Golriz Ghahraman court case: details of prior working relationship with judge emerges

Author: Philip Crump,
Publish Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024, 3:38pm

Details are emerging of a prior working relationship between former Green Party MP Golriz Ghahraman and Judge Maria Pecotic, who presided over Ghahraman’s shoplifting case in the Auckland District Court yesterday.

The former MP yesterday admitted four shoplifting charges over allegations she stole nearly $9000 worth of goods.

Judge Pecotic remanded Ghahraman at large until her sentencing on June 24. The judge did not enter a conviction over any of the charges but may do so at the sentencing.

Yesterday’s hearing was initially scheduled for March 20 but was brought forward.

Ghahraman, 43, who was the Green Party’s justice spokesperson, was wearing a black dress and carrying a Free Palestine-labelled bag.

She stole $2060 of clothing from Scotties Boutique in Auckland’s Ponsonby on December 21 and was also charged with stealing $7223 worth of clothing from the same store two days later.

It is understood the value of the clothing for the second Scotties-related charge has been reduced to $5773. Both of the charges carry a maximum penalty of seven years in prison.

She was also charged with stealing $695 worth of clothing from Wellington's Cre8iveworx Store on 22 October and a navy cardigan valued at $389 from Standard Issue in Newmarket on 22 December.

Judge Pecotic was appointed a District Court Judge by then Attorney-General David Parker in late 2021. She was admitted to the bar in 1994 and practised as a barrister sole, first at Greenlane East Chambers before founding Verus Chambers in 2012.

In 2018, the Herald reported on a trial of an individual on drug-related charges noting that the lawyer representing the man in court was Pecotic. The article noted that the case was appealed to the Court of Appeal: "Pecotic and Golriz Ghahraman - who is now an MP and the Green Party's police and corrections spokesperson - appealed."

A spokesperson for the Chief District Court Judge's Chambers told ZB Plus this afternoon that counsel or a sitting judge is able to raise a perceived conflict of interest through a recusal process but that in this case, "no perceived conflict was raised".

"As it concerns a matter before the court it would not be appropriate to comment further."

"We understand that yesterday’s appearance was originally scheduled for 20th March, a joint memorandum was filed by parties seeking for guilty pleas to be entered resulting in the matter being bought forward to 13th March."

"Media who had previously had applications approved were notified of the new date and time and the matter was managed appropriately and without deviation from standard procedures or any special dispensation."

Media were told the hearing was being brought forward just after 5pm the day before, which sources told ZB Plus was "strangely short notice".

The District Court Recusal Guidelines state: "The guiding principle is that a Judge is disqualified from sitting if in the circumstances there is a real possibility that in the eyes of a fair-minded and fully informed observer the Judge might not be impartial in reaching a decision in the case."

The test considers two elements: What are the circumstances relevant to the possible need for recusal because of apparent bias? Whether those circumstances lead to a reasonable apprehension the Judge may not be impartial.

The test requires ascertainment of, first what it is that might possibly lead to a reasonable apprehension that the Judge might decide the case other than on its merits and, secondly, whether there is a logical and sufficient connection between those circumstances and that apprehension.

The guidelines also recommend that if the issue is not clear cut, the judge should consult with the Chief District Court Judge, relevant Principal Court Judge or other senior judge.

Alternatively, the guidelines recommend that the judge raise any potential or perceived conflict in open court or otherwise issue a minute addressed to the parties drawing their attention to the relevant circumstances, inviting them to indicate if they have any views on whether the judge should preside over the hearing.

In this case, Judge Pecotic appears not to have undertaken any other these alternative means of addressing any potential or perceived conflict.

ZB Plus contacted Ghahraman and her lawyer, Annabel Cresswell, for comment. Neither responded.

Take your Radio, Podcasts and Music with you