Christchurch terrorist’s judgment when pleading guilty ‘impacted’ by isolation in prison

Monday, 9 February 2026

A psychologist who assessed the Christchurch terrorist last year believed his judgment was affected by prison conditions, but stopped short of saying he was not fit to enter a plea.

Brenton Harrison Tarrant was convicted of killing 51 worshippers and injuring 40 others in Christchurch on March 15, 2019 after entering guilty pleas.

He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

A five-day Court of Appeal hearing is under way in Wellington as he seeks to overturn his guilty pleas.

Tarrant is seeking the appeal on the grounds that prison conditions rendered him incapable of making reasoned decisions when he entered the pleas.

The 35-year-old was the first witness, appearing via videolink from Auckland Prison on Monday, the first day of the hearing.

He was cross-examined by the Crown and by a member of his own legal team.

While the terrorist said he had raised complaints about his conditions, Crown lawyer Barnaby Hawes said there was no record of this from his lawyers, psychologists or Corrections staff.

On Monday afternoon, Justices Christine French, Susan Thomas and David Collins listened as lawyers cross-examined Witness B, a clinical psychologist who has name suppression.

Hawes outlined how Witness B had interviewed the terrorist twice, in August and September 2025, for a total of three hours.

The psychologist wrote a report that was based on the interviews, the terrorist’s affidavit and research on solitary confinement and sleep deprivation.

He told the court his report was an attempt to understand why the terrorist had changed his plea, from not guilty to guilty and back to not guilty.

Hawes asked why Witness B had taken the terrorist and his complaints about prison conditions “at face value”.

Hawes pointed out that the terrorist had told Witness B he had “deceived his health assessors” by masking his poor mental health. Hawkes asked if this deception had “raised alarm bells”.

Witness B said he’d preferred to take the terrorist at face value. His findings were also based on the deterioration in the terrorist’s mental state, outlined in reports in August 2020.

“The psychiatric and psychological reports comment on how he’s changed, which is consistent with [the terrorist’s] self-report,” the psychologist said.

This deterioration could be explained by the terrorist’s time in isolation, Witness B said.

Hawes asked the psychologist if he believed the terrorist was fit to stand trial.

“I say in my report that I believe [the terrorist’s] judgment and ability to make informed choices was impacted, that’s the crux of it,” he replied.

“I’ve never said he wasn’t fit to plead at all. I’m trying to explain how he went from [pleading] not guilty, to guilty, then back to not guilty.

“This is what I was attempting to grapple with and explain.”

Members of Tarrant’s legal team also have name suppression. One, known as Lawyer A, questioned the psychologist about the research he’d included on the effects of solitary confinement.

Witness B said he’d accepted the terrorist’s claims that the solitary conditions were “onerous” and would adversely affect anyone’s state of mind.

At least 60 victims and family members had earlier watched the terrorist’s evidence on a delayed broadcast at the Christchurch justice precinct. An overflow room was required to accommodate everyone.

Many had already spoken with disdain about the terrorist’s application - that he was trying to be heard at all. But once he was, they felt it important to hear what was said. Many embraced as they greeted each other outside court.

The terrorist gave evidence for nearly three hours. It was an odd setting: the person at the centre of the hearing physically removed from it, testifying from a featureless room in prison.

He answered questions about the complaints he claimed to have made, the legal and psychological support received, even his reading habits. When it was over, no-one’s opinion of him seemed to have changed.

“He’s trying to play with all of us,” said Rashid Omar, whose son Tariq was killed in the attack at Al Noor. “It's just a waste of our time and a waste of taxpayers' money.

“There's definitely no remorse at all… He just wants to taunt us. But it's not going to affect us. We are resilient, we are very, very strong. We're not gonna be bullied by him.”

Aya Al-Umari lost her brother Hussein. Like many victims and family members, she had never heard the terrorist speak, save for maybe a half-hearted “yes” from the dock during earlier proceedings.

On Monday morning, he appeared in an inset on the big screen without introduction. He was simply sworn in and began answering questions.

“You almost had to brace yourself for what you were going to see at the start,” Al-Umari said. “It’s just really an image of a person is how I'd like to think of it. He means absolutely nothing to me.”

Afterwards, she felt a strange comfort. She had heard the terrorist’s appeal and found it wanting. “As [he] went on, it became crystallised that there was not much substance to what he was attempting to say.

“Am I comfortable with the appeal process? The process is there for a reason for those that have faced injustices. But I mean it can be exploited by people such as this, so it's the price you pay for democracy, I suppose.”

The hearing will continue until Friday.