Source: Radio New Zealand
Al Noor Mosque. RNZ / Nate McKinnon
The families of victims of the Christchurch mosque shootings say the terrorist is a witness “like no other” and he should not be allowed to give oral evidence at a coronial inquest.
But a lawyer appointed to assist the court said the public deserves the most thorough and rigorous coronial inquest possible to ensure a similar horror does not happen again.
Survivors and families of victims of the March 2019 terror attack are fighting in the Court of Appeal to prevent terrorist Brenton Tarrant from giving evidence at the inquest into their loved ones’ deaths.
They are seeking judicial review of Deputy Chief Coroner Brigitte Windley’s decision to call him as a witness.
The High Court dismissed the application last year.
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.
A lawyer for some of the families, Nikki Pender, told the Court of Appeal on Wednesday that it was highly unusual for a coroner’s decision to be reviewed.
“This is an exceptional case, these are extraordinary circumstances, this particular witness is like no other witness.”
Pender said Sunday marked seven years since the massacres at Al Noor Mosque and Linwood Islamic Centre, and the coronial inquest was extremely important to survivors and their families.
Tarrant not only murdered 51 people, he did so by invading and violating “a sacred place” during prayers, she said.
“That has resonated for years for the community.”
The therapeutic nature of the coroner’s court was highly visible in this specific inquest, and calling the terrorist as a witness would breach that, Pender said.
Each phase of the inquest started with a karakia and a recital from the Quran from Al Noor Mosque Imam Gamal Fouda, as well as a roll call of every victim’s name.
“They [the families] are at the heart of this… this is a safe space and therefore any decision to bring in this individual, to have him appear as a witness, needs to take account of the fact just how significant that is to the arena, to the jurisdiction that has been created, and to the safe space that has been created to those family members,” Pender said.
The coroner should have started from a presumption of whether it was absolutely necessary to invite Tarrant as a witness, Pender said.
Calling someone as a witness in an inquest could afford them a degree of mana and could dilute the aims of his life-without-parole sentence, as well as risking platforming his message of hate, she said.
“He has lost his right in public society, in civic society, and yet, if you call him as a witness too readily, what signal does that send?” Pender said.
“He does seem to enjoy the occasion in terms of the questions and answers and the interrogatories, and the community believe that it sends mixed messages – and if they’re a proxy for the public then … [the Coroner has] got to take note of that and just got to be really careful around that.”
The lawyer appointed by the court as a contradictor, Kerry Cook, said the Coroner’s decision to allow written and oral evidence from the terrorist was one that was “lawful, reasonable and proportionate”.
“The Coroner’s Act prioritises the public good associated with a full and independent investigation into the causes of death, and it prioritises that over subjective feelings – no matter how reasonably held – of abhorrence or difficulty in hearing from that particular person.”
Cross-examination was the best tool for testing the terrorist’s claims and excluding that evidence would leave a gap in the inquiry, Cook said.
The process of hearing live evidence and subjecting it to cross-examination might reveal information or bring to light inconsistencies and details otherwise not known, he said.
Coronial inquests were rigorous, fact-finding inquiries and required the coroner to make evidence-based recommendations or comments in public, he said.
Constraining evidence in the inquest risked the coroner making incorrect decisions and the conclusions might reflect only “what was allowed to be seen, rather than what actually occurred”.
“To stop something similar happening in the future, you must clearly understand what caused it to happen in the past,” Cook said.
The community wanted a thorough inquiry and to have all relevant evidence before it, even if it was uncomfortable, he said.
Another lawyer assisting the court, Sarah Jerebine KC, said any oral evidence the terrorist gave in the inquest and the cross-examination could be restricted to suppression orders decided by the coroner.
She said she had huge sympathy for what survivors and families had experienced and the test of deciding whether the terrorist should be orally cross-examined fell on whether the evidence was necessary, whether it met the interests of justice and balanced against the harm done to the families.
Justice Sarah Katz, Justice Jillian Mallon, and Justice Matthew Palmer reserved their decision.
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
