Ghahraman appeal fails

The Herald reports:

A second bid by former Green Party MP Golriz Ghahraman to avoid a conviction for last year’s nearly $9000 shoplifting spree has failed. …

In a judgment released this morning, High Court Justice Geoffrey Venning said “the consequences of conviction cannot be said to be ‘out of all proportion’ to the gravity of offending in this case” — meaning there was no error in the district court decision.

The judgement is below, for those interested. The Judge goes through a process where he assesses the severity of the offending, then the severity of the consequence of conviction, and then whether the consequence isn’t just greater than the offending, but out of all proportion to it.

He said that offending can be categorised as low, moderate or serious and that on the bare facts, Ghahraman’s offending was in the serious category, albeit on the lower end of serious. Then taking into account her circumstances, the offending ends up in the moderate category, again at the lower end.

Then the Judge found that the consequences of a conviction, as opposed to consequences of the offending would fall in the low band, but at the higher end of low.

So you have the offending at the lower end of moderate and the consequences of a conviction at the higher end of low. Hence the consequences of a conviction do not outweigh the offending, let alone be out of all proportion to it. Basically the Judge is saying it isn’t even close.

Personally I think the convictions shouldn’t bar Ghahraman from practising law again at some stage in the future. It’s a matter of how long a break there should be between conviction and being able to practice again.