The terrorist who killed 51 people in a hate-fuelled attack on mosques in Christchurch wanted to argue self-defence at trial, a court has heard.
Brenton Tarrant is currently attempting to convince the Court of Appeal to let him reverse the guilty pleas he entered after the massacre, so a trial can take place years after the event.
The killer, who shot down worshippers at random and without mercy, pleaded guilty to 51 charges of murder, 40 counts of attempted murder and one charge of committing a terrorist act in 2020.
He now claims he only pleaded guilty because he was suffering from "inhumane" prison conditions in solitary confinement.
The 35-year-old Australian gave evidence to that effect in court himself yesterday as his appeal hearing began, expressing no remorse for his crimes and instead saying his own mental health was "wildly fluctuating" in jail.
He is currently serving a sentence of life in prison, without parole.
Court told mosque shooter 'wanted to be described as a terrorist' - Watch on TVNZ+
Terrorist’s prison conditions
On Tuesday afternoon, the court heard about the conditions in Auckland Prison at Paremoremo.
His treatment there was central to the terrorist’s appeal, as he claimed it was inhumane and ultimately the reason he entered his guilty pleas.
The Crown has disputed this saying he did not show signs of mental illness when seen by health assessors, as he claimed.
On Tuesday afternoon, a Corrections official was called to give evidence, appearing under the protection of a suppression order, with the court referring to them only as "Witness D”.
They were questioned by Tarrant’s lawyer, also under a suppression order and referred to only as “Counsel A”.
The various suppression orders led to a highly unusual exchange – an anonymous lawyer cross-examining an anonymous witness, with both of their voices heavily disguised on a livestream of the proceedings.
Counsel A asked if Tarrant had been kept in solitary confinement from the time of his arrest in March 2019 until September 2020, or a year and a half.
The official could only comment on the period between October 2019 and September 2020 when they were involved, but confirmed Tarrant was kept in cell alone over that time.
They confirmed there were at least two cameras in the cell and yard area of the unit. Tarrant was visible on those cameras at all times apart from one blind spot, underneath a table.
Corrections staff members were often placed directly outside the cell in observation.
Counsel A asked if the prisoner was “literally being watched 24/7”.
“Yes, correct,” the Corrections official replied.
Physical checks were carried out every 15 minutes of the day and night, with guards opening a flap on the cell. The Corrections official agreed that, at night, the guards would sometimes shine their torch inside to check on the prisoner.
Counsel A asked if the official agreed that the opening and closing of this flap disturbed the prisoner. The official said there was some fabric on the area to “soften the noise”.
The official confirmed, under ongoing cross examination, that Tarrant was not given a radio like other prisoners, who were commonly allowed to listen to news or music if they had a signal.
They said news could probably be “heard through the radio” and that could “potentially elevate the prisoner’s risk to others around him including staff”.
Counsel A queried this, saying that there were only staff around him at this time anyway.
The official replied, “at that time yes”.
The lawyer also asked if prison staff had been asked to keep their conversations with Tarrant “minimal”.
“The word would be transactional,” the official replied.
The court also heard that Tarrant would be given activity sheets, but the list of activities on these sheets included “towel”, “jandals” and “soap”.
“They’re not really activities,” the lawyer said.
The Corrections official agreed that there would have been “periods of time where he had very little to do in his cell”, but said he did have access to Sudoku and crosswords.
There was also discussion about his phone calls, with Tarrant’s lawyer suggesting he was not given any access to the phone in his first month and, after this, there was a period where was only allowed five minutes a week.
The official could not comment on this period as they were not involved at the time.
In re-examination, the Crown asked the Corrections official if Tarrant had books to read.
They confirmed he did.
The killer said in his evidence on Monday that he read an average of three a week, with some sent to him in the post by people outside the jail.
The Court of Appeal has been hearing from the Christchurch mosque terrorist's former lawyers. (Source: 1News)
Defence lawyers recall interactions with terrorist
Tarrant claimed he felt forced to plead guilty because the lawyers he had at the time refused to run the defence he wanted.
“It was a decision induced by the conditions, rather than a decision I rationally made,” he said during his evidence.
His lawyers in 2019 and 2020 were Jonathan Hudson and Shane Tait, two barristers based in Auckland.
Both were called as witnesses for the Crown at the Court of Appeal this morning, giving evidence against their former client.
Hudson spoke calmly and quietly as he was asked to recount his time defending the killer.
He faced cross-examination from Tarrant’s current lawyers, whose names have been suppressed by an order of the court in what is a highly unusual move.
The lawyer questioning him had their voice disguised on a livestream of the hearing, which is being watched by the killer himself from his prison cell in Auckland.
The stream is also being played for survivors and the families of the victims of the attacks in Christchurch.
As cross-examination began, Hudson agreed he was brought into the case on March 28 2019, two weeks after the deadly attack.
Tarrant had called Tait’s office looking for legal representation, but Hudson picked up the phone. The two lawyers began to work on the case together and met the killer in person in prison many times over the next year.
Hudson agreed that right from the outset, Tarrant wanted media articles from the “outside world”, and this continued for months.
Counsel B then asked Hudson about a call where Tarrant was told that one of the charges he faced had been increased from attempted murder to murder.
Hudson’s evidence is that he remembered the conversation, because of Tarrant’s “extremely unusual response”.
“It wasn’t the response that I’d expected,” he said.
Hudson also remembered an unusual conversation when a new charge of engaging in a terrorist act was laid in May.
“Yes, he was pleased,” he told the court today.
“He wanted to be described as a terrorist,” he added later.
Despite this, Hudson and Tait continued to receive instructions to prepare for trial, and not guilty pleas to all charges were entered in June 2019.
There were then conflicting instructions about the plea, with Tarrant initially asking them to enter guilty pleas, then changing his mind and finally deciding to plead guilty in 2020.
Both barristers say that Tarrant had told them he wanted to plead guilty throughout, but wasn’t clear about when he would do that. However under cross-examination today, Hudson accepted he did not get signed instructions to that effect.
The man responsible for the worst act of terrorism in NZ history is seeking leave to appeal his convictions that were entered five years ago. (Source: 1News)
Counsel B put it to Hudson that there were no file notes of Tarrant agreeing to plead guilty to everything.
“I would have to review all of my file notes, I’m not sure about that,” he replied.
“We were preparing on the basis that we would likely have to put the Crown to the proof, in the absence of any meaningful instructions for a defence.”
Hudson said the killer did not appear, to him, to be showing any signs of acute mental illness. He also took comfort from two reports from health assessors that found that he was fit to enter pleas.
“There were no signs that I saw,” he said.
Later, Hudson was asked whether he accepted that Tarrant believed he had a defence to the charges, based on his ideology.
“Really I only understand his defence and claim to be one of self defence, one that was not available to him,” Hudson replied.
Counsel B asked if this was based on Tarrant’s ideological belief that he was “justified in some way” in his attack.
“Certainly that was how he justified it, but I believed that he was accepting of our advice that he didn’t have a lawful defence to the charges he faced,” the barrister replied.
Later, Hudson said Tarrant also asked about the possibility of the defence of another shooter coming into the mosque.
The barrister considered that this defence was “not available to him”. The terrorist filmed his attack live, using a GoPro camera mounted on his head, meaning there was extensive video evidence of what happened.
Later, Tarrant’s other lawyer Tait was also called to give evidence, and spoke about many of the same meetings, supporting Hudson’s telling of events.
He said he had also told him the defences he wanted could not be run.
“I made it clear that it wasn’t available to him and in my opinion any trial judge would not let that defence be put to a jury,” he said.
Tait agreed, under cross-examination from Counsel B, that he had told Tarrant he had no arguable defence in law, and the case against him was overwhelming.
“He was just wanting to plead guilty at a time that suited his agenda, one could say,” he said.
Tait agreed that terrorism was something Tarrant “wanted to be convicted of”.
The hearing will continue for the rest of the week.
SHARE ME