The Australian man responsible for the tragic massacre at two Christchurch mosques in March 2019 has appeared in a Wellington court, initiating proceedings to challenge his guilty pleas. The hearing, scheduled for five days, is examining the gunman’s assertion that the harsh conditions of his confinement rendered him incapable of making rational decisions when he pleaded guilty to murder, attempted murder, and terrorism charges in March 2020.
He has lodged two applications: one seeking an extension of time to appeal his sentence and conviction, and another aimed at vacating his guilty pleas and having the case proceed to a full trial.
“The primary issue is whether at the time he entered those guilty pleas, he was unable to make a rational decision due to his prison conditions,” stated Justice Christine French, President of the New Zealand Court of Appeal, as the hearing commenced. The 35-year-old, originally from Grafton, New South Wales, appeared via video link from a high-security facility where he is being held. Brenton Harrison Tarrant presented a markedly different appearance from his last public sighting at his sentencing in August 2020, when he wore grey prison attire and sat stoically as victims’ families delivered their impact statements, labelling him a “coward,” a “low-life,” and a “maggot,” with one even calling for his deportation. In this latest appearance, he was seen in a white collared shirt and dark-rimmed glasses, his head shaved.
Tarrant’s Testimony and Claims of Duress
During the proceedings, Tarrant appeared engaged and confident in his exchanges with Crown solicitor Barnaby Hawes, though some interactions were described as testy. The questioning primarily focused on his mental state in the period leading up to his guilty pleas. He acknowledged having numerous, often lengthy, meetings with his legal team, both in person and via phone, and confirmed he understood their advice. He agreed that by August 2019, he had indicated his intention to plead guilty, which he formally did in March 2020. However, he maintained that he was not in a fit mental state at the time.
Tarrant told the court that his mental health was deteriorating, and he experienced “wildly fluctuating beliefs and identity.” He described the prospect of facing trial under those conditions as “a nightmare,” stating, “There was nothing else I could do. I was forced to do it.” He expressed concerns about making a fool of himself in court due to his mental state, fearing he might twitch or be unable to speak. Ultimately, he felt he “had no choice” but to plead guilty to avoid a trial.
Mr. Hawes suggested that Tarrant had other options, such as applying for an adjournment. Tarrant stated he could not recall much about this period, asserting, “I’d say it was a decision induced by the conditions, rather than a decision I’d rationally made.” When pressed on why his lawyers did not appear to have concerns about his mental state during their frequent meetings, Tarrant claimed he was “downplaying” the impact of his confinement and always aimed to “put on the best front possible.” He indicated that his mental health improved when he was occupied and that receiving news updates from the outside world was “nice.”
Victims’ Families React to Proceedings
Outside the court, some victims’ families, including Sara Qasem, whose father Abdelfattah Qasem was killed, expressed their feelings that Tarrant’s appeal was a “taunt.” Ms. Qasem commented, “Quite frankly I think for him (Tarrant) it’s just a bit of a game. I don’t seem to see any change in character over the years at all.” She added, “We’re all together and supporting one another, and just like we have in the past, we will get through it just like we always have.” Rashid Omar, whose son Tariq Omar was killed, echoed these sentiments, stating, “It’s really annoying because he’s trying to play with all of us, and this is … just a waste of our time and waste of taxpayers’ money.”
The Rationality of Pleading Guilty
Tarrant maintained that while he was making choices when he pleaded guilty, they were “not choices made voluntarily, they were not choices made rationally.” Mr. Hawes challenged this by asking, “Can I suggest to you that pleading guilty is perfectly rational?” Tarrant disagreed, arguing, “A far better option would be to go to trial and defend myself.” He admitted to expressing remorse at one point, but attributed this state of mind to the “induced” effects of prison conditions.
The court heard that Tarrant is being held in solitary confinement without access to television. He was reportedly keen to receive information about international news events, requesting his lawyers bring such updates during visits. The court was also told Tarrant was an avid reader in prison. Mr. Hawes noted that Tarrant’s lawyer had once remarked that he was processing case materials faster than the lawyer. Tarrant responded, “That’s not particularly hard to do, I have 24 hours of free time.” He suggested that any prisoner in solitary confinement could achieve the same. He also read between two to three books per week, though he found the quality of some to be “abysmal.” He identified the lack of reading material as “by far one of the biggest issues” and detrimental to his mental health.
Throughout hours of testimony, Tarrant appeared highly engaged, frequently pressing Mr. Hawes for specifics regarding quoted material, requesting he speak closer to the microphone, and interjecting when necessary. In one heated exchange, he questioned whether prison guards constituted “prison authorities,” appearing agitated when Mr. Hawes did not provide a direct answer.
Expert Witness Testimony and Crown’s Accusations
Tarrant initially pleaded not guilty, with a trial scheduled for June 2020. However, he changed his plea in March of that year, admitting to 51 murder charges, 40 charges of attempted murder, and a terrorism charge.
In the afternoon session, Mr. Hawes questioned Witness B, an Australian clinical psychologist. The discussion revolved around Tarrant’s conditions leading up to his change of plea and his reports to Witness B regarding a potential “deterioration in his mental health.” Witness B stated in their report that they believed Mr. Tarrant’s emotional wellbeing, judgment, and ability to make informed choices were impacted during the period he chose to plead guilty.
Mr. Hawes questioned the witness, “You are here in support of a conviction appeal, aren’t you?” Witness B responded by stating they were there to answer why Mr. Tarrant might have changed his plea from not guilty to guilty and then back to not guilty. They clarified, “I don’t believe that at any stage during his incarceration that he was unfit to plead, I want to make that clear, but I do think there is an obvious change in his mental health as reported to me in [an] interview.”
Mr. Hawes countered, “Well, what might have changed was that Mr Tarrant was staring down the barrel of spending the rest of his life in prison, … that could explain the change, couldn’t it?” The expert witness referenced research on sleep deprivation and the psychological impact of solitary confinement, accepting those conditions as onerous. The Crown solicitor repeatedly accused the witness of being an advocate for Tarrant, suggesting they were not seeking balance and not performing an expert role. Witness B denied acting purely as Tarrant’s advocate, stating they were attempting to understand the reasons for the plea changes and believed the conditions Tarrant experienced between March 2019 and September 2020 were the only plausible explanation.
Court Proceedings and Security Measures
Extraordinary security measures have been implemented for the hearing, with access to the court tightly controlled. The legal team representing Tarrant has had their identities suppressed due to safety concerns for themselves and their families, being referred to only as counsel A, B, C, and D. Tarrant expressed concerns for his family’s safety, refusing to discuss his interactions with them from prison, stating, “I won’t be going into details about my family in court — puts them in danger.”
Victims and their families are viewing a delayed recording of the proceedings in Wellington and Christchurch. Only a limited portion of Tarrant’s testimony will be made public, and the identities of several other witnesses scheduled to appear this week will also remain suppressed.
