Brenton Tarrant has pleaded not guilty to 92 charges in relation to New Zealand’s worst peacetime massacre, paving the way for a long trial

Australian Brenton Tarrant pleaded not guilty on Friday to 51 charges of murder, 40 counts of attempted murder and one of engaging in a terrorist act in relation to the Christchurch mosque shootings in New Zealand.

Tarrant’s lawyer, Shane Tait, entered the pleas on Tarrant’s behalf at a hearing in Christchurch. The move shocked and dismayed some relatives of the victims of the massacre, who now must endure potentially harrowing trial.

What happens now?

Tarrant, 28, will go to trial on 4 May, 2020 with the prosecution saying it is likely the case will last six weeks.

It was initially hoped that the trial might have been able to begin in late February 2020, but on Friday the court ruled that this would not provide enough time for both sides to prepare.

Christchurch massacre: Brenton Tarrant pleads not guilty to all charges Read more

“The court endeavours to bring serious criminal cases to trial within a year of arrest,” wrote Justice Cameron Mander. “The scale and complexity of this case makes this challenging.”

While Tarrant initially expressed a wish to represent himself, he has since retained Auckland-based lawyers Jonathan Hudson and Shane Tait.

The case is likely to be a jury trial, due to the seriousness of the charges, though jury selection is likely to present one of the most difficult aspects of the court case, according to Carrie Leonetti, associate professor of law at the University of Auckland.

“There is a mechanism for the court to transfer the proceedings to a different high court, outside of Christchurch, although it is hard to imagine that there is any place in New Zealand where jury selection will not be fraught.”

Yvette Tinsley, professor law at Victoria University of Wellington, says this is always the challenge of high-profile cases.

“Sometimes courts manage that by moving the location of trial, sometimes we just appreciate that we’ve got to trust people to ignore the pre-trial publicity,” she said.

What would have happened if Tarrant had pleaded guilty?

If Tarrant had pleaded guilty, he would then have faced a sentencing hearing, though this would not have happened immediately.

Before a sentencing hearing the court would have allowed time for the parties to gather and present evidence to the court, and could have requested a pre-sentence report that would have provided information about Tarrant’s background.

“It’s difficult to estimate [how long it would take] but if he had pleaded guilty it obviously would have been quicker,” said Tinsley. “We’d be talking weeks, instead of months.”

Leonetti added that a guilty plea is also often interpreted favourably by a court in sentencing.

“Showing remorse, accepting responsibility, and minimising the suffering of the victims are mitigating factors under the Sentencing Act,” said Leonetti.

What does this mean for the survivors and families of the victims?

Speaking outside the court after the hearing on Friday, Yama Nabi, whose father was killed in the mosque shootings, said the prospect of a trial was “hurtful for the families”.

“They don’t need any more. They got their hearts broken.”

“It’s a completely valid feeling,” said Tinsley. “Here we’ve got a group of people who are trying to process their grief, they feel quite rightly that this will elongate that process.”

“Tarrant’s not-guilty plea means that the case will take longer and be more painful for the victims and their families,” said Leonetti. “Some may be called to testify, which will involve having to recount their horrific experiences in open court. His name will also be in the papers more often and for longer, and any closure that they might get from seeing him sentenced will be delayed.”

However, both women emphasised Tarrant’s absolute right to plead however he wished and to make the prosecution prove its case against him. Tinsley said that though it was hard to think of general principles when confronted with a horrifying individual case it was important to do so to protect the integrity of the system.

“The system exists to protect everyone, not just sympathetic defendants,” said Leonetti. “All New Zealanders should take pride in living in a country that respects due process and the rule of law”