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.
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