Accused Christchurch gunman pleads not guilty to all charges in New Zealand court

[webfact]

Accused Christchurch gunman pleads not guilty to all charges in New Zealand court

By Charlotte Greenfield

 

FILE PHOTO: People visit a memorial site for victims of Friday's shooting, in front of the Masjid Al Noor mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand March 18, 2019. REUTERS/Jorge Silva/File Photo

 

WELLINGTON (Reuters) - An Australian man pleaded not guilty on Friday to 92 charges stemming from a massacre in two mosques in the New Zealand city of Christchurch three months ago and will stand trial in May next year.

 

A lone gunman armed with semi-automatic weapons attacked Muslims attending Friday prayers in Christchurch on New Zealand's South Island on March 15, killing 51 people in the country's worst peace-time mass shooting. The attacker broadcast the shooting live on Facebook.

 

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern introduced tough new firearm laws banning semi-automatic weapons after the attack, which also wounded dozens more people.

 

Brenton Tarrant, 29, a suspected white supremacist, appeared by video link from a maximum security facility in Auckland while his lawyer entered not guilty pleas on his behalf. The accusations against him include one terrorism charge.

 

About 80 members of Christchurch's Muslim community and dozens of media representatives attended the hearing in a packed court room, with many seated in another room watching by video.

 

High Court Justice Cameron Mander said the trial would begin on May 4. The prosecution expected the trial would take around six weeks, although Mander said defence lawyers believed it could take considerably longer.

 

Courts normally try to bring cases to trial within a year but Mander said "the scale and complexity of this case makes this challenging".

 

Tarrant has been remanded in custody until Aug. 15, when the next case review hearing is scheduled.

 

Mander said Tarrant was fit to stand trial after the court ordered him to undergo a mental health assessment at a previous hearing on April 5.

 

"No issue arises regarding the defendant’s fitness to plead, to instruct counsel, and to stand his trial. A fitness hearing is not required," Mander said in a minute released to the media after Friday's hearing.

 

The court lifted an order last week suppressing the publication of pictures of Tarrant. An interim suppression order barring the publication of the identity of survivors also lapsed and will not be reinstated.

 

(Writing by Praveen Menon; Editing by Paul Tait)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-06-14

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[Tug]

Probably wants a trial to get more attention they aught to give it to him with him trussed up like Hannibal lecter the animal

[SammyT]

1 minute ago, Tug said:

Probably wants a trial to get more attention they aught to give it to him with him trussed up like Hannibal lecter the animal

The NZ media have all agreed to publish nothing in his trial that relates to his white supremacist ideologies and views to try to offset his desire for a platform. Hopefully international media do the same 

[mercman24]

so whats so bloody complex about that, a trial next MAY <deleted> is that about, guy goes into mosques, kills 51 and injures scores more, then pleads NOT GUILTY .  now they got 11 months to sort out why he did it, who cares, just shoot the bar steward.  i can see it will be the old INSANITY PLEA, so the rest of his life in a cushy hospital

 

 

[khwaibah]

Cap the scum NOW.

[SammyT]

1 hour ago, mercman24 said:

so whats so bloody complex about that, a trial next MAY <deleted> is that about, guy goes into mosques, kills 51 and injures scores more, then pleads NOT GUILTY .  now they got 11 months to sort out why he did it, who cares, just shoot the bar steward.  i can see it will be the old INSANITY PLEA, so the rest of his life in a cushy hospital

  

 

Nah he stated in his manifesto that he wouldn't plead guilty because he wanted to tell the world about his beliefs. This trial is him trying to set a stage to do that. 

 

Agree wholeheartedly with your other sentiments though

[animalmagic]

5 hours ago, Tug said:

Probably wants a trial to get more attention they aught to give it to him with him trussed up like Hannibal lecter the animal

They ought to give him to Hannibal Lecter!

[simple1]

3 hours ago, SammyT said:

Nah he stated in his manifesto that he wouldn't plead guilty because he wanted to tell the world about his beliefs. This trial is him trying to set a stage to do that. 

 

Agree wholeheartedly with your other sentiments though

Plus he will put the families and friends of victims though great emotional trauma whilst testifying. The guy is an arse#$%^. Hopefully the post above is correct in that his testimony will not get into the public domain, nor him personally ever given access to the general prison population.

[natway09]

I think if he was ever given access to the general prison population it would be lights out

[Dumbastheycome]

8 hours ago, mercman24 said:

so whats so bloody complex about that, a trial next MAY <deleted> is that about, guy goes into mosques, kills 51 and injures scores more, then pleads NOT GUILTY .  now they got 11 months to sort out why he did it, who cares, just shoot the bar steward.  i can see it will be the old INSANITY PLEA, so the rest of his life in a cushy hospital

 

 

I think it has been established that he is not insane as such and his pea of Not Guilty does not attempt the addition of "by reason of insanity".

This mongrel simply wants to invite martyrdom and prolong his public profile. His lawyers,of course, will relish the chance at a long pointless trial enhancing their own personal legal prowess while protected by the system that affords them that in the proper interests of justice.

If he had simply  pleaded guilty to the obvious he would be put away very quickly.

But even in New Zealand I am sure natural  justice can occur inside prisons.

[Kiwiken]

And so Many call for him to be executed. Lets Face the Facts. under the new Zealand justice System there is no Death penalty. So He will not be executed. under Instruction from the prime minister he has been kept in solitary confinement and denied access to all media's.

So 1/. he cannot be executed, The best out come is he gets 51 consecutive Life Sentences which is 51X13 = 663years but this has never been done.

Given his denial of Basic Prisoner rights under NZ Law His lawyers can argue undue mental punishment and duress. 

There may also be violations of UN statutes pertaining to his incarceration that NZ has violated.

I think he is a Scumbag and should be executed but the facts are He cannot be. His rights have been violated and no matter how heinous his crimes his convictions will be subject to endless appeals purely because people in Authority believe they are above the law.

He cannot get a Fair and Just trial as His right to defend himself has been censored.

Everything just plays into his plans. Sad but true. Watch this unfold.

[lvr181]

22 hours ago, mercman24 said:

so whats so bloody complex about that, a trial next MAY <deleted> is that about, guy goes into mosques, kills 51 and injures scores more, then pleads NOT GUILTY .  now they got 11 months to sort out why he did it, who cares, just shoot the bar steward.  i can see it will be the old INSANITY PLEA, so the rest of his life in a cushy hospital

 

 

Just like a circus big top - the performers (the legal brigade) are there merely to receive their "big payments" when the average citizen with any common sense knows the guy is guilty. YOU CANNOT DISPUTE THE FACTS! Lock him away in solitary confinement for the rest of his natural life, NO PAROLE! No second chances (just like his victims), he is no better than a predatory animal. He is an oxygen thief living on the edge (taking up too much space) - push him off!! From the moment he deliberately shot the first person he forfeited his rights! ????

 

[Kiwiken]

15 hours ago, lvr181 said:

Just like a circus big top - the performers (the legal brigade) are there merely to receive their "big payments" when the average citizen with any common sense knows the guy is guilty. YOU CANNOT DISPUTE THE FACTS! Lock him away in solitary confinement for the rest of his natural life, NO PAROLE! No second chances (just like his victims), he is no better than a predatory animal. He is an oxygen thief living on the edge (taking up too much space) - push him off!! From the moment he deliberately shot the first person he forfeited his rights! ????

 

Like Brevic in Norway the way has been left open for lawyers to appeal any sentences. He has been kept in isolation. he has been denied access to all forms of media. Under NZ law his rights have been violated. Just because He is a POS does not give anyone the right to break the laws. Like it or not People and prisoners have rights.

He is entitled to his day in Court. and Our justice system is required to treat him humanely. Whatever the Crime all people are entitled to basic rights until the Guilty verdict is passed. Everything the Government has done and the way they instructed the prison Service to treat him. and the Censorship imposed on him by the media. Violate rights Guaranteed under NZ Laws and by UN statutes. NZ was a founding member of the UN and a signatory to most statutes of the UN

 

[simple1]

7 hours ago, Kiwiken said:

Like Brevic in Norway the way has been left open for lawyers to appeal any sentences. He has been kept in isolation. he has been denied access to all forms of media. Under NZ law his rights have been violated. Just because He is a POS does not give anyone the right to break the laws. Like it or not People and prisoners have rights.

He is entitled to his day in Court. and Our justice system is required to treat him humanely. Whatever the Crime all people are entitled to basic rights until the Guilty verdict is passed. Everything the Government has done and the way they instructed the prison Service to treat him. and the Censorship imposed on him by the media. Violate rights Guaranteed under NZ Laws and by UN statutes. NZ was a founding member of the UN and a signatory to most statutes of the UN

 

The man hasn't got 'rights' to access the media or for the media in order to disseminate his violent ideology. He has been put into solitary confinement to both protect him and again to minimise any effort by him to spread his violent white supremacist ideology within the prison system.

[Kiwiken]

6 hours ago, simple1 said:

The man hasn't got 'rights' to access the media or for the media in order to disseminate his violent ideology. He has been put into solitary confinement to both protect him and again to minimise any effort by him to spread his violent white supremacist ideology within the prison system.

Which is a violation of his rights as an unconvicted person, And in contravention of several International laws. 

[Salerno]

"Rights" are overrated.

[lvr181]

15 hours ago, Kiwiken said:

Like Brevic in Norway the way has been left open for lawyers to appeal any sentences. He has been kept in isolation. he has been denied access to all forms of media. Under NZ law his rights have been violated. Just because He is a POS does not give anyone the right to break the laws. Like it or not People and prisoners have rights.

He is entitled to his day in Court. and Our justice system is required to treat him humanely. Whatever the Crime all people are entitled to basic rights until the Guilty verdict is passed. Everything the Government has done and the way they instructed the prison Service to treat him. and the Censorship imposed on him by the media. Violate rights Guaranteed under NZ Laws and by UN statutes. NZ was a founding member of the UN and a signatory to most statutes of the UN

 

Wow - that is wonderful that he has rights, even though he denied the "rights" of those whom he murdered. In cases like this the law is an ass! Yet again, the criminal is treated better than his/her victims! Something is wrong!! And as to the "laws" and people who want to protect the criminal, I can only say ???? (AKA up yours). Victims first not criminals.

[Roadman]

3 hours ago, lvr181 said:

Wow - that is wonderful that he has rights, even though he denied the "rights" of those whom he murdered. In cases like this the law is an ass! Yet again, the criminal is treated better than his/her victims! Something is wrong!! And as to the "laws" and people who want to protect the criminal, I can only say ???? (AKA up yours). Victims first not criminals.

Disagree completely. NZ law is not an ass. It may have been convient for a cop to plug him at that time but then justice would not have been served, and to me justice is having the lowlife in court, his manifesto presented (in spite of our dizzy brainless PM’s view) and discredited by his peers, sentenced and locked away for life no matter the cost or time. Justice should always be held to a higher degree than convience or cost....a non negotiable. Also listing to the families interviews of the slaughtered love ones from the Norwegians trial they initially were also where Kiwi families are right now but then found the court case allowed them to work through their grief and find closure. And that is also more important then convience. 

[simple1]

6 hours ago, Kiwiken said:

Which is a violation of his rights as an unconvicted person, And in contravention of several International laws. 

Take it up with the relevant Minister in NZ. However, equally there is legislation to endeavour to protect NZ society from the dissemination of ideology supporting violence (hate speech). 

 

 Hate speech is prohibited in New Zealand under the Human Rights Act 1993 under sections 61 and 131. These sections give effect to article 20 ICCPR.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_New_Zealand

[Jack100]

I believe they have a more streamlined system of justice in places like Saudia Arabia and North Korea .

[Cryingdick]

On 6/13/2019 at 9:16 PM, khwaibah said:

Cap the scum NOW.

 

You think just like he does.

[Kiwiken]

13 hours ago, simple1 said:

Take it up with the relevant Minister in NZ. However, equally there is legislation to endeavour to protect NZ society from the dissemination of ideology supporting violence (hate speech). 

 

 Hate speech is prohibited in New Zealand under the Human Rights Act 1993 under sections 61 and 131. These sections give effect to article 20 ICCPR.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_New_Zealand

I have no interest in defending his rights or actions. however i am just pointing out the facts that his lawyers have a stronger defence because Of politically motivated actions. The law is not meant to be fair it is just justice

[lvr181]

16 hours ago, Roadman said:

Disagree completely. NZ law is not an ass. It may have been convient for a cop to plug him at that time but then justice would not have been served, and to me justice is having the lowlife in court, his manifesto presented (in spite of our dizzy brainless PM’s view) and discredited by his peers, sentenced and locked away for life no matter the cost or time. Justice should always be held to a higher degree than convience or cost....a non negotiable. Also listing to the families interviews of the slaughtered love ones from the Norwegians trial they initially were also where Kiwi families are right now but then found the court case allowed them to work through their grief and find closure. And that is also more important then convience. 

I don't totally disagree with what your saying BUT court cases, all too often, give the opportunity to a criminal for SOFT sentencing. And in instances like this it should be simply a mandated imprisonment for life, no ifs no buts. I totally dislike the pleading of "mentally insane" (or similar words) to obtain a lighter sentence. Anyone, like this criminal, IS mentally insane. It is the reason for what he did, IT IS NOT AN EXCUSE!

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎6‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 2:54 AM, Kiwiken said:

Like Brevic in Norway the way has been left open for lawyers to appeal any sentences. He has been kept in isolation. he has been denied access to all forms of media. Under NZ law his rights have been violated. Just because He is a POS does not give anyone the right to break the laws. Like it or not People and prisoners have rights.

He is entitled to his day in Court. and Our justice system is required to treat him humanely. Whatever the Crime all people are entitled to basic rights until the Guilty verdict is passed. Everything the Government has done and the way they instructed the prison Service to treat him. and the Censorship imposed on him by the media. Violate rights Guaranteed under NZ Laws and by UN statutes. NZ was a founding member of the UN and a signatory to most statutes of the UN

 

IMO a massive mistake to charge him with terrorism. Apparently the statute has never been used before, and a good lawyer can use it to confuse the issue.

He's going to jail for a while regardless, so adding something not necessary does not enhance the trial. IMO it's just more grandstanding.

In a country that pretends the gangs are not a problem worthy of doing something effective about, it's hard to take the government's stated position about this guy seriously. The gangs kill way more people than he did with the filth they sell to addicts.

[thaibeachlovers]

23 hours ago, Salerno said:

"Rights" are overrated.

except when it's "your" rights.

[RichardColeman]

The reason he is doing this is I think to cop an insanity plea 

[Salerno]

39 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

except when it's "your" rights.

As soon as I had perpetrated such a crime I would have given up my "rights".

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, Salerno said:

As soon as I had perpetrated such a crime I would have given up my "rights".

Given he hasn't yet been convicted, he has rights.

Start making distinctions between cases like this and any other case, and that's a very slippery slope, leading to some situations we all know well from history.

[Salerno]

We will never agree so my final word on it. I don't care whether the slope is slippy or covered in super glue. When someone live streams while committing mass murder there is no "reasonable doubt" with regards to innocence or otherwise. Therefore, IMO, there is no point in giving that person a platform or worry about whether they got a hot cup of chocolate before bed.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Salerno said:

We will never agree so my final word on it. I don't care whether the slope is slippy or covered in super glue. When someone live streams while committing mass murder there is no "reasonable doubt" with regards to innocence or otherwise. Therefore, IMO, there is no point in giving that person a platform or worry about whether they got a hot cup of chocolate before bed.

 

No we won't agree on conviction without procedure.