NZ restricts the spread of a reviled killer’s views

In a nearly empty courthouse, in front of barely anyone, the call of New Zealand’s most criticized killer was heard silently, with little mention of the details of the country’s deadliest mass murder.

This is exactly New Zealand’s desire to suppress the racist motivations of Brenton Tarrant, who murdered 51 Muslims praying in two mosques in Christchurch in 2019. Tarrant, a self-described white supremacist, also mentioned other perpetrators of hate-filled massacres as he launched his attack, and other mass shooters have since also cited his actions.

However, the words of the Australian man are very rare in New Zealand, where he immigrated with the plan to collect semi-automatic weapons and commit massacres.

Authorities have attempted to prevent the spread of his views, including by legally banning his racist manifesto and a live video of the shooting. The effort to prevent Tarrant from being publicly exposed is perhaps most evident in the New Zealand courts, where Tarrant attempted to drop his guilty plea this week.

A three-judge panel at the Wellington Court of Appeal heard final arguments on Friday from crown lawyers opposing Tarrant’s application to have his 2020 confessions to terrorism, murder and attempted murder charges thrown out. He will be sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole, but if he is allowed to withdraw the guilty plea the case will return to court for a full hearing.

The 35-year-old man told the court this week that he did not want to admit his guilt and made the “implausible” confessions during a “nervous breakdown” brought on by lonely and difficult prison conditions. But crown lawyers opposing the appeal said in a response on Friday that there was no evidence of allegations that he was seriously mentally ill.

Experts ruled Tarrant was fit to enter a plea, and his former lawyers and prison staff did not raise concerns.

“It is difficult to see what more could have been done,” Crown attorney Barnaby Hawes told the court. He said Tarrant was “an unreliable witness and his account should be treated with caution.”

Lawyers said the evidence against Tarrant – including his own livestream in which he filmed his face – was so strong that if Tarrant fought the charges at a trial, a guilty verdict would be assured.

“In a situation where his guilt is certain, it cannot be viewed as unreasonable to plead guilty,” Hawes said.

Almost missing from the week-long trial was the lack of mention of Tarrant’s alleged hateful motives for committing the crimes. Lawyers for and against Tarrant’s bid avoided any reference to his white supremacist views, and the proceedings unfolded as quietly and indifferently as New Zealand cases usually do.

But there were signs that the court was trying to limit public exposure to Tarrant, as New Zealand’s justice system had previously done. Almost no one was allowed to see the gunman’s evidence, and the plea bid was held in front of nine reporters, nine lawyers, several court staff and an empty public gallery.

Tarrant was allowed to watch the hearing via videoconference from Auckland Prison, but his image was not seen in the courtroom except when he gave evidence. The shooter was invisible except in Christchurch, where bereaved and injured survivors watched the trial live at the local courthouse.

The approach taken by New Zealand, where even news organizations name the shooter as little as possible in each article, contrasts with the publicity previously given to trials of racist mass murderers; This includes the sweeping trials of Norwegian murderer Anders Breivik, whom Tarrant cited as an inspiration years later.

Crown lawyers urged appeal judges on Friday to block the possibility of the matter returning to court in a lengthy public hearing that would take place if the Australian’s bid to plead guilty is successful.

“Keeping this case alive is a source of great distress for the attacker’s victims,” ​​Crown attorney Madeleine Laracy said. “It doesn’t allow them to heal.”

The judges’ decision will be announced later. New Zealand’s appeals court makes 90 percent of its decisions within three months of the end of a hearing, according to the court’s website.

If his bid to withdraw his guilty plea fails, Tarrant’s case will return to the appeals court for a later hearing where he will seek a review of his life sentence.