Blood in the Water

And a Media Feeding Frenzy

On Wednesday 16 January mainstream media (MSM) news outlets Stuff, the NZ Herald and Radio NZ were abuzz with the story that former Green MP Golriz Ghahraman was the subject of a shoplifting complaint.

The first mention in the NZ Herald did not reveal her name and maintained her anonymity. Ms. Ghahraman’s lawyer had cautioned against compromising any fair trial rights that Ms Ghahraman might have. I am unable to locate that article.

However, Radio NZ and Stuff were not so coy. A search of the news articles reveals that at 7:51 am Stuff published the story that “ Former MP Golriz Ghahraman under investigation again for shoplifting”. The story went out under he by-line of Catrin Owen.

Stuff reported the matter as follows:

“Police are investigating another complaint of shoplifting against former MP Golriz Ghahraman, this time from a supermarket.

The alleged shoplifting incident reportedly happened at Pak’n Save Royal Oak in late 2024.

Police confirmed to Stuff a shoplifting complaint from late 2024 was under investigation. No charges had been laid.

Stuff understands Ghahraman, a former Green MP, is the subject of the complaint.”

It was at 8:54 am that the Herald published Ms Ghahraman’s name under a headline “Police investigating new shoplifting complaint against former MP Golriz Ghahraman”

The article was under the byline of Jaime Lyth & Raphael Franks and the article confirmed that the complaint had been under investigation from late 2024.

At 10:41 am Radio NZ ran the story under the headline “New shoplifting allegation against former Green MP Golriz Ghahraman”. The story was in the same vein as the Stuff report.

At 5:00 pm Stuff expanded on the story under the headline “Golriz Ghahraman shoplifting allegations: Former MP reportedly spotted putting groceries in tote bag in Pak’nSave”

The story stated:

“On Thursday, The Post reported Ghahraman was seen putting groceries into a tote bag which was sitting in a trolley.

It is understood she was approached by a staff member who had been watching her on CCTV and asked to leave the shop.

The Post reported Ghahraman’s response was that she was still shopping and wanted to pay for the groceries. She then left.”

A Herald account was timed at 7:03 pm on 16 January and reported the expanded facts that were the subject of the Stuff article. The Herald piece reads:

“A shoplifting complaint against former Green MP Golriz Ghahraman is understood to relate to an incident where she was allegedly seen placing items into a tote bag at an Auckland supermarket.

The Herald first reported on Wednesday that a police investigation was under way into a complaint of shoplifting, understood to have allegedly occurred at a Pak’nSave supermarket in Auckland’s Royal Oak in late 2024.

A source told the Herald when the former MP was in the Royal Oak supermarket her manner of shopping, in particular the way she was carrying items, aroused the suspicion of store security officers monitoring shoppers.

She was allegedly seen putting some grocery items in a tote bag and other items into a handbag.

The Herald understands that as she approached the checkout she was stopped by store security who asked her to empty out all the bags she was carrying.

When she took the grocery items out of her bags she purportedly told staff she had every intention to pay for them.

The shopping trip at the centre of the latest shoplifting allegations was captured on in-store security footage.”

On Friday 17 January the Herald published a reasonably detailed article penned by David Fisher under the headline “Golriz Ghahraman and the $150 Pak’nSave shopping incident – supermarket never complained to police who tried to use allegation in court”

Mr Fisher’s article provides quite a bit more detail and nuance than the pieces of 16 January and raise a number of issues. These issues are as follows:

1. The way in which the story was reported on 16 January suggests that the incident at Pak’NSave took place towards the end of 2024 and certainly after Ms. Ghahraman’s sentencing in the District Court and her appeal to the High Court in October 2024.

This was not the case.

Mr. Fisher reports that the Crown tried to introduce the Pak’NSave incident into the High Court hearing of Ms. Ghahraman’s appeal against sentence. The hearing (which was on 13 October 2024) was reported on 21 October 2024 in the Herald. The report of the sentencing hearing makes no reference to the Crown’s efforts to get the new allegation taken into account.

However Mr Fisher states

“The Herald has learned the report of the case emerged just before Ghahraman’s appearance in the High Court at Auckland.”

thus confirming the date as prior to the appeal hearing on 13 October 2024

2. The 16 January article suggests that a complaint had been made and the available inference was that complaint came from Pak’NSave.

Mr. Fisher’s article makes it clear that the supermarket made no such complaint. The supermarket never reported the incident directly to the Police. Mr. Fisher notes that this sparks questions about how the incident came to the attention of the authorities. The suggestion is that it may have come to their attention via the Auror platform to which Foodstuffs, other supermarkets, service stations, shopping malls and big box retailers subscribe which logs and data-matches alleged retail crime.

Mr. Fisher states:

“Auror provides a crime-reporting platform that operates as a nationwide surveillance system including facial recognition software, licence plate recognition and an information-sharing platform to which police have access.

A Foodstuffs spokesperson confirmed the company did not proactively make a complaint to police.”

3. There must be some question as to whether or not the facts as reported were sufficient to sustain an allegation of theft.

Mr. Fisher reports:

“Ghahraman was believed to have been watched on CCTV placing items in a shopping trolley or into a tote bag that was in the trolley when she was stopped by security and asked to empty her bags.

At that stage, the Herald understands, Ghahraman had not been through the checkout or left the store – and told security she intended to pay for the goods she had chosen. She then left the store without the goods.

The Herald understands Ghahraman had about a dozen items with a value of less than $150 – what Foodstuffs has described to the Herald as “low-level”.

The incident was put into the Auror system to which Foodstuffs, other supermarkets, service stations, shopping malls and big box retailers subscribe which logs and data-matches alleged retail crime.”

Two matters arise from that. The first is that if there was an allegation of theft (and it appears that a charge has not been laid) Ms. Ghahraman is entitled to the presumption of innocence. In our system a person is innocent until they have been proven guilty of a charge.

And if a person has been charged the prosecution must prove each and every element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, the fact finder (judge or jury) must be sure that the elements have been proven.

Putting it simply, theft requires the dishonest taking of any property. This is what is referred to as the actus reus or wrongful act.

The action of taking the property must be accompanied by an intention to deprive the owner of that property permanently of that property - the mens rea or guilty mind.

There are additional issues about claim of right which need not concern us in this matter.

So was property worth in the vicinity of $150 taken? Mr. Fisher sought the opinion of barrister Graem Edgeler who said it was highly unlikely that the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard would be reached for someone who was not actively hiding goods and had yet to move beyond the checkout.

“If she never left the store … makes it harder to prove [she acquired the goods illegally]”

Mr. Edgeler said it would be easier to prove the allegation of shoplifting if the person with the goods had left the store with them without paying. And he is right. The checkout is the “last opportunity” that is presented to a person in terms of the first element of dishonest taking.

If the goods are paid for there is no dishonesty associated with the taking of the goods. Up until that time the issue of whether or not the wrongful act has taken place is moot. If the person conceals goods at the checkout to avoid paying for them, or avoids going to the checkout altogether and takes the goods then the wrongful act has taken place.

So as Mr. Edgeler says, in the circumstances of this case it might be difficult for a fact finder to be sure that there was a dishonest taking of the goods.

These issues seem to have been overlooked by those who reported the story on 16 January 2025.

4. Mr. Fisher reported that

“The revelation of a new alleged shoplifting incident came from Auckland restaurateur Leo Molloy in a social media video”

Mr. Molloy is perfectly entitled to express his point of view on social media or in any other forum but it is not really correct to suggest that this was a “new”..incident, given that it occurred early in October 2024.

The effect of Mr. Molloy’s revelation was to put a scent of blood in the water. MSM got a scent of the blood and on the 16 January 2025 there was a feeding frenzy. It was not until the careful and well investigated report of Mr. Fisher that it seems that the feeding frenzy abated.

What should have happened was that before rushing to print MSM should have taken a breath, done a bit of homework and, if they thought there was a story, publish something along the lines of Mr. Fisher’s article of 17 January.

As at 16 January the story was all over social media but the social media gossip and rumour was given some credibility by the reporting by MSM.

Initially the Herald was restrained and did not identify Ms. Ghahraman but once her name had been published by RNZ and Stuff, they shed their inhibitions.

What this exemplifies was that on 16 January there was something close to a trial by media. MSM outlets – RNZ, Herald and Stuff – developed the story during the day, adding in the information about CCTV and placing items in the tote bag but ignoring the fact that at that stage Ms. Ghahraman had done nothing wrong.

But the MSM inference was plain. She had been convicted of shoplifting in 2024, therefore demonstrating a propensity for this sort of behaviour. We don’t need to be bothered about trifles like when the wrongful act is complete. It is the story that matters. We don’t need to be bothered about legal technicalities like the presumption of innocence or proof of all the elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. It is the story that matters and after all, our readers (who sadly have had no education in civics and the way that the criminal process works) aren’t going to split hairs.

The thing is that their reports of 16 January got it wrong and really only told half the story.

And the bigger issue is this.

At the moment there is something of a crisis for MSM. It is not just a question of financial survival but a matter of public trust and confidence. The way in which this story was handled on 16 January hardly inspires trust and confidence in MSM, especially after the backfilling piece by David Fisher on 17 January which demonstrated that the true and detailed facts were available and those facts placed a significantly more nuanced light on the matter.

In addition Ms. Ghahraman has had to suffer yet another MSM and social media pile on in circumstances where wrongdoing was inferred from a collection of poorly researched (indeed if there was any research initially) information. MSM in its rush for the story seemed more focussed on the suggestion of a story than the facts behind it.

And we are meant to trust MSM? They have a way to go to earn that trust, although that said, Mr. Fisher was able to salvage something from the frenzy which, thankfully, seems to have abated.