sentencing hearing last week that she wasn’t considering a term of imprisonment, which had not been sought by the Crown.
The main thrust of the arguments in court last week was whether Ghahraman met the bar for a discharge without conviction. To be granted one, a judge would have to find “the consequences of a conviction to be out of all proportion to the gravity or seriousness of the offence”.
Crown solicitor Alysha McClintock opposed a discharge without conviction, while defence lawyer Annabel Cresswell argued that with one, her client would face a major hurdle in reigniting her legal career after addressing what she said was the root cause of the offending – a mental health breakdown caused by trauma from her childhood and amidst the frequent safety threats while she was in office.
“Ms Ghahraman, in her affidavit in support, stated she is unable to fully comprehend or explain why she stole the items,” Judge Jelas noted in her decision. “She states she did not want to keep or wear the items, stating some would never fit her and she would never wear or use them.”
While assessing the gravity of the offending, the judge said she was made aware of a 2006 conviction for driving a vehicle carelessly, but she assessed it as irrelevant to the current charges and considered Ghahraman similar to a first-time offender who has “for the majority of her life displayed good character”. The judge also took into account while weighing the gravity of the offending the fact that Ghahraman has already sought to make amends – issuing a public apology, pleading guilty immediately and paying back all of the retailers.
But the judge also was not convinced by the defence argument that the offending was definitively linked to a mental health breakdown.
“In my view, [the clinical psychologist who treated Ghahraman] does not articulate whether Ms Ghahraman’s mental health contributed to her offending,” the judge wrote. “At best, [the clinical psychologist] records the possibility that Ms Ghahraman’s offending is “consistent with her trauma symptoms”.
“[The clinical psychologist] describes a form of shoplifting, described as ‘loss-reactive shoplifting’, committed by otherwise law-abiding individuals who have loss or trauma in their past. [The clinical psychologist] does not expressly link Ms Ghahraman’s thefts to her trauma.
“[The clinical psychologist] is well placed to have provided an unequivocal statement of any causative links that may exist between the thefts and Ms Ghahraman’s mental health. He has not. It is not the role of the court to make the inferences submitted by Ms Cresswell when [the clinical psychologist] himself has stopped short of doing so.”
Nonetheless, the judge said, she would take Ghahraman’s poor mental health into account, even if it didn’t fully explain her offending.
“Ms Ghahraman has been working under extremely stressful circumstances for a considerable period. She has endeavoured to continue to serve her community despite the ongoing unacceptable harassment and threats directed at her,” she wrote. “It is significant that she has required security at a level normally reserved for the Prime Minister. The work she has undertaken and the groups that she advocates on behalf of means that she is exposed to vicarious trauma.
“The trauma of her personal background also continues to present. I consider her mental health to be a feature contributing to the offending but not necessarily causative of it. Her mental health has made her more vulnerable to offend.”
The judge found the gravity of the offences to be in the mid to high range.
In addition to arguing that convictions would impede a legal career, the defence argued that “the legal stress of a conviction” could do further harm to Ghahraman’s mental health. The judge, however, dismissed the argument.
“[The clinical psychologist] reports Ms Ghahraman has a good level of insight and can think through solutions with help and can consider options and consequences,” the judge noted. “Ms Ghahraman can translate insight into action. Ms Ghahraman reports that in the five or so months since the offences she is better able to respond to her mental health stresses.
“She further reports that her current situation has allowed herself to reconnect with various supports in her community and close friends and family. While undoubtedly the entry of a conviction will have an impact upon Ms Ghahraman, given it is contrary to what she seeks, there is nothing in the evidence before me that supports the submission her wellbeing will be significantly affected.”
The judge added: “It is noted that some of the mental health issues that have been reported by [the clinical psychologist] arise from the offending itself, not from the entry of a conviction. Shame, embarrassment, public humiliation, relentless media attention, resignation from employment have all resulted from the offending.”
To obtain work again as a barrister in New Zealand or as a lawyer overseas in the International Criminal Court, Ghahraman must be found by the Law Society to be “a fit and proper person”. The judge acknowledged that the convictions she imposed would trigger a process automatically requiring the Law Society to make inquiries.
But that doesn’t necessarily mean it will be the end of Ghahraman’s legal career, she noted.
“The Law Society will ultimately need to assess Ms Ghahraman’s conduct for itself, along with the steps taken by her to address the factors contributing to her offending,” she explained. “It is not unheard of for persons with convictions being issued practising certificates.”
The judge noted that the standard of conduct for those practising law in New Zealand and overseas is “understandably” high. It is not out of all proportion to the offending to expect Ghahraman to go through such a process if she intends to practise law again, the judge determined.
During her assessment, the judge also considered the “number of adverse consequences” Ghahraman suffered as a result of her offending, other than her legal woes. She lost her job as a Green Party MP and her income and was subject to a high level of publicity, the judgment noted.
“Ms Ghahraman describes the most upsetting aspect of the media attention was the large contingent of media who camped outside her private home for weeks,” the judge said.
During visits to the residence seeking comment from Ghahraman after the allegations were revealed, Herald reporters saw no indication of a fulltime media encampment.
But interest in the case is not a surprise, the judgment noted.
“The high public interest in this prosecution reflects the high standards expected of persons holding leading positions of public office,” Judge Jelas said.
Craig Kapitan is an Auckland-based journalist covering courts and justice. He joined the Herald in 2021 and has reported on courts since 2002 in three newsrooms in the US and New Zealand.
Police warn it's a 'dangerous' situation.