Terrorist, Not Defence: Christchurch Gunman’s Ideology at Core of Court Appeal
A Wellington court has been informed that the Australian man responsible for the 2019 Christchurch mosque attacks expressed satisfaction upon learning he would be charged with terrorism, a sentiment directly linked to his extremist ideological beliefs. The ongoing hearing, focused on Brenton Tarrant’s bid to overturn his guilty pleas and conviction, heard testimony from his former legal representative, barrister Jonathan Hudson.
Mr Hudson, who acted for Tarrant from March 2019 to July 2020, described his client’s unexpected reaction when informed that the charges had been escalated to include a count of engaging in a terrorist act. “He was pleased,” Mr Hudson told the court. When questioned by a member of Tarrant’s current legal team, referred to as Counsel B, about whether this reaction aligned with Tarrant’s ideology at the time, Mr Hudson affirmed, “it would appear to be, yes.” He further stated, “He wanted to be described as a terrorist.”
Another barrister involved in Tarrant’s defence, Shane Tait, also testified. He elaborated on Tarrant’s mindset, explaining that his client “never wanted to defend the terrorist charge, it was something that he wanted to be convicted of.”
Grounds for Appeal: Mental State and Prison Conditions
The core of the five-day hearing revolves around the 35-year-old Australian’s claims of mental ill-health at the time he entered guilty pleas in March 2020 to 51 charges of murder, 40 of attempted murder, and one of engaging in a terrorist act. Tarrant has lodged two applications: one seeking leave to appeal his sentence and conviction, and another aiming to withdraw his guilty pleas and have the case proceed to trial.
When the hearing commenced, Justice Christine French, president of the New Zealand Court of Appeal, identified the primary issue as “whether at the time he entered those guilty pleas, he was unable to make a rational decision due to his prison conditions.” Appearing via video link from the high-security facility where he is serving a life sentence without parole, Tarrant himself stated on the first day that the conditions had led to a state of “nervous exhaustion.”
However, Mr Hudson presented a contrasting view, maintaining that Tarrant was not mentally unwell when he entered his guilty pleas. While acknowledging that he had represented clients with mental health issues, Mr Hudson conceded under cross-examination that he is not a mental health expert and lacks specific training in the field. He described the case as “unusual” but emphasised the significant personal time he spent with Tarrant in face-to-face meetings.
A “Prison Within a Prison”: Tarrant’s Complaints
Tarrant is held in the Prisoners of Extreme Risk Unit at Auckland jail, a facility described as a “prison within a prison.” This unit, established specifically for Tarrant, houses approximately a dozen inmates. The stringent conditions within this unit form the crux of Tarrant’s complaints, with him alleging they drove him to a state bordering on “insanity.”
During his testimony, Tarrant detailed his solitary confinement, lack of television access, and insufficient reading materials. He also claimed that guards engaged in “mental games” by feigning an inability to understand him. Further concerns, as relayed by Mr Hudson, included Tarrant’s unease regarding the number of surveillance cameras and a perceived “lack of privacy” during meetings with his legal team. Mr Hudson confirmed he had communicated these concerns to the Department of Corrections, agreeing under questioning that the response was “generally dismissive.”
Differential Treatment and Constant Surveillance
The court also heard testimony suggesting that Tarrant and his legal team were subjected to a “different set of rules” compared to other prisoners. Mr Hudson expressed his lack of confidence that his calls with Tarrant were not being monitored and noted that Tarrant was constantly accompanied by guards taking notes throughout the prison. He found this level of scrutiny “unusual” and unlike anything he had experienced with other clients.
In the afternoon session, a senior corrections official corroborated the extensive surveillance measures. Witness D confirmed that Tarrant was observed constantly, with notes taken on his behaviour every five minutes. When questioned if this amounted to being “literally being watched 24/7?”, the witness responded affirmatively.
The official also confirmed that a flap on Tarrant’s cell door was opened every 15 minutes for staff checks. While a torch was shone into the cell at night, staff were instructed to direct the beam towards the ceiling. The witness disputed the suggestion that these frequent checks were inherently disruptive to sleep. However, he acknowledged findings from an ombudsman’s report in December 2024, which indicated that prisoners found such constant checks and the noise from cell hatch operations disruptive, describing the conditions as “deeply concerning.”
Shifting Stances and Ideological Imperatives
Mr Hudson testified that Tarrant had consistently indicated an intention to plead guilty, but his timing for doing so was “inconsistent.” The court heard of a significant shift in Tarrant’s position over a few days in August 2019. After informing his lawyers of his intention to plead guilty, Tarrant subsequently retracted this instruction, requesting that his defence proceed towards a trial. Mr Hudson agreed when asked if this “flip-flop in position or that 180 on instructions was highly unusual.”
The Royal Commission into the Christchurch shootings concluded in its November 2020 report that Tarrant’s actions were motivated by “an extreme right-wing Islamophobic ideology.” Justice Cameron Mander, in his sentencing remarks in August 2020, noted that while Tarrant’s upbringing was “unremarkable,” his travels in Europe led him to develop “deep-seated radical views regarding the migrant population of some Western countries and beliefs about the so-called ‘cultural displacement’ of Europeans in those countries.”
During the current hearing, barrister Shane Tait stated that Tarrant had discussed these beliefs with his legal team, acknowledging that they did not constitute a viable defence. Mr Tait confirmed advising Tarrant to seek a trial relocation from Christchurch, but Tarrant had instructed the withdrawal of this application. Mr Tait recalled Tarrant’s explanation: “he didn’t want to be seen running away.” He concluded, “His ideology seemed to be more important to him than any fair trial rights.”
Mr Tait added that Tarrant had accepted from the outset that the evidence against him was “overwhelming,” citing the Go Pro footage, a lengthy statement, CCTV, and text messages sent to his mother and sister prior to the attacks.
Tarrant, originally from Grafton, New South Wales, provided three hours of evidence on Monday. He is currently observing the proceedings via a video feed but is no longer visible to those present in the courtroom.
