Source: Radio New Zealand
Outside the Masjid Annur, flowers surround the memorial to the 51 shuhada (martyrs), who were killed when a terrorist opened fire at two mosques in Christchurch five years ago. RNZ / Nathan Mckinnon
Families of victims of the Christchurch mosque shootings are continuing their fight to prevent the terrorist from giving evidence at the coronial inquest into their loved ones’ deaths.
Deputy Chief Coroner Brigitte Windley has sought to call Brenton Tarrant as a witness in the second-phase inquest into the deaths of the 51 people massacred at Al Noor Mosque and Linwood Islamic Centre on 15 March 2019.
Survivors and victims’ families made their objections heard throughout the inquest and sought judicial review of the decision at the High Court.
Justice Jonathan Eaton dismissed the application in October.
Some of the victims’ families are now appealing that decision to the Court of Appeal, where the matter will be heard next Wednesday.
The notice of appeal claimed Justice Eaton had made several mistakes in dismissing the application for judicial review.
“The High Court erred in finding community abhorrence and the second respondent’s convictions were not proper considerations for a coroner when determining whether to call him as a witness for cross-examination at an inquest into the deaths of 51 people in relation to the 15 March 2019 Christchurch Masjidain Attack,” the notice said.
The victims’ families were appealing Justice Eaton’s entire decision.
They sought three orders:
- One allowing the appeal.
- One setting aside deputy chief coroner Windley’s decision to call the terrorist as a witness.
- And one directing the coroner to reconsider her decision to call the terrorist as a witness and any consequential decisions.
The 35-year-old Australian-born terrorist is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole for the terror attack.
The second-phase inquest began in October 2024 and is examining how the terrorist came to obtain the guns used in the massacre.
It adjourned part-heard after objections were raised to the terrorist giving evidence.
Deputy Chief Coroner Windley granted interested party status to Tarrant before the inquest, asked him to answer written questions and asked lawyers for survivors and victims’ families – as well as other parties to the inquest – if they wished to cross-examine him.
The terrorist provided two written briefs to the court in September 2024.
The only application to cross-examine him was filed by counsel assisting the coroner.
In dismissing the application for judicial review, Justice Eaton said he had listened to the concerns of victims and their families.
“At a hearing on 14 October 2024, those interested parties opposed Mr Tarrant giving evidence in open court due to the risk of him turning the process into ‘a platform to encourage like-minded individuals into the murderous behaviour of the terrorist’,” he said in a decision released in October.
Justice Jonathan Eaton dismissed the application in October. Pool / Fairfax NZ / Kevin Stent
“They questioned whether Mr Tarrant would provide oral evidence that was reliable or that had not previously been addressed by the Royal Commission of Inquiry. Further, they were concerned the costs and the efforts that would need to be taken to allow Mr Tarrant to give evidence may not be outweighed by any benefit.”
However, Justice Eaton ruled the coroner had not made any error of law.
“Each of the considerations identified by the applicant under the first ground of the review were weighed by the coroner, including those which are arguably not relevant to the admissibility of evidence. The coroner has exercised her judgement in an appropriate manner having regard to the countervailing interests, including public order and safety, as well as the overarching purpose of the inquiry,” Justice Eaton said.
“The alleged errors of law do not withstand scrutiny. They are closely connected and advanced on a flawed premise.
“Parliament has invested in the coroner a very broad discretion as to the evidence to be admitted at an inquiry. That reflects the broad purposes of an inquiry, including not only an investigation into the circumstances of the death, but making of recommendations to avoid a similar future event. Generally, but particularly in a coronial inquiry involving such horrific offending, so many deaths and such great public interest, issues of relevance, necessity or desirability of hearing evidence is very much for an experienced coroner so well versed with the subject matter.
“The extensive powers set out in the Act allow coroners to pursue all lines of inquiry and to weigh the evidence in a holistic manner to ensure findings are both effective and robust. Only then will the determination command the respect of society – this particular determination being one that is of high public interest both domestically and internationally.
“With respect and recognition given to the very sensitive nature of these proceedings, there has been no reviewable error by the coroner.”
The terrorist gave evidence at a Court of Appeal hearing earlier in February in a bid to quash his convictions and sentence.
The terrorist claims he was “forced” to plead guilty to 51 counts of murder, 40 of attempted murder and one of terrorism because he was irrational as a result of torturous and inhumane prison conditions.
The Court of Appeal reserved its decision in that matter after a week-long hearing.
The second-phase inquest is on hold while the decision on the terrorist appearing as a witness is decided in the courts.
The coroner’s first phase inquest, which began in October 2023 and heard further evidence in May and August 2024, covered 10 issues relating to the events of 15 March 2019 and the response of emergency services to the massacre.
It took just minutes for the terrorist to leave 44 worshippers dead or dying at Al Noor Mosque as he possessed two semi-automatic centrefire rifles as well as a multitude of high-capacity magazines, two shotguns, a lever-action rifle and a bolt-action rifle.
He then drove to the mosque in Linwood, where he killed seven more people.
Tarrant was able to obtain a New Zealand firearms licence through a gaming friend who was aware of his extremist political opinions and his racist and Islamophobic beliefs.
The friend and the friend’s father acted as referees.
He had originally planned to use his sister as a referee, but the licensing clerk rejected that possibility because she lived in Australia and could not be interviewed face-to-face.
The terrorist first submitted an application to obtain a firearms licence just 15 days after arriving in New Zealand in August 2017.
At the time of the attacks, the terrorist only held a standard A-category licence, but by inserting the high-capacity magazines into the semi-automatic centrefire rifles, he had turned them into restricted E-category military-style semi-automatic rifles.
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
