Another day in court: Mosque families appeal Christchurch terrorist’s evidence to coroner

Thursday, 5 March 2026

Police outside the Court of Appeal in Wellington for the Christchurch terrorist’s appeal last month.

The families of those killed and injured in the Christchurch mosque attacks will have another day in court next week as they try to stop a mass murderer from speaking once more about his crimes.

The coronial inquiry into the attacks, in which Brenton Tarrant killed 51 worshippers and injured dozens more at two Christchurch mosques in March 2019, is on hold while higher courts consider whether the coroner should hear from Tarrant himself.

Since 2023, Deputy Chief Coroner Brigitte Windley has been examining whether any of the deaths could have been prevented. In late 2024 she indicated that she planned to allow the terrorist to give oral evidence and be cross-examined in court. This followed extensive consultation, including impassioned arguments from counsel for the families against such an “abhorrent” prospect.

Deputy Chief Coroner Brigitte Windley wants to hear evidence from Brenton Tarrant on New Zealand’s firearms licensing regime. Her inquiry is on hold while appeals are heard.

The families sought a judicial review of the decision. In October, Justice Jonathan Eaton found in favour of the coroner. The law allowed for a “broad and flexible approach”, he said, “which plainly provides a coroner with a wide discretion to admit any evidence including that which would not be admissible in a court of law”.

“The coroner has exercised her judgement in an appropriate manner.”

But the families are not finished. Next week, the matter will be heard by the Court of Appeal in Wellington.

Justice Jonathan Eaton found the coroner was within her rights and the law to hear oral evidence from the terrorist.

“It’s kind of disrespectful,” said Rosemary Omar, whose son Tariq died at the Al Noor mosque. “I do recognise it’s difficult for the coroner, but she has a professional responsibility. I don’t see the point in asking us our opinion and disregarding it.”

In particular, the coroner believed Tarrant’s evidence on New Zealand’s firearms licensing regime was relevant to her investigation. He was granted a licence in 2017, and the second phase of the inquest focuses on the extent to which that process may have contributed to the 51 deaths.

Omar disagreed. “There’s no relevance,” she said.

The Christchurch terrorist speaks via videolink from prison during his appeal last month.

“We’ve heard from all the authorities that issued the licence … I don’t see how it’s necessary. She knows what he did. It’s obvious what he did and he’s quite proud of what he did. I think it’s time-wasting. I don’t know what she can hope to achieve from it.”

The terrorist recently gave evidence at his own appeal against his convictions and sentence, under extraordinary security measures. The Court of Appeal was heavily policed and Tarrant’s lawyers were granted permanent name suppression. Families and the media watched proceedings on a delayed video link.

In that setting, the terrorist was also subject to different evidentiary rules. The latest appeal will argue the coronial jurisdiction is distinct from a criminal court ‒ inquisitorial rather than adversarial ‒ and, as such, greater weight should be placed on the families’ reservations.

“It is extraordinary to call a murderer as a witness into the deaths of his victims,” counsel Nikki Pender said before the hearing was adjourned in 2024.

Coroner Windley has also made the provisional ruling that any evidence from the terrorist would be heard in closed court. If the appeal fails, the families will ask to be able to attend. “We’ve all just gone through a Court of Appeal hearing and seen the terrorist on screen,” Omar said. “It doesn’t mean we wouldn’t cope seeing him again.”

The hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, March 11. Justices Katz, Mellon and Palmer will hear arguments from Pender on behalf of the families, Kerry Cook as court-appointed contradictor and Sarah Jerebine KC as counsel assisting the court.