The criticism of Golriz Ghahraman for acting as a defence counsel and defending persons charged with being war criminals is completely unacceptable. The fact she is prepared to use her considerable skills for defence work as well as prosecuting is no more than performing the obligations required of a lawyer to make her skills available to those who need them without fear or favour.
Lawyers who defend persons charged with serious offences need the support of the community in recognition of the importance of the function they perform. The right to a defence is an essential part of a civilised society and this can be reflected in the fact that in a totalitarian regime the first people that are killed or imprisoned are lawyers.
The unjustified criticism of Golriz reflects an unfortunate trend in our society where persons attack the defence lawyer as if they have committed some offence. Whilst there is total support for the presumption of innocence, this does not always translate to recognition of the right to a fair trial as too often there is a willingness to assume that a person is guilty simply because he or she has been charged with an offence. Defence lawyers are constantly asked how they can defend persons who are “obviously guilty”.
Successful defence lawyers are not motivated by money (other branches of law are much more financially rewarding) but have a passion for justice that enables them to work in a career that is both difficult and stressful. It is a sad reflection on our society that defence lawyers regularly experience abuse from the public when conducting controversial trials. It is unfortunate that this abuse has now extended into the political arena.
The cab rank rule is an important feature of a defence lawyer’s obligation and he or she is not entitled to refuse to defend a defendant because of the horrendous nature of the crime alleged.
Defence lawyers are an important and essential part of a healthy judicial system which requires that only persons found guilty after a fair trial are punished. It should be a matter of pride and not abuse that a lawyer recognises his or her professional obligation to defend a person charged with a heinous crime.
Whoever wrote this unsigned piece has obviously never read this lady’s Green Party CV – before it was changed.
The criticism she has rightfully received are about the words “enforcing human rights and holding governments to account” which give a very wrong impression of what she was doing in Africa and the Hague.
In Cambodia there have only been 3 convictions for war crimes ( at a cost of USD 100 million per conviction ) and the Government there, headed by a former ranking Khmer Rouge Cadre, has effectively blocked other prosecutions taking place, so the UN has been unable to bring the government there to account at all.
It’s not about her acting for the defense, it’s about her misleading readers of her CV.
She’s made 2 silly mistakes now and I hope she learns from them.
Comments are closed.