Mosque terrorist to give evidence at inquest into March 15 attack

Thursday, 23 October 2025

The unprecedented inquiry into New Zealand’s largest mass shooting has taken an extraordinary turn as its perpetrator will speak directly to the court despite strong opposition from the families of his victims.

Brenton Harrison Tarrant murdered 51 worshippers and injured dozens others on March 15, 2019 when he stormed into Christchurch’s Al Noor mosque and opened fire before driving to the Linwood Islamic Centre and doing the same.

It is two years to the day since the largest inquiry of its kind began to examine if any of the deaths could have been prevented. In that time deputy chief coroner Brigitte Windley has heard compelling and extensive evidence including from worshippers who were inside the mosques, first responders and international terrorism experts.

Now it has been confirmed that she will hear directly from the terrorist. The coroner had already received written statements from him relating to issue 10 - one of the last to be examined - relating to New Zealand’s firearm register laws and how this impacted the terrorist’s actions.

In a decision late last year, which could not be reported until now, the coroner permitted the terrorist to give oral evidence and be cross examined by lawyers in court after hearing extensive arguments for and against. This triggered a challenge from lawyers for the families of victims and survivors. The inquest was paused and a judicial review from the High Court was sought by the families.

On Thursday, Justice Jonathan Eaton released his judgment confirming the coroner’s decision stood. On behalf of the families, lawyers Kathryn Dalziel, Nikki Pender and Amir Bastani, among others, strongly opposed Tarrant’s involvement throughout.

“It is extraordinary to call a murderer as a witness into the deaths of his victims,” Pender said during a hearing before the coroner in October last year. “The risk of manipulation is a very real one, and the focus of the attention being away from the deceased and onto the very person who murdered them.”

Dalziel gave similarly impassioned arguments. “There is no honesty. There is no credibility. [This would be a] complete and utter waste of time,” she said. “The terrorist is not coming here to tell the truth.” The process to date had been “unbelievably helpful” for the families so far and they were grateful to the coroner, but they believed the terrorist could not assist, Dalziel said.

Bastani reminded the coroner that the terrorist had not assisted with other issues to date despite it being within his knowledge. He was concerned about giving influence back to a person who the families wanted nothing to do with. “They have had enough of this individual.”

Prior to this, counsel assisting the coroner Ian Murray went through the law, explaining that the test for admissible evidence was that it should be relevant and necessary. “He has knowledge of matters that are relevant,” Murray said. “He clearly has material information that would assist this court in discharging its function.”

It was the court’s duty to get as much relevant information before it, and then consider if it was reliable or credible. “The court can’t do that without receiving the evidence and hearing from the witness,” he said. “His evidence is necessary for a thorough investigation.”

Ultimately the coroner agreed. It is not yet known when the terrorist will give his evidence. Tight controls will be in place when he does, including him appearing via audio-visual link on a screen rather than in person. His evidence cannot be reported while it is ongoing and the court will be closed to the public and interested parties. He cannot be filmed or photographed.

“I acknowledge that many of the immediate family and bullet-injured interested parties have expressed strong opposition to the possibility of [the terrorist] giving oral evidence and distress at the prospect that the court might place any reliance on what he has said or might yet say,” coroner Windley said in her decision.

The court was obliged to receive evidence from the terrorist, she said. “[He] is the only person who can provide direct evidence of the extent to which New Zealand’s firearms laws…were known to him and what influence that had on his decision to relocate to New Zealand.

“Keeping the 51 whose lives were lost as a result of the attack at the heart of this inquiry has long guided this court’s approach. But that does not diminish or displace the fundamental investigative imperative… to achieve its purpose of preventing deaths and promoting justice.

“If this inquiry is not one that must have the benefit of every effort to reveal the truth and identify opportunities to prevent similar deaths in the future, then what is the inquiry that should?”

The admissibility of the terrorist’s oral evidence would be determined after it was given.

In his decision Justice Eaton said the coroner had turned her mind to all considerations and did not make any errors of law. His judgment also lifted a suppression order prohibiting publication of the issue until now.

Dalziel told The Press it was unlikely her clients would appeal.

Pender was approached for comment.