Golriz Ghahraman, a former Green MP, faces potential difficulties in her legal career following her admission of four shoplifting charges. She admitted to theft of clothing amounting to thousands of dollars during an appearance in the Auckland District Court. Bill Hodge, a retired law professor, intimated that Ghahraman, although not currently practicing law, may face challenges if she chooses to renew her practicing certificate.
The Law Society, Hodge claims, would likely express concern over Ghahraman’s convictions. He emphasized that he doesn’t wish to speak on behalf of the Law Society, but believes that Ghahraman’s ability to appear in court in New Zealand would be prejudiced due to such a conviction. Therefore, her legal career could be at risk, he added.
Hodge transpired that Ghahraman’s defense counsel would presumably aim to secure a discharge without conviction. This court order would imply that Ghahraman escapes conviction despite her admission to the crime, ensuring she is considered acquitted by the court. It would mean that she would not have a criminal record, which is likely to be a significant focus of her defense, given the potential ramifications to her career if a conviction is reached.
According to Hodge, a discharge without conviction is the ‘obvious goal’ for Ghahraman’s counsel, as this outcome signifies an acquittal which could protect her legal career. He added that quickly signaling this sentence aim is crucial, particularly given that Ghahraman is not currently practicing law, but the convictions might limit her ability to work as a lawyer in the future.
In summary, Ghahraman’s admission to four shoplifting charges could significantly impact her legal career, given the possible concerns of the Law Society regarding a potential practicing certificate renewal. Consequently, securing a release without conviction could be a critical part of Ghahraman’s defense strategy, as this could protect her chances of continuing her legal profession in New Zealand.
Join Our Newsletter
Get the latest crime news and updates directly to your inbox. [newsletter]
12 Comments
Do you think pursuing acquittal without conviction is fair or just a loophole?
I wonder if they have a strong case or just trying to save face.
Shouldnt the focus be on justice rather than just avoiding a conviction?
Do you think the legal strategy is risky or strategic? Lets discuss!
I believe its definitely a strategic move. Taking calculated risks is often necessary in legal battles to gain an advantage. Lets keep an open mind and see how this plays out. Whats your take on the situation?
I wonder how this will play out in court. Lets grab some popcorn! 🍿
I wonder if pursuing acquittal without conviction sets a dangerous precedent for justice.
Maybe its about time we prioritize ensuring innocent people arent wrongfully convicted over worrying about setting a dangerous precedent. Justice should mean protecting the innocent, not just securing convictions at all costs.
Do you think pursuing acquittal without conviction is a smart move?
Absolutely not. Pursuing acquittal without conviction is a waste of time and resources. It sends the wrong message and undermines the justice system. If theres evidence of wrongdoing, it should be addressed appropriately. Dont play games with the law.
What are your thoughts on the legal strategy for Golriz Ghahramans case?
Do you think this strategy will work, or is it just wishful thinking?