An official of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) praised this month’s High Court judicial ruling over New Zealand Superfund “unreasonable and unlawful” investment policies towards Israeli companies — but warned that the fund management would need to shape up.

Speaking at the PSNA rally at Te Komititanga Square today in week 133 of protests over Israeli genocide in Gaza, national secretary Neil Scott also gave a verbal bouquet to all the activists and lawyers who had achieved the victory after a 20-year struggle.

He named Phil McNeale as one of the activists who began pushing for the Superfund to divest from Israeli companies funding illegal settlements in the Occupied West Bank about two decades ago.

• READ MORE:  PSNA says High Court Superfund decision a victory for Palestinian rights
• NZ’s $86 billion Super Fund failed to properly address human rights, court rules in Palestine case
• The High Court ruling on the NZ Superfund policies
• Other PSNA reports on Palestine

PSNA earlier issued a statement declaring that this was an “important and timely win for Palestine” and expressed confidence that the Superfund would “quickly divest from the four companies [where] it holds investments” which were on the UN Human Rights Council list involved in building and maintaining illegal Israeli settlements.

Scott recalled that during 2020 and 2021, PSNA had called on the Superfund chief executive Matt Whineray to divest from Israeli banks.

“We know Israel cannot build the illegal colonies in the West bank without bank funding,” he said.

“Essentially, our NZ Superfund was investing in funding war crimes. On our behalf.”

‘Shameful policy’
On each communication about the “shameful” policy, Whineray had rejected the PSNA protest.

“In 2021, PSNA got a King’s Counsel (KC) lawyer to review the investments in Israeli banks and then sent a letter to then Minister of Finance Grant Robertson setting out the legal opinion,” Scott said.

“Robertson refused to respond to us. But soon after, the Superfund divested from four Israeli banks. Yes, we won then.”

However, Scott said that in 2021, just after the divestment decision, the Israeli Institute was “all over the Superfund with a flood of OIA requests — six of them”.

“A bunch of private individual OIA requests also went in,” Scott said.

“Usually, the Superfund received about 3 or 4 OIA requests a year. In 2021, it received 11.

“So, it seems as if massive pressure was put on the NZ Superfund to change its policies on ethical investments — to benefit Zionist Israel.

‘Gutting ethical investment’
“In 2022, it did just that. Gutting the ethical investment policies so that even investments in Israeli banks wouldn’t have been excluded.”

Scott said the Superfund dropped any reference to the “UN Global Compact” and the “Principles for Responsible Investment” — two of the main ethical investment policies in the world.

“It did this, sliding the changes through in the shadows without letting anyone know. Just slid it through in the shadows.”

PSNA kept on calling the Superfund to divest from the UN Divestment list. However, the Superfund responded by claiming that the companies cited “did not meet their, now secret, threshold”.

Late in 2024, PSNA decided to call for a judicial review of the Superfund’s investment in four companies.

“We briefed two KCs on the call. They agreed that it would have a good chance of winning,” Scott said.

“During the process of discovery, the KCs found that the Superfund had secretly changed its ethical investment policies during 2022.”

Who is responsible?
Scott said the PSNA was now determined to find out who were responsible for changing the ethical investment policies for the “benefit of a foreign country”.

He named a minister, chair of the board and the chief executive at the time of the change, saying that as a result of the High Court ruling, the Superfund “has a duty to reformulate the policy documents consistently with the [NZ Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001]”.

Scott praised the team responsible for winning the case: PSNA co-chair John Minto; co-chair Maher Nazzal, a Palestinian; Palestinian Rawaa Elhanafy; Rodney Harrison KC (who wrote the original letter to then minister Robertson in 2021); Francis Joychild KC; and B A Mugisho.

He also gave a final message to the cheering protest crowd: “A word of advice to everyone in the management of the Superfund — Aotearoa is our country. Not racist, ethnic cleansing, land thieving genocidal Zionist Israel.

“You work for Aotearoa. Do your job.”

May Day ‘Stop war’ rally
Among other speakers at the protest, Stop Wars Aotearoa organiser Joe Carolan appealed for support at next Friday’s May Day “Stop the fuel crisis and stop the war” rally at 6pm at Karanga-a-Hape Station.

“High fuel prices are driving workers reliant on cars off the roads. Our rightwing coalition government rules for the rich and doesn’t feel the pain of the cost of living crisis. We need solutions, not excuses,” Carolan said.

“The Solution: Free, frequent public transport for all, funded by taxes on the oil companies and the super rich.”

The Stop Wars Aotearoa coalition is demanding:

• Immediate free transport as a climate and cost-of-living solution;
• Permanent, 24 hr, frequent and fare-free transit for all, paid for by taxing corporations and billionaires; and
• Prioritised fuel for essential services, not luxury, while transitioning to renewables. New green jobs in a massive expansion of public transport and rail.

Cook islands Deputy Prime Minister Robert Tapaitau, former National Environment Service (NES) director Nga Puna, and his wife and former Secretary of Infrastructure Cook Islands (ICI), Diane Charlie-Puna, have been found guilty of “all or most offences” following a judgment given by Chief Justice Patrick Keane.

In his ruling Chief Justice Keane said: “In my decision, issued [Wednesday, Cook Islands time], which this minute accompanies, I have found each defendant guilty of all or most of the offences with which they are charged, and have convicted them of those offences.”

The trio were accused of taking public funds amounting to CI$70,000 between April 2019 and March 2021.

• READ MORE: Other Cook Islands news reports

Prime Minister Mark Brown’s office confirmed he had been briefed on the matter [on Wednesday] afternoon, shortly before the 100-page judgment was obtained by Cook Islands News.

In a written statement, Brown’s office said the Prime Minister had been briefed “a short time ago” by the Solicitor-General on the decision released by Chief Justice Keane on Wednesday, relating to the trio.

“The government acknowledges the court’s decision and will take time to study the 100-page plus document, before commenting further.”

Tapaitau faced three charges of using a document to obtain pecuniary advantage and one charge of conspiracy to defraud.

‘Guilty of all offences’
Chief Justice Keane ruled: “Mr Tapaitau is guilty of all offences with which he is charged; and I convict him accordingly.”

Charlie-Puna faced seven charges of using a document to obtain pecuniary advantage and a charge of conspiracy to defraud to which she entered a guilty plea on 1 June 2023.

In his ruling, Chief Justice Keane said: “Mrs Puna is guilty of all offences with which she is charged, including those to which she has pleaded guilty, except those on which she has been discharged and charges 5,13; and I convict her accordingly.”

Charlie-Puna entered guilty pleas to conspiracy and theft charges in June 2023.

Nga Puna faced 22 charges of using a document to obtain pecuniary advantage, one of conspiracy to defraud, one of uttering a forged document and five charges of forgery.

Chief Justice Keane ruled: “Mr Puna is guilty of all offences with which he is charged, except charges 14, 25; and I convict him accordingly.”

They are due to be sentenced in March.

Pre-sentence report
“Each defendant is now to be sentenced on the basis of a pre-sentence report; and I direct accordingly. I should appreciate those reports being given high priority,” CJ Keane said.

“To ensure, if feasible, that sentences are imposed within the March session, which I will be conducting, on 21 March perhaps, I direct primary submissions be filed and served without reference to the pre-sentence reports.”

The Crown was given until February 21 to file and serve submissions while the defence had until seven days before the sentence date allocated.

In his judgement statement, Chief Justice Keane said that in the Cook Islands, government departments, and state agencies, entrusted with public money, money appropriated by Parliament and project aid money, were subject to clear statutory principles, standards and controls.

“Public money is the property of the Crown; and heads of government departments, and state agencies, are charged by statute with ensuring that those public entities have sound financial management systems and internal controls.”

The Public Expenditure Review Committee and the Audit Office were charged by statute with safeguarding public money, and the integrity of all public accounts, including those of government departments and state agencies.

“Within each government department, and state agency, accounts and records must be faithfully and properly kept, revenue must be properly assessed and collected, expenditure must be valid and correctly authorised, revenue, expenses, assets and liabilities must be properly recorded and accounted for, and financial and operating information must be reliable.”

Gave evidence, denial
All three defendants elected to give evidence and denied any offence.

Each said, with one exception, that any benefit they received in the ways charged lay within their entitlement; or that, if it did not, they had acted honestly in that belief and without any intent to defraud.

The primary issue on each of the charges, therefore, was not principally the documentary context, which was largely uncontested, Chief Justice Keane said in his judgement.

“The issue is whether the Crown, on the evidence called, is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants did act dishonestly and with intent to defraud.”

In discharging charges five and 13 against Diane Puna, charge five alleged she fraudulently used, or procured the use of, an Infrastructure Cook Islands cheque to pay for a week’s Auckland accommodation for her family and herself, during her father’s funeral.

“There is, and can be, no issue that this ICI cheque was capable of, and did, confer on Mrs Puna a pecuniary advantage. It met the cost of her first seven days accommodation in Auckland, independently of her father’s house, while she was attending his funeral.”

Charge 13 alleged that fraudulently using, or procuring the use of, a cheque on 7 April 2020, $400 cash, to pay for a lunch for workers at her Rarotonga home address.

In the case against Nga Puna, he was not convicted on charges 14 and 25.

Two NES cheques
Charge 14 alleged Puna fraudulently used, or procured the use of, two NES cheques to benefit himself, together with a related deposit to his account on 29 August 2019.

There was a lack of evidence underpinning the inference that Puna did fraudulently misuse for his own benefit the cash proceeds of the two NES cheques, issued for a retreat, and thus the cheques themselves.

On charge 25, the Punas were jointly charged with fraudulently using, or procuring the use of, a cheque on 7 April 2020, $400 cash, to pay for a lunch for workers at their Rarotonga home address.

“This payment by cheque may well, I accept, have been a misuse of public money. But the house belonged to the government, and the work needed to be done. The payment was a gesture, after the event, to NES and ICI staff during the lockdown,” CJ Keane said.

The final submissions were heard in the high-profile corruption case late last year with CJ Keane indicating at the time that he would make a decision in the new year.

The guilty verdicts come more than two years after the trio were charged with various dishonesty offences.

In November 2023, CJ Keane released a ruling through the High Court of the Cook Islands, making an order that all theft charges be substituted with fraudulent document dealing charges.

Pleas remained the same
While the original charges were vacated, the pleas from the three defendants remained the same to the new charges.

Tapaitau was reinstated as Deputy Prime Minister for the second time early in November 2023 month after suspension amid the charges.

Tapaitau was the minister responsible for Infrastructure Cook Islands and National Environment Service when the offences took place. He was not responsible for those two ministries due to conflicts with the pending court decisions. The Penrhyn MP resumed his duties as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister responsible for Transport, Marine Resources, Energy and Outer Island Projects.

The trio faced a four-week Judge alone trial in July before it was confirmed final submissions in the trial had been pushed back, after CJ Keane sought clarification on legal issues, specifically whether the offending the Crown alleged, ought to be charged as theft, or as fraudulent use of a document.

This report was first published by Cook Islands News and is republished with permission.

The High Court in Lautoka yesterday issued orders to the Fiji police and the Immigration Department not to remove four members of the controversial South Korean religious cult Grace Road from Fiji.

They are Beomseop Shin, Byeongjoon Lee, Jung “Daniel” Yong Kim and Jinsook Yoon.

The interim injunction was issued restraining the Director of Immigration, Commissioner of Police, Airports Fiji Ltd, Civil Aviation Authority of Fiji, Fiji Airways and Air Terminal Services from removing these individuals from Fiji.

• READ MORE: ‘If I did wrong, arrest me’: doomsday sect leader challenges Fiji cabinet minister
• Other Grace Road reports

The High Court has adjourned the case to September 18 at 9am for hearing.

The restraining order was obtained by Gordon and Company of Lautoka.

Earlier, Home Affairs Minister Pio Tikoduadua had called on members of the public to reach out to the authorities if they had information on the whereabouts of Grace Road president “Daniel” Jung Yong Kim and Jin Sook Yoon, reports The Fiji Times’ Meri Radinibaravi.

An International Criminal Police Organisation (Interpol) red notice was issued for Kim, Yoon and five other South Korean individuals in July 2018, which Tikoduadua said had been “ignored by the former government”.

Red notices
The seven individuals are Kim, Yoon, acting Grace Road president Sung Jin Lee, Nam Suk Choi, Byeong Joon Lee, Beomseop Shin and Chul Na.

“In July 2018, red notices were published by Interpol referring to these individuals as ‘fugitives wanted for prosecution’. All of these were ignored by the former government,” Tikoduadua told the media yesterday.

“Using my discretion as minister, under Section 13(2)(g) of the Immigration Act, these individuals were declared prohibited immigrants — making their presence in Fiji unlawful.

“In that regard, may I just use this opportunity to reach out to these other two who, in my view perhaps, are trying not to be seen or noticed by anybody.

“We’re unable to reach them, the police obviously, and the relevant authorities are looking for them. Let me remind the general public that it is an offence to actually harbour people who are wanted, it’s against the law to do that.

“So, please, we welcome information with regard to their location as they are prohibited immigrants in Fiji.”

Tikoduadua said that while Kim and Yoon were still at large, Joon Lee and Shin had been successfully transported back to Korea, accompanied by a South Korean Embassy interpreter and four Fiji police personnel who “will return to Fiji after a brief stay in South Korea”.

Passports nullified
“These individuals’ passports were nullified by the Korean government in relation to charges laid by the South Korean government which had issued a warrant for their arrest.

“During the removal process, Fiji Airways declined to transport Sung Jin Lee and Nam Suk Choi due to a High Court order. The Solicitor-General (Ropate Green) has received this court order for review.

“Ms Lee and Ms Choi have been released and are currently at the Grace Road farm in Navua.

“Additionally, the Ministry of Home Affairs and Immigration is exploring legal options under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1997 and the Extradition Act 2003, given that these individuals are subject to an Interpol red notice.”

Tikoduadua said that yesterday, Green had indicated plans to appeal the court order.

Anish Chand is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

The parents of a New Zealand baby at the centre of a legal dispute that has made global headlines will not be appealing against a judge’s decision to hand guardianship of the child to the High Court.

The four-month-old — known only as Baby W — requires urgent open heart surgery, with both blood and blood products required for the operation and potentially its aftermath.

Te Whatu Ora/Health New Zealand took the case to court because the parents refused to allow blood transfusions from anyone who might have had the Pfizer covid-19 vaccine.

• READ MORE: Vaccinated donor blood: Parents’ meeting with doctors ‘hijacked’ by anti-vax support person
• LISTEN TO RNZ MORNING REPORT: Interview with University of Otago bioethics lecturer Josephine Johnstone duration

The NZ Blood Service does not differentiate between blood from vaccinated and non-vaccinated people, saying there was “no evidence that previous vaccination affects the quality of blood for transfusion”.

A judge on Wednesday ruled in favour of Te Whatu Ora, allowing the surgery to go ahead with whatever product the NZ Blood Service provides. Doctors, having been made agents of the court for the surgery, said on Wednesday afternoon they would be ready to operate within 48 hours.

The family’s lawyer Sue Grey and high-profile media supporter Liz Gunn said this morning there was no time to appeal against the court’s decision, but they had confidence the child would “get the best possible care with the best, safest blood” because “the government cannot afford anything to go wrong for Baby W as the world is watching”.

“The priority for the family is to enjoy a peaceful time with their baby until the operation, and to support him through the operation,” the pair said in a post on the New Zealand Outdoors and Freedom Party Facebook page.

Grey co-leads the party.

The baby will be in intensive care for up to a week and under Te Whatu Ora’s guardianship possibly until the end of January, allowing time for their recovery. The doctors were told to keep the parents “informed at all reasonable times of the nature and progress of [the baby’s] condition and treatment”.

Te Whatu Ora has been approached for comment.

Judge’s ruling expected
The ruling should not have come as a surprise, University of Otago bioethics lecturer  Josephine Johnstone told Morning Report on Thursday.

“This may seem like a very 2022 case and it is in many ways, but it connects to lines of decision over time where there have been disputes about what’s in the best interests of a child that has very serious medical needs,” she said.

“So this is consistent with previous cases around the refusal of blood products for children whose parents are Jehovah’s Witnesses… or refusal of medical care for cancer treatment for children whose parents have alternative health and science[ views, which is sort of similar to this. In many ways it’s consistent with those decisions. It’s not really a break in that way.”

Johnstone said the parents’ authority over their child’s health and upbringing was being limited in only a very minor way.

“The parents still have all of the other decision-making authority that parents have. And parents do have enormous latitude to make decisions about how to raise their children — what religion to raise them, what kinds of beliefs, what kinds of home to create, what kind of traditions, they have enormous decision-making power about children’s [medical treatment], but it’s not unlimited.

“In very rare cases where it’s a life-and-death situation, we can expect the courts to step in — and that’s exactly what happened.”

Johnstone’s view was backed up by Rebecca Keenan, a former nurse who now works as a barrister, specialising in medical law.

Put child ‘firmly first’
“[The court has] put the child firmly first and have gone by the evidence and supported the health board,” she told Morning Report.

“From reading the judgment, you can see that the parents have been taking their baby out of hospital, against medical opinion, and there’s obviously been a real breakdown in the relationship between the parents and the medical staff.”

Wednesday’s judgment outlined a meeting in late November during which the parents’ support person “proceeded to pressurise the specialists with her theory about conspiracies in New Zealand and even said that deaths in infants getting transfusions were occurring in Starship Hospital”.

Johnstone said while having a support person in meetings with medical staff was a right, it was clear in this case they were not helpful.

“One has to imagine that the involvement of some of the anti-vaccine campaigners has escalated not just this case at the national level, but even the discussions between the family and their medical team, so that’s explicitly mentioned in the case and is definitely a factor in how things must have got to the point where a court order would be needed.”

While not an unexpected ruling, Johnstone fears it might further strain the relationship between parents with alternative views on medical matters and their doctors.

“Any family who has these views and has a very sick child, their healthcare providers are going to have to work that much harder to keep them engaged and keep their trust … a big challenge,” she said.

Pleased over care
Speaking to RNZ’s First Up earlier on Thursday morning, Deputy Prime Minister Grant Robertson said he was “pleased” Baby W would soon be getting the care he needs.

“Nobody underestimates the emotion and the challenge and the difficulty here, but we have to do what’s right for the child.”

The case has made headlines globally, with coverage on BBC News, CNN and The Guardian.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ. 

Fiji lawyer Jon Apted was yesterday accused of contempt of court for comments made in court two weeks ago while defending his client, lawyer Richard Naidu.

Gul Fatima, the lawyer for Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, told the High Court yesterday that Apted had said that if evidence could not be challenged in court proceedings, “that would be a kangaroo court”.

She claimed that Apted’s comments were “contempt in the face of the court”.

• READ MORE:  Wadan Narsey: Shameful silences over another unfolding tragedy in Fiji
• Other reports on the contempt of court case

“What this means is that there was an officer of the court present in court on October 14, who made a statement to mean, that if this honourable court were to decline orders being sought, this honourable court would be a kangaroo court,” she said.

“Invariably kangaroo courts are not run by presiding judicial officers, with respect, they would be run by kangaroos.

“So the ordinary Fijian reading this article receiving the news in respect of this decision would hold a certain view about this court.”

Fatima asked whether Justice Jude Nanayakkara wanted to launch committal proceedings under Order 52 of the High Court rules of his own motion or refer Apted to any other body.

Application refused
She said the A-G had the right to consider issuing proceedings against Apted in respect of his comment.

Justice Nanayakkara said a matter of contempt in the face of court should go before another judge and that Fatima could inform the court registry.

Justice Nanayakkara yesterday refused Naidu’s application to cross-examine Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum at the hearing of his contempt of court case, scheduled for next month.

He said that Naidu was given full opportunity to defend the alleged contempt or to respond to the alleged contempt by filing an affidavit in reply, denying the allegation or providing some explanation.

“At the hearing of the application if he expresses a wish to give oral evidence on his behalf, he shall be entitled to do so,” he said.

“The court had adopted a sound and pragmatic approach which balances the rights of both the applicant and the respondent.”

Justice Nanayakkara said the cross-examination could be largely directed to a collateral purpose and would, therefore, operate unfairly against the A-G.

He said a “clear line” needed to be drawn between acceptable criticism of the judiciary and statements that are downright harmful to the public interest by undermining or ridiculing the legitimacy of the judicial process.

Ian Chute is a journalist with The Fiji Times. Republished with permission.

An anti-vaccination campaigner who this year became the first person ever accused of breaching New Zealand’s sabotage laws has again appeared in court.

Taupō man Graham Philip was charged with seven counts of sabotage in May, relating to an alleged attack on New Zealand infrastructure late last year. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

The exact details of what the Crown alleges remain suppressed until trial, due to what Open Justice understands is a fear of copycat offending.

• READ MORE: Other open justice reports

Philip appeared via audio-visual link in the High Court at Rotorua yesterday, sitting calmly in the booth as his lawyer addressed Justice Graham Lang.

Philip’s previous lawyer Matthew Hague has withdrawn from the case, with Philip now represented by Tauranga lawyer Bill Nabney.

Philip is currently held at Waikeria Prison in Waikato after his bail application was denied earlier this year.

A planned Court of Appeal challenge to the bail decision has been abandoned and Philip will remain in prison until his trial, set down for late next year.

Sabotage defined
Under the Crimes Act, sabotage is legally defined as any activity which impairs or impedes the operation of “any ship, vehicle, aircraft, arms, munitions, equipment, machinery, apparatus, or atomic or nuclear plant” on New Zealand shores.

A person can also be charged with sabotage if the person “damages or destroys any property which is necessary to keep intact for the safety or health of the public”.

A conviction also requires a proven intent to prejudice the health or safety of the public.

Each charge carries a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ. This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald under the Public Interest Journalism Initiative funded by NZ on Air.

A landmark case in Fiji today at the High Court in the capital Suva issued what is the country’s first environmental crime sentence.

Controversial Chinese resort development company Freesoul Limited was fined FJ$1 million for breaching two counts of Fiji’s Environmental Management Act.

The company is developing a resort on Malolo Island in the popular tourist hotspot, the Mamanuca Islands.

• READ MORE: Fiji PM apologises to NZ journalists detained over Malolo probe
• Other Malolo Island environmental reports

The company was issued a prohibition notice in June 2018 after neighbours and indigenous landowners shed light on extensive environmental damage it was causing on the coast at Malolo Island.

According to court documents, the company was issued with a prohibition notice by the Department of Environment after landowners and neighbours alerted authorities of extensive coral and mangrove damage.

The company had dug an extensive sea channel and removed local marine life to gain direct access to the resort development.

The DOE had authorised only land works because an Environmental Impact Assessment had not been done on marine works.

Freesoul denied responsibility
When charged for unauthorised development, Freesoul denied responsibility but the Magistrate Seini Puamau, who heard the initial case, was not satisfied, given DOE evidence produced in court showing Freesoul apologising for the damage.

The case was referred to High Court judge Justice Daniel Gounder who ordered Freesoul pay the DOE FJ$1 million for the rehabilitation of the marine environment damage.

Chinese resort developer Freesoul fined $650,000 for damaging Fijian mangroves and reef https://t.co/7cGoUadaoy

— ABC News (@abcnews) April 28, 2022

Justice Gounder said he was unable to issue a custodial sentence given the EMA provides for jail terms for persons not corporations.

“This case is about environment, criminal responsibility and punishment,” Justice Gounder said.

“Although the offending is not the most serious type, the offenders culpability is high.”

Justice Gounder sentenced Freesoul with the highest penalty possible under the EMA.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

If you’re as confused as most people by the exact circumstances surrounding the continuing presence in Fiji of the Russian super yacht Amadea, join the club. Here’s our modest attempt to cut through the fog.

Twelve days ago — on April 14 — the CJ Patel Fiji Sun newspaper trumpeted an exclusive with Police Commissioner Sitiveni Qilihio, reporting that the Amadea had been seized. It had not. In fact, it still hasn’t been formally seized.

What happened last week is that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) obtained a restraining order from the High Court to prevent the Amadea from leaving Fiji. Until that order was granted, there was every possibility in the intervening period of the vessel leaving.

• READ MORE: Other Amadea reports on Asia Pacific Report

In fact, lawyers for the owners were arguing that there was no legal justification to detain the Amadea any longer after they had reportedly paid an amount in fines for customs infringements.

It was only when the High Court granted the restraining order that leaving was no longer a legal option.

Indeed, all along there has been a suspicion that the vessel might try to make a run for it. It has a significant armoury and the security forces would have already factored in their ability to prevent a determined attempt to leave.

This application was lodged by the Office of the DPP on a warrant issued by the United States government. The papers are from Washington DC and passed through the Attorney-General’s Office before carriage of the matter was given to the DPP under the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

A second case
Now there is a second case that has been brought before the High Court for the Amadea to be seized. Yes, taken from the owners altogether in line with the American-led sanctions that have been imposed on the nautical playthings and other toys of Russian oligarchs and Vladimir Putin’s cronies the world over.

The High Court will hand down its judgment next Tuesday (May 3), which is expected to be in Washington’s favour.

And sometime after that, the Amadea will presumably become the property of the US government and sail off into the sunset under the command of Uncle Sam in the direction of the US.

It has been an astonishing saga. The original, mostly European crew, had orders to sail from the Mexican port of Mazanillo across the entire Pacific to the Russian port of Vladivosok via Lautoka, where the Amadea has been refuelled and resupplied.

Their services have evidently been terminated and an entirely Russian crew has been on standby to take over when it finally gets permission to sail. Alas for them, their journey to Fiji will have been in vain.

Incredibly, there is still doubt about the vessel’s true ownership. The whole world has been told that it belongs to the Russian oligarch, Suleiman Kerimov, but there is still evidently no conclusive proof — the vessel’s ownership evidently buried in a labyrinth of multiple shelf companies in places like the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands.

For the purposes of the High Court case in Suva, the owner is officially stated as being Millemarin Investment Limited. Is it Suleiman Kerimov?

No evidence about Kerimov
Millemarin Investment’s local lawyer, Feizal Hannif, told the court there was no evidence that it is. He said the vessel’s beneficial owner was in fact one Eduard Khudaynatov. But counsel for the DPP, Jayneeta Prasad, argued that the ownership of the vessel was not an issue. It was subject to a US warrant and the ownership issue was for the American courts to decide.

So fortunately unravelling all of this is not Fiji’s problem. But what was Police Commissioner Sitiveni Qiliho doing 12 days ago telling the Fiji Sun that the Amadea had been seized when we won’t know that for certain until next Tuesday, nearly three weeks after the Sun “scoop”?

And is there going to be any attempt to set the official record straight?

Australian-Fijian journalist Graham Davis publishes the blog Grubsheet Feejee on Fiji affairs. Republished with permission.

Unionists and political activists are among seven prominent women who have brought a lawsuit against the Fiji government challenging new electoral laws requiring them to use their birth certificate names to be registered as voters.

The seven are former government minister Bernadette Rounds Ganilau, politicians Priscilla Singh and Seni Nabou, teacher and community worker Adi Davila Toganivalu, unionists Dr Elizabeth Reade Fong and Salote Qalo and Yasmin Nisha Khan.

They have filed a constitutional redress action against the Attorney-General and the Supervisor of Elections, challenging changes passed by Parliament earlier this year to the Electoral (Registration of Voters) Act and the Interpretation Act.

The seven are challenging the requirement that citizens must only use the name on their birth certificates for voting and other official purposes — including for official identification documents.

Under the new laws, people who wished to use their married or adopted names for these purposes must formally change their names on their birth certificates.

In their action, the applicants say they believe the new laws have a disproportionate, adverse impact upon married women compared with other groups. An estimated 100,000 women are believed to be affected by the law.

The matter was called in the High Court in Suva yesterday before Chief Justice Kamal Kumar.

The Chief Justice gave directions for the filing of affidavits and fixed the case for hearing on February 24.

The applicants are represented by Munro Leys partner and former Supervisor of Elections Jon Apted.

Lawyer Devanesh Sharma, of R Patel and Co, represents the Attorney-General and the SOE.

Fiji faces a general election next year.

Republished from The Fiji Times with permission.

Name suppression for the man responsible for yesterday’s New Zealand terror attack at a west Auckland supermarket has been revoked, but his name cannot be published yet.

The High Court has given his family who live overseas at least 24 hours to seek further suppression orders.

The Sri Lankan national was shot dead by police after stabbing six people inside Countdown in LynnMall.

• READ MORE: NZ mall stabbings a terrorist attack by ‘lone wolf’, says PM Ardern
• Other RNZ reports

Suppression orders prevented details about his identity and background from being made public.

The government filed an urgent application last night to have the court orders lifted, so details about the man’s identity and background could be made public.

In a judgment last night, Justice Wylie said there was no longer any proper basis for the suppression orders.

But he said the man’s family live overseas and lawyers needed time to contact them to take instructions.

He said he could consider extending the 24-hour period if needed.

Isis propaganda
However, it can be revealed the man was sentenced in July to one year of supervision after he was found guilty by a jury in the High Court at Auckland of two charges of possessing Isis propaganda that promoted terrorism.

He was found guilty of another charge of failing to comply with a search, but he was acquitted of a third charge of possession of objectionable material and a charge of possessing a knife in a public place.

The state had sought to charge him under the Terrorism Suppression Act, but failed after a High Court judge ruled that planning a terror attack was not an offence under the law.

Because he had already spent three years in custody awaiting trial, he did not receive a further prison term for his offending.

Despite that, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said he had been under surveillance since 2016, because of his support for a violent ideology inspired by Islamic State.

The man was being so closely monitored by a surveillance and tactical team that police shot him within 60 seconds of the attack starting.

On the radar of authorities
He arrived in New Zealand in October 2011.

He first came to the attention of authorities in 2016, when police formally warned him about posting anti-Western, pro-Isis, extremist content on the internet.

The man had also at some point told a worshipper at an Auckland mosque that he wanted to go to Syria to fight for Isis.

In a July 2020 judgment, Justice Downs said in May 2017, he had booked a one-way flight to Singapore but was arrested at Auckland Airport.

When police searched his apartment, they found a large hunting knife under the mattress on the floor and secure digital cards containing fundamentalist material, including propaganda videos and photos of the man posing with a firearm.

He was remanded in custody and in June 2018, he pleaded guilty to distributing restricted publications. In August 2018, he was sentenced to supervision, Justice Downs’ 2020 judgment said.

But the day after his sentencing, he went and bought the same model of hunting knife that police had earlier found under his mattress.

Arrested again
He was arrested again and another search found a large he had a large amount of violent Isis material, including one video about how to kill “non-Muslims”.

This time, the state sought to charge the man under the Terrorism Suppression Act, for planning a terrorist act.

But Justice Downs said that in itself was not an offence under the law.

In his decision, Justice Downs said: “Terrorism is a great evil. ‘Lone wolf’ terrorist attacks with knives and other makeshift weapons, such as cars or trucks, are far from unheard of.

“Recent events in Christchurch demonstrate New Zealand should not be complacent. Some among us are prepared to use lethal violence for ideological, political or religious causes.

“The absence of an offence of planning or preparing a terrorist act … could be an Achilles heel.”

Justice Downs said it was not for the courts to create such an offence.

“The issue is for Parliament,” he said.

A copy of Justice Downs’ judgment was provided to the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General and the Law Commission.

High Court trial
The man finally stood trial in the High Court at Auckland in May this year, on lesser charges.

A jury found him guilty of two charges of possessing Isis propaganda that promoted terrorism and one charge of failing to comply with a search.

He was acquitted of a third charge of possessing objectionable material and a charge of possessing a knife in a public place.

The man was sentenced in July.

In her sentencing notes, Justice Fitzgerald said the two publications on which he was found guilty were “nasheeds” – religious hymns.

Both were classified by the Censor as objectionable and contained Isis imagery and lyrics.

Justice Fitzgerald did not accept the explanation that he was listening to them to improve his Arabic language skills.

“Rather, I accept that the broader context to your possession of these nasheeds, which included a range of other materials relating to Isis or Isil, suggests that you have an operative interest in Isis.

“In other words, I do not accept that you might have simply stumbled across these and other Isis-related materials in your research of Islam or the historic Islamic State,” she said.

Report raised further flags
A pre-sentencing report raised further flags.

“The report writer suggests that you support the goals and methods of Isis,” Justice Fitzgerald said.

“The report writer concludes that the risk of you reoffending in a similar way to the present charges is high.

“It suggests that you have the means and motivation to commit violent acts in the community and, despite not having violently offended to date, as posing a very high risk of harm to others.”

Given he had already spent three years in custody awaiting trial, the man was sentenced to one-year supervision.

There were restrictions on his use of electronic devices, the internet and social media.

“The Police and Community Corrections clearly have concerns that you pose a not insignificant risk to the broader community,” Justice Fitzgerald said in her sentencing notes.

“I do not know whether those concerns are right and I sincerely hope that they are not, though having regard to all of the materials available to the court, I can say that they are not wholly fanciful.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

ANALYSIS: By Alexander Gillespie, of the University of Waikato

Was Brenton Tarrant’s silence and acceptance of sentence in court a final act to expand his notoriety? Was his disavowal of previously expressed ideological views a trick?

A person capable of planning the Christchurch mosque attacks so methodically may well have mapped the last public chapter, too. By saying little and expressing no real remorse, alone and without even his own lawyer, was he hoping the world would see a determined stoicism, an enigma?

Or did he simply realise the controls around court behaviour were so well designed that he couldn’t hijack proceedings?

• READ MORE: Remembering my friend, and why there is no right way to mourn the Christchurch attacks
• Christchurch mosque attacks: ‘Inhuman’ terrorist jailed for life without parole

For now at least, we can’t know. All we can say for sure is what the High Court in New Zealand has heard over the days leading to today’s sentence of life in prison with no minimum parole: using overwhelming firepower against defenceless civilians he took the lives of 51 men, women and children, injured many more and left even more bereft.

His silence notwithstanding, then, he is not an enigma.

As the first person in New Zealand to be convicted of terrorism, he comes from the same dark place that spawned the likes of Anders Breivik in Norway, Darren Osborne (who drove a truck into Muslim worshippers in London in 2017) and Dylann Roof (who attacked black parishioners in a South Carolina church in 2015).

Tarrant had even carved the names of Alexandre Bissonette (who attacked a mosque in Quebec in 2017) and Luca Traini (who attacked African migrants in Italy in 2018) on the magazines of his guns.

So now he joins that list of mass murderers, animated by a hatred of tolerance, equality and multicultural values, who came to believe indiscriminate violence against unarmed civilians was justified.

The first ever non-parole sentence
If this was America, he could have been sentenced to death or given a cumulative jail sentence of over 1,000 years. Neither option is available in New Zealand. There are many good reasons for having no death penalty, including in this case the denial of any aspirations to martyrdom.

• READ MORE: Jailing the Christchurch terrorist will cost New Zealand millions. A prisoner swap with Australia would solve more than one problem
  

The most extreme penalty New Zealand law does allow is jail for life without any minimum parole period. Although a sentence of 30 years without parole has been imposed, life without parole has never been given.

It is fair to say that Judge Mander, who did an excellent job throughout, met public expectation with his decision to ensure Tarrant never again walks outside a guarded wall.

What the law demands
Such a sentence is justified if the court is satisfied no minimum term of imprisonment would be enough to satisfy the main considerations: accountability, denouncement, deterrence or protecting the community.

In short, the Sentencing Act sets out the purposes of sentencing: to hold the offender to account for the harm done to the victims and the wider community, to denounce the crime and deter others from replicating those acts.

Supplementary principles a sentencing judge must consider include the gravity of the offending and its seriousness compared to other types of offences. The judge is required “to impose the maximum penalty prescribed for the offence if the offending is within the most serious of cases for which that penalty is prescribed” (unless there are mitigating circumstances).

The only mitigation that would have carried weight in this case was Tarrant pleading guilty and therefore shortening proceedings. Other mitigating factors, such as remorse or offers to make amends, were not to be seen or were deemed not genuine.

Placing the victims first
The other principle Judge Mander had to take into account relates to the effect of the offending on the victims. As the 91 victim impact statements heard over three days made clear, those victims displayed remarkable fortitude, bravery, wisdom and humanity.

But the black hole of pain the killer left in his wake is near incomprehensible.

Further aggravating factors justifying this sentence were that these were pre-meditated crimes of hate, terrorism, particular cruelty and involved the use of weapons.

Tarrant ticked all of the boxes. The enormity of his crimes made them unlike anything that had gone before. New Zealand has experienced mass shootings in the past, and murders based on racial hatred, but nothing of this scale.

On top of that, no one had employed the internet to spread hatred as happened in Christchurch, nor has anyone pleaded guilty to an act of terrorism before.

When all of these considerations were put on the scales of justice, Judge Mander would have seen that, small acts of mitigation aside, an unprecedented sentence was the only appropriate outcome for an unprecedented crime.

Dr Alexander Gillespie is professor of law at the University of Waikato. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Warning: This story discusses details of the 15 March 2019 Christchurch mosque massacre.

The man who carried out the New Zealand mosque attacks in Christchurch on 15 March 2019 has been sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of ever leaving jail.

Australian Brenton Tarrant, 29, had earlier admitted 51 charges of murder, 40 of attempted murder and one charge of terrorism.

Justice Cameron Mander this afternoon imposed the sentence – the harshest available to the court.

• READ MORE: Muslim community leaders respond to sentencing of the mosque terrorist – RNZ video
• ‘Congratulations Mr Terrorist, you have failed,’ girl, 15, tells gunman
• Other Asia Pacific Report coverage of the mosque massacre and justice

It marks the first time a convicted person has ever been imprisoned in New Zealand with no possibility of parole.

Tarrant murdered 51 worshippers at Al Noor Mosque and Linwood Islamic Centre on 15 March last year.

He also shot and injured 40 more in an attempt to murder them.

Tarrant was also sentenced to life imprisonment on one count of engaging in a terrorist act.

First sentencing under Terrorism Suppression Act
It marked the first time anyone was sentenced for offending under the Terrorism Suppression Act.

The terrorist did not oppose being jailed without the possibility of parole.

A packed public gallery and seven other courtrooms filled with victims, their families and supporters watched as the sentence was handed down.

They shared hugs and tears after court was adjourned.

Before handing down the sentence, Justice Cameron Mander read through the names of the murder victims, relaying details of their lives and the shattered families they left behind to the terrorist.

He then detailed the injuries of the 40 survivors of the attack.

The survivors had to endure long-lasting and deep-seated trauma as a result of the attack, Justice Mander said.

Mosques ‘places of sanctuary’
“The mosques were places of sanctuary, this country too … was also seen as a place of refuge and safety by many of those you targeted,” he said.

“I have no doubt you came to New Zealand and targeted its Muslim community for that very reason.”

The attack was inhuman, the judge said.

“You showed no mercy.

“You ignored the pleas of the wounded to be spared. You advanced on them, stood over them and shot them.”

The terrorist was motivated by a “base hatred of people perceived to be different from yourself”.

“It is not apparent that you are genuinely remorseful for your actions apart from the circumstances in which you now find yourself,” Justice Mander said.

The terrorist’s hateful ideology was anathema to the values of New Zealand’s society.

“It has no place here. It has no place anywhere,” the judge said.

‘A painful and harrowing mark in NZ’s history’

Prosecutor Mark Zarifeh told the court Tarrant was “clearly New Zealand’s worst murderer”.

“He has caused permanent and immeasurable suffering and harm to the victims’ families, the Muslim community and to the rest of New Zealand,” Zarifeh said.

He described the Christchurch terror attack as a “painful and harrowing mark in New Zealand’s history”.

The attack was premeditated, extremely violent, brutal, cruel and callous.

“The offender demonstrated calculated and militaristic determination in carrying out this plan,” Zarifeh said.

“The significance of the location of the offending – two places of worship – to the victims cannot be overlooked.

“The calculated sadism and depravity exhibited by the offender cannot be overstated.”

His offending had caused real fear of similar terror attacks in future and imposing life imprisonment without parole was a necessary deterrent.

Tarrant’s actions were designed to “inflict extreme fear, horror and loss to the Muslim and non-Caucasian population of Christchurch”.

Zarifeh detailed a report from April following the terrorist speaking to Corrections.

“The offender’s statements are often paradoxical in the report. He is noted by the report writer as showing no remorse, talking about his victims in the abstract, showing no concern for the families of those affected and speaking in a matter of fact manner about the offending,” Zarifeh said.

Terrorist admits he had a ‘poisoned emotional state’
“However, the offender himself goes onto describe the offending as unnecessary, abhorrent and irrational, and that nothing good came from the offending.

“The offender told the report writer the political and social views he had to justify the offending were not real. He said he had a poisoned emotional state and was terribly unhappy. He said he felt ostracised by society and wanted to damage society as an act of revenge.

“Yet at the same time the offender described the offending as definitely an act of terrorism and he goes onto state that he wasn’t racist or xenophobic and didn’t target his victims based on their ethnicity.

“He said he targeted a religion but then claimed he had no issue with Islam.

“Similar changes in view and disavowing his previously held ideology have also been expressed to a psychologist and psychiatrist recently. However, the reliability of this in their view remains questionable.”

Standby counsel, Pip Hall QC, told the court he only had one submission to make to the court.

“Mr Tarrant does not oppose the application that he should be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole,” Hall said.

Submission draws surprise
The submission drew surprise from the public gallery, with one man saying “wow”.

Justice Mander asked the terrorist directly if he wished to make any further submission.

“No. Thank you,” Tarrant said from his seat in the dock.

When asked by the judge if he understood he had the right to make further submissions, he nodded in acknowledgement.

Kerry Cook, who was appointed as amicus curiae – a friend of the court, argued against life imprisonment.

He pointed to three factors which made such a sentence unjust – his guilty pleas, his potential for rehabilitation, and the constitutionality of life without parole.

“There must be some tangible credit for those pleas which have avoided a long and costly trial,” Cook said.

‘Recalibration’ in his ideology
“This court has seen through some comments by the prisoner there has been some recalibration in his ideology. His manifesto made it clear he would not be pleading guilty and yet he did. The views he held then are not the views he holds now, and there may be some further shift in future.”

Lastly, Cook submitted imposing a sentence of life imprisonment without parole would breach New Zealand’s Bill of Rights, specifically the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment and the right not to be arbitrarily detained.

He called for a sentence of life imprisonment with a finite non-parole period. However, Tarrant would only leave jail once his risk to society had appropriately diminished.

“Life does mean life if an undue risk is still present,” Cook said.

At the time of the terror attack, the terrorist had no prior criminal history.

Victims sought harshest sentence
Many of the victims who have been delivering their harrowing statements in court this week urged the judge to impose the sentence.

The possibility of such a sentence was one of the many complexities facing Justice Mander, the Law Society said earlier this week.

A steady stream of people started entering the High Court from the time the doors opened at 8am today.

White roses were handed out to the victims as they arrived in court. They were donated as a gesture of support from two women.

The last group of 93 victims read their impact statements yesterday afternoon – a marked increase on the 66 that were expected.

Community adviser and former Christchurch city councillor Raf Manji, who delivered some of the impact statements on behalf of the victims, said victims had been empowered by the way the hearing had been handled.

“In the end it has been a real healing process for a lot of people,” Manji said.

The session today began with the Crown making its submissions before Pip Hall QC, who has been on standby, made submissions on behalf of Tarrant.

Late yesterday it emerged that Tarrant, who is representing himself, would not address the judge to offer any mitigating factors to explain the motivation behind his crimes.

This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre under a partnership agreement with RNZ.

Where to get help:
“Need to Talk?” Free call or text 1737 any time to speak to a trained counsellor, for any reason:

Healthline: 0800 611 116

Daily wellbeing actions from the Mental Health Foundation

Covid-19 mental health and wellbeing resources

Warning: This story discusses details of the 15 March 2019 Christchurch mosque massacre.

The contrast cannot be more stark. The bravery of a 15-year-old girl, and the cowardice of a 29-year-old terrorist.

Brenton Harrison Tarrant is facing sentencing in the High Court at Christchurch for the murder of 51 worshippers at two mosques on 15 March 2019.

He has admitted 51 counts of murder, 40 of attempted murder and one charge under the Terrorism Suppression Act.

• READ MORE: The widows of Shuhada podcast – and other RNZ reports
• NZ mosque terrorist’s sentencing: Gunman looks like ‘shell of a man’
• Mosque victim’s mother tells terrorist: ‘You killed your own humanity’

This afternoon the final victims spoke to the court. Just before the court adjourned for the day, it was confirmed that Tarrant would not address the court in his own defence.

A 15-year-old girl, who cannot be named, this afternoon confronted the terrorist directly during her victim impact statement.

“Why did you kill my dad? Why did you take the most important person away?” she asked him.

“He will always be in my heart and the hearts of those who love him. But you, you will be alone in prison.

‘The only one who lost everything is you’
“The only one who lost everything was you. Congratulations Mr Terrorist, you have failed.”

The terrorist’s cowardice was often pointed out during this afternoon’s session.

Sehan El Wakil told the terrorist he was a coward.

“If you were a real man you would have faced them [the victims], face-to-face, not with a gun behind their backs,” she said.

Abdul Aziz Wahabzadah, who chased Tarrant from Linwood Islamic Centre using an eftpos machine, told the terrorist he should thank Allah he did not catch him on 15 March 2019.

“He acts very tough but, to be honest with you, he’s nothing,” Wahabzadah said.

After the attack, police officers asked him for a description of the terrorist: “I told them, ‘He doesn’t look like a man’.”

Wahabzadah accompanied officers to the police station to give a statement.

It was there he found out the terrorist had been arrested.

‘Give me 15 minutes alone … with him’
“Your Honour, I pleaded to the police that day. I said, ‘Please give me 15 minutes alone in the cell with him, I want to see how many guts he has without a gun’,” he told the court.

“But they refused. I know because they have to follow the law.

“I saw the fear in his eyes when he was running for his life, your Honour.”

The terrorist was a coward, he said.

“You didn’t think about your mum, you didn’t think about your sister, how are they going to face the world with your coward act. You put their lives in danger. But you’re a coward, selfish, you didn’t care about them. I feel sorry for them. But not for you,” Wahabzadah said.

The government would have “saved a lot of money” if he was able to get his hands on Tarrant on that day, Wahabzadah said.

“You never forget these two eyes that you run from,” he said, finishing his victim impact statement.

Justice Cameron Mander stopped Wahabzadah from leaving.

Judge acknowledges courage
“Mr Wahabzadah, before you go. I’ve seen the video and I want to acknowledge your courage,” Justice Mander said, as the public gallery broke into applause.

The theme of Tarrant’s cowardice continued through the afternoon.

“You are a terrorist. You are a racist. You are a cold-blooded murderer who hides behind his weapons,” Feroz Ditta told Tarrant.

“Your time will come – that I can assure you, mate.

“For the rest of your life you won’t be able to embrace your parents and your family, and be part of their lives.

“You will no longer be able to hug your mother. They are at a loss because they have lost their son for the rest of their lives.”

This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre under a partnership agreement with RNZ.

Where to get help:

Need to Talk? Free call or text 1737 any time to speak to a trained counsellor, for any reason

Healthline: 0800 611 116

Daily wellbeing actions from the Mental Health Foundation

Covid-19 mental health and wellbeing resources

Warning: This story includes details of the 15 March 2019 mosque terrorism attacks.

New Zealand’s High Court will hear from further victims of the Christchurch terror attack today.

Brenton Harrison Tarrant, who has admitted 51 charges of murder, 40 of attempted murder and one of terrorism in relation to attacks at two Christchurch mosques on 15 March 2019, is being sentenced in the High Court in Christchurch.

The hearing is set down for four days with Justice Cameron Mander expected to hand down his sentence sometime on Thursday.

• READ MORE: Jailing the Christchurch terrorist will cost NZ millions. A prisoner swap with Australia?
• Research looks at media’s unprecedented response to the March 15 attacks
• Tight security at NZ court for start of sentence hearing

Yesterday the court heard from 24 victims of the attack.

More than 60 victims are expected to detail their experiences and the effect of the shootings on their lives and the lives of their loved ones.

The hearing started with prosecutor Barnaby Hawes reading the summary of facts.

It detailed the specifics of 221 shots fired at the two mosques.

Preparation for attack
In preparation for the attack, Tarrant drove from his home in Dunedin to Christchurch on 8 January 2019.

He parked across the road from Al Noor Mosque and flew a drone above it, taking particular note of the entry and exit doors.

He made detailed notes of when the mosque was frequented.

On 15 March 2019 he made the same journey and would target Al Noor Mosque and Linwood Islamic Centre.

He also planned to target Ashburton Mosque and his intention was to burn down all three houses of worship.

After his arrest Tarrant told police officers his only regret was not killing more.

Victims were able to confront Tarrant for the first time since the attack.

Misguided and misled
Gamal Fouda, imam of the Al Noor Mosque who was present on the day of the attack, told the gunman he was misguided and misled.

“We are a peaceful and loving community. We did not deserve your actions,” he said.

“Your hatred is unnecessary. If you have done anything you have brought the community closer together with your evil actions.”

The family of Ata Elayyan, who was murdered at Al Noor Mosque, told the convicted terrorist he not only attacked Canterbury’s Muslim community but New Zealand and all humanity.

Ata’s father, Mohammad Alayan, who was also injured in the attack, recited the Quran to the court.

The family heard no word of Ata for days after the attack.

“For three days we did not have any news on our beloved Ata. Then the devastating news came. Ata had passed away,” he said.

‘You took souls of 51 people’
Ata’s mother, Maysoon Salama, told Tarrant he had not only killed her son, but his own humanity.

“You gave yourself the authority to take the souls of 51 innocent people. Their only crime in your eyes was being Muslim,” she said to him.

“You terrorised the whole of New Zealand and saddened the world. You killed your own humanity and I don’t think the world will forgive you for your horrible crime against humanity.”

Janna Ezat, whose son Hussein Al-Umari was murdered at Al Noor Mosque, told the gunman she forgives him.

“I decided to forgive you Mr Tarrant because I don’t have hate. I don’t have revenge,” she said directly to the terrorist.

“In our Muslim faith we say … if we are able to forgive, forgive.

“I forgive you. Damage was done and Hussein will never be here so I have only one choice to forgive you.”

Only show of emotion
Tarrant nodded in acknowledgement of her words before blinking profusely and wiping one of his eyes.

It was his only show of emotion during the day.

Hussein Al-Umari’s sister, Aya Al-Umari, told the court she lost her best friend in the attack, whose birthday was only one day apart from hers.

“My best friend was executed in cold-blooded murder out of hatred,” she said.

“I still have the urge to pick up the phone and talk to my brother, tell him about my day and rant to him because he’s the only one that would understand.

“But now that you’ve killed him, I’ve turned to God and that’s made my faith in Islam stronger.”

Mazharuddin Syed Ahmed, who witnessed the attack on the Linwood Islamic Centre, said the victims expected to be safe in New Zealand.

“We all come from countries where these things happen,” he said.

“We came to New Zealand because it is safe, but after the shooting when we saw how people respected us and treated us all well that made us feel good about New Zealand.”

Some will never recover
Christchurch’s Deputy Mayor Andrew Turner told RNZ Morning Report that while the sentencing will bring the legal process to an end, many victims and many in the community will carry the tragedy with them their whole lives.

“It may provide some closure, but some may unfortunately never find closure. This is something that some will never forget or ever recover from.

“This sentencing really is bringing back to the people of Christchurch … a really strong reminder of what happened. Some of the details that are now coming out with the victim statements, and the effect this has really had on those who were most directly effected, it just serves to remind us how absolutely horrific this event was.

“The events of the 15th of March certainly shocked all of us in Christchurch, but you’ll recall how the whole community wrapped around the Muslim community; how people came together in love and compassion and really supported each other and showed strong support for the Muslim community.

“There’s a really strong sense of that at the moment as well… the togetherness, the love and compassion.”

Turner said the court has provided good support services for those taking part, and he encouraged those who needed it to make use of it.

This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre under a partnership agreement with RNZ.

The High Court in Christchurch was ringed with heavy security today for the sentencing of the New Zealand mosque attack gunman, Brenton Tarrant.

RNZ’s reporter in Christchurch said police snipers had been seen on rooftops and roads near the city’s justice precinct are blocked off.

Other court activity was limited to urgent matters only.

• READ MORE: Jailing the Christchurch terrorist will cost NZ millions. A prisoner swap with Australia?
• Research looks at media’s unprecedented response to the March 15 attacks

Strict cyber precautions for watching the trial via a livestream were also in place.

Dozens of mosque shooting victims and their families began waiting outside the court in the rain early today, with more than 60 expected to have their say.

The High Court hearing was set to start at 10am and is expected to take about four days.

It was the first time Tarrant had appeared in person in the dock since his first appearance shortly after the March 15 attacks.

He has admitted 51 counts of murder, 40 of attempted murder and one charge under the Terrorism Suppression Act.

Embargoed until 1pm adjournment
Nothing that was happening in the courtroom could be reported until after the 1pm adjournment.

The nature, scale and media coverage of the massacre positions the crime as a highly unusual court case, complicated by New Zealand’s second covid-19 outbreak.

Despite this, the four-day hearing will follow the usual sentencing format aside from the reading of the summary of facts, outlining the admitted crime, at the start of the day.

This is expected to take some time, given the number of charges, and will be the first time the victims and their families will hear the massacre detailed in open court.

Next, 66 victims will share their victim impact statements, in person, by way of recording or through a supporter, in a stage of the sentencing that will likely take several days.

Crown prosecutors Mark Zarifeh and Barnaby Hawes will then make legal submissions before an amicus curiae, a lawyer assisting the court, will address the judge.

Given the 29-year-old has elected to represent himself at sentencing, either he or a standby lawyer appointed by the court will present legal submissions for the defence.

He will then be sentenced by Justice Mander.

‘Hero’ relieved hearing under way
The man hailed as a hero for saving lives by chasing the Christchurch gunman away from the Linwood mosque is relieved sentencing day is finally here.

Abdul Aziz threw an eftpos machine and gun at the attacker which scared the shooter off in March last year.

He is one of hundreds of victims coming face to face with the convicted terrorist today.

Abdul spoke to RNZ before heading into the High Court with his two sons and is glad the final chapter of his nightmare is ending.

“We are looking forward to these days actually because we have waited long enough for these days. We just want to close this chapter and move on. It’s a mixed emotion,” he said.

He said he wanted to stay strong and not show the gunman how hard it had really been.

“I wrote down the impact statement but I just gave it to the judge to read it. But I don’t want [the convicted terrorist] to know how much impact he has had on us. A lot of people’s lives have completely [changed]. We’re not really the same persons we used to be.”

Emotions expected to flood back
Abdul Aziz said he was not fearful of seeing Tarrant in person but said he expected memories and emotions to come flooding back.

This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre under a partnership agreement with RNZ.

The High Court in Suva has found the Fiji Times Ltd, its three senior executives and a letter writer not guilty of sedition, reports Timoci Vula in The Fiji Times.

High Court judge Justice Thushara Rajasinghe has found the Fiji Times Ltd, general manager Hank Arts, Fiji Times editor-in-chief Fred Wesley, Nai Lalakai editor Anare Ravula and letter writer Josefa Waqabaca not guilty and acquitted them accordingly in a jam-packed court room at Government Buildings in Suva today.

Vijay Narayan and Semi Turaga of Fijivillage report Justice Rajasinghe had ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Nai Lalakai article was seditious.

The judge said he found the intention of Waqabaca’s article was to have national reconciliation.

Justice Rajasinghe said he did not find any evidence that Hank Arts saw the article or knew about it before it was printed.

The judge also said he did not find any evidence that Fred Wesley read or was aware of the article before it was printed, Fijivillage reports.

Justice Rajasinghe said he did not find any reason to disagree with the three assessors, reported Fijivillage.

All three assessors had earlier returned a not guilty opinion on all charges against Fiji Times Limited, publisher Hank Arts, contributor Josaia Waqabaca, editor-in-chief Fred Wesley and Nai Lalakai editor Anare Ravula.

All four had pleaded not guilty.

• Fiji Times sedition trial assessors give unanimous ‘not guilty’ opinions
• More Fiji sedition trial reports

The three assessors in The Fiji Times sedition trial tonight returned a unanimous not guilty opinion on all counts.

They found Fiji Times publisher Hank Arts not guilty for the charge of publishing a seditious article in Nai Lalakai, a letter to the editor on April 27, 2016.

They also found Nai Lalakai editor Anare Ravula and Fiji Times editor-in-chief Fred Wesley not guilty for having aided and abetted the publication of a seditious article.

READ MORE: The Fiji 4 – the case that tests press freedoms

Letter writer Josaia Waqabaca was also found not guilty for the charge of submitting for publication an article written by him with a seditious intention, while the Fiji Times Ltd which was charged for printing a seditious publication was also found not guilty by the assessors.

High Court judge Justice Thushara Rajasinghe will deliver his judgment next week on Tuesday.

Talebula Kate is a Fiji Times reporter.