Source: Radio New Zealand
Fifty-one people were killed in two attacks on mosques in Christchurch in 2019. RNZ / Nathan Mckinnon
Lawyers acting for the terrorist who massacred 51 worshippers at two Christchurch mosques say their client suffered a “complete destruction of his identity” because of his prison conditions, leading to an irrational decision to plead guilty.
Australian Brenton Tarrant wants the Court of Appeal to overturn his convictions and sentence for the March 2019 shootings at Al Noor Mosque and Linwood Islamic Centre.
After initially pleading not guilty in June 2019 to 51 counts of murder, 40 of attempted murder and one of committing terrorism, he changed his pleas in March 2020.
The terrorist was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole in August 2020.
The 35-year-old now claims he pleaded guilty only because he was irrational as a result of the solitary nature of his prison conditions, which were torturous and inhumane.
One of the terrorist’s lawyers, who can only be identified as counsel A, quoted Nelson Mandela in laying out their argument to Justices Christine French, Susan Thomas and David Collins.
“No one truly knows a nation until he’s been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged on how it treats its highest citizens but how it treats its lowest ones,” the lawyer said.
The lawyer argued there were minimum conditions that all prisoners were entitled to, regardless of the crime they were accused of, and the terrorist’s rights had been breached.
“Those conditions apply to everyone. They apply to everyone, even Mr Tarrant, who has been described as the most reviled person in New Zealand. He is entitled to the rule of law and to be treated in accordance with the same standards that attach to all prisoners in New Zealand,” the lawyer said.
“Even in this most terrible of cases there are minimum expectations – minimum – which we say were ignored in this unprecedented case. These principles and standards include the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, as well as international agreements as to how prisoners are to be held and treated.
“It is submitted that we must hold fast to those ideals that form this nation and not be pulled away by the undoubtedly strong and no doubt justified emotions that attach in this particular case. We must hold fast, especially in the most difficult of cases and circumstances which this case undoubtedly is. It is these most difficult of cases which test and strain at the rule of law the most.”
Counsel A claimed that the terrorist had lost all ability to defend himself in court as a result of his prison conditions, including total isolation aside from transactional contact with corrections staff, constant surveillance and limited activity.
“His guilty pleas were not entered voluntarily. They were entered as a direct result of the oppressive conditions in which he was held,” the lawyer said.
“It is said that these oppressive conditions impacted upon his mental health to such a severe extent that it prevented him from being able to participate in court process properly.
“It is Mr Tarrant’s evidence that due to his isolation and the associated conditions, he suffered a complete destruction of his identity. He describes this as nervous exhaustion or a nervous breakdown.”
The court has heard the terrorist initially raised the possibility of pleading guilty on 31 July 2019 – which came as a surprise to one of his then-lawyers – but four days’ later he again changed his mind and maintained his not guilty stance.
On Tuesday his former lawyers Shane Tait and Jonathan Hudson told the court from that point they were clear the terrorist always intended to plead guilty but he wanted to control the timing of his plea.
The terrorist claimed his mental state had declined to such an extent he felt forced into pleading guilty and he feared embarrassing himself at trial.
“It is his evidence that he had lost his sense of who he was and the capacity, the resilience if you like, to be able to run an effective defence by himself,” counsel A told the court on Thursday morning.
“There was also the point made that he believed if he did plead guilty that he might be able to ameliorate or improve those prison conditions under which he was being held.”
On Wednesday the court heard from other lawyers who had previously acted for the terrorist and described his conditions as unsatisfactory.
A psychologist said the terrorist’s prison conditions were not positive but were not as harsh as some prisons globally and did not amount to torture.
The terrorist appearing at the hearing earlier this week. Supplied
The terrorist was housed in the prisoners of extreme risk unit (PERU) at Auckland Prison.
He was cut off from meaningful interaction with other people, including fellow prisoners.
Another lawyer acting for the terrorist, who can only be identified as counsel B, said the conditions her client was held under before pleading guilty were unprecedented in modern New Zealand history.
“Make no mistake, Mr Tarrant’s circumstances are like no other. They are far more extreme, in our submission, than any other prisoner in the PERU or any other prisoner in New Zealand history,” counsel B told the court.
The terrorist, in his own subjective assessment, was not acting rationally at the time of pleading guilty but had only become aware of that with the benefit of hindsight, counsel B said.
The terrorist’s lawyers will continue their submissions on Thursday afternoon.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand