Brenton Terrant, who is the terrorist responsible for the murder of 51 people in Christchurch, reports that he received inhumane treatment which made him plead guilty. This was reported by memo to Dr Tony Ellis who serves as his lawyer.
It was made before the Coronial Inquiry for Tarrant. He is currently sentenced to life in prison without parole.
Because of this, the terrorist’s party wants to argue for reconsideration of his case because his treatment allegedly breached the Bill of Rights.
His claim of inhumane treatment was made with his claim of having his documents withheld which could have potentially meddled with the fairness of his trial. His lawyer further says that his client was forced to give his guilty pleas.
Ellis says that he was given a complete narrative by his client who said that he only plead guilty as to end the trial immediately. Furthermore, he defends that his client did not get access to any form of information and legal counsel which allegedly lessened his capacity for defending himself. This is because he is held in solitary confinement.
The documents that he reports to not have received includes a message from the Chief Coroner about the Coronial Inquiry and a letter from the Royal Commission.
Ellis also reports that the Chief Coroner did not address the terrorist by name and only as “The Individual” which he considers inhumane and offensive as it stripped him of identity. He says that his client deserves to be treated as a human even after his offenses according to the Bill of Rights. Because of this, he is asking for an apology for his client.
Judge Deborah Marshall defends the action of the Chief Coroner by saying that it did not directly breach his human rights and that his identity was not relevant to the juridical inquiry.
Legal experts say that the attacker has a slim chance to successfully defend his case given the gravity of his reason for imprisonment. This is especially because he is currently in solitary confinement. They also say that the treatment of a criminal of his nature was not really questioned. Some are claiming that the action was simply a way for the killer to gain attention again.
Rosemary Omar who is a mother of one of the victims of the shooting says that the shooter was just trying to increase his notoriety and was just seeking attention. She also justified stripping the attacker of an identity to decrease the possibility of encouraging individuals to be influenced.
