Leave to appeal sentence and conviction — Day 1
The Court of Appeal opened a five‑day hearing today focused on whether the convicted offender should be granted leave to appeal his sentence and conviction. President Justice Christine French told the court the central question was whether, at the time he entered his guilty pleas, he was unable to make a rational decision because of his prison conditions.
Appearing by video link from the high‑security unit where he is serving life without parole, the inmate gave evidence describing a state of “nervous exhaustion”. He told the bench he had been held in a specially constructed Prisoners of Extreme Risk Unit, effectively a prison within a prison, and said prolonged isolation, limited reading material and no television had left him mentally depleted. He complained guards played what he called “mental games,” sometimes pretending not to understand him, and that he had repeatedly raised concerns about the number of cameras and a lack of privacy during lawyer meetings.
On day one, former counsel Jonathan Hudson was cross‑examined about his interactions with the client. Mr Hudson said he had spent substantial face‑to‑face time with him and relayed the client’s complaints to the Department of Corrections, but acknowledged he had no specialist mental‑health training. He told the court he did not consider the client to have been mentally unwell when the pleas were entered, though he accepted the case was “unusual.” Under questioning he agreed the Department’s responses to complaints had been generally dismissive and conceded he was not confident that legal calls were free from monitoring.
The court also heard evidence that the prisoner was followed within the facility and that guards took notes during movements and interactions. Counsel for the Crown maintained the pleas were informed and voluntary; defence counsel argued the cumulative effect of the conditions undermined the rationality of the decision to plead guilty. The hearing will continue, with the court weighing whether the conditions of detention at the time of the pleas are sufficient to justify leave to appeal the conviction and sentence.
Application to vacate guilty pleas and move to trial Day 2
The Court of Appeal continued today with an application seeking to vacate the guilty pleas entered and to have the matter remitted for trial. President Justice Christine French framed the key issue as whether the prisoner’s detention conditions rendered him incapable of making a rational choice when he pleaded guilty.
Giving evidence by video from the high‑security unit, the defendant described prolonged solitary confinement, restricted access to reading and media, and intrusive surveillance that he said impaired his capacity to instruct counsel. He told the court he had complained about the number of cameras and the lack of privacy in legal visits, and alleged that guards sometimes feigned misunderstanding during conversations. Defence counsel argued these conditions produced a state bordering on insanity and therefore vitiated the voluntariness of the pleas.
Former defence lawyers were questioned about instructions and the client’s shifting position. Jonathan Hudson told the court his client had been inconsistent about when to plead guilty, at times indicating a desire to proceed to trial and at other times instructing a guilty plea. Mr Hudson said he had spent considerable personal time with the client but reiterated he was not a mental‑health expert. He accepted the client had expressed concerns about monitoring and differential treatment, and he agreed the prison responses had been dismissive.
Shane Tait, another former lawyer, confirmed he had advised an application to move the trial from Christchurch but that the client withdrew that application, saying he did not want to be seen as “running away.” Mr Tait told the court the client had accepted the evidence against him was overwhelming and that his ideological stance influenced his decisions about trial strategy.
The Crown disputed that detention conditions negated voluntariness, arguing the pleas were entered with awareness of the evidence and consequences. The court heard three hours of testimony today and will continue to probe whether the cumulative effect of isolation, surveillance and restricted legal privacy deprived the defendant of the capacity to make a rational, voluntary plea, and whether a fair trial should now be ordered.