Convicted Australian 15 March terrorist exploiting NZ legal system at the expense of public trust – FIANZ

The Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand (FIANZ) has raised serious concerns over renewed legal proceedings initiated by the convicted Australian terrorist responsible for the 15 March 2019 Christchurch attacks, warning that repeated court actions risk undermining public trust, retraumatising victims, and providing ongoing publicity for extremist causes.

Legal System Exploitation and Extremist Publicity

“The latest court appearance by the Australian terrorist responsible for the 15 March 2019 Christchurch terrorist attacks is not just a legal matter. It follows a well-known pattern used by convicted right-wing terrorists to exploit legal systems in order to regain publicity, amplify their ideology and inspire online supporters,” said Abdur Razzaq, Chairperson of FIANZ Advocacy.

“The terrorist who murdered 51 people and wounded a further 40 at two mosques, is following an almost identical trajectory to the right-wing terrorist responsible for the 2011 Norway attacks that killed 77 people. After initially confessing guilt, the Oslo terrorist systematically exploited the Norwegian and European legal systems through repeated court actions following his 2012 conviction, including cases in 2016, 2017, and again in 2024, largely focused on alleged prison conditions. This is quite similar to the Australian 15 March terrorist who is now exploiting the NZ legal system claiming he pleaded guilty “under duress by torture”. Whilst the current case has a focus to determine the time validity, it nevertheless provides him with the opportunity to generate social media traffic. There is also the forthcoming coronial inquiry where again he will no doubt seek further publicity.”

Public Trust, Due Process and the Cost of Transparency

“New Zealand’s legal system operates on principles of transparency, due process, and access to justice. By repeatedly initiating post-conviction legal actions, the terrorist is using those protections not to seek genuine redress, but to re-enter the public arena, garner repeated media reporting, and ensure continued visibility. The public’s trust that Courts act in good faith is leveraged by the terrorist for his own self-promotion and his cause. This is almost identical method used by the Oslo terrorist who he deemed to be his “true inspiration”.

Human Impact on Survivors and Unmet Royal Commission Commitments

“Unfortunately, such legal challenges also come with various levels of societal costs. As the study by the University of Otago revealed, the 15 March families are suffering sustained PTSD. At another level, it is important to remember that of the 51 Recommendations issued by the Royal Commission, only two related directly to the affected whānau, survivors, and witnesses. Unfortunately, the recommendation for a restorative justice process was abandoned. Survivors were denied the opportunity to seek restorative justice, while the convicted terrorist continues to access repeated, publicly funded legal processes. This imbalance is both incongruous and indefensible.”

Financial Cost to New Zealand Taxpayers

“The financial cost to the public is also substantial and ongoing. The costs for each legal challenge is not insignificant, particularly with the other associated costs such as security. The initial court case and prison cost was over $2.38 million. In 2020, when the last calculation was done, NZ taxpayers were spending $4,932 per day or over $1.8 million a year to maintain the Australian 15 March terrorist in prison, whilst other prisoners cost about $338 per day. Based on the probable life expectancy of the Australian terrorist, it will cost NZ taxpayers about $93.6 million for his upkeep.”

Ongoing Radicalisation and Global Copycat Risks

“Unfortunately, as a society, we must confront an uncomfortable reality. Repeated legal proceedings involving the Australian 15 March terrorist are not neutral acts but carry profound human, social, and financial costs, while providing exactly the exposure such terrorists seek. The terrorist is still inspiring others. It is no coincidence that there has been a long list of copycat terrorism after 15 March, including the Chabad of Poway Synagogue attack by John Earnest; the El Paso attack by Patrick Crusius; the Halle attack by Stephan Balliet, among other plots. The latest was a teenage far-right supporter in Singapore who wanted to conduct a terrorist-style attack on Muslims at a mosque. Fortunately, he was detained in time by the Singapore authorities. These are precisely the online audience that the right wing convicted terrorists deliberately seek to recruit through their media notoriety. Following the current proceedings, the next major opportunity is likely to arise during the next phase of the Coronial Inquiry,” said Abdur Razzaq.

FAQ:

Q: Why are repeated legal challenges by convicted terrorists controversial?

A: Repeated post-conviction legal challenges are controversial because they can retraumatise victims and their families, impose ongoing financial and security costs on the public, and provide renewed publicity for extremist individuals and ideologies. Critics argue such actions may exploit legal protections intended for genuine redress rather than justice.

Q: What did the Royal Commission recommend for victims of the 15 March attacks?

A: The Royal Commission issued 51 recommendations following the 15 March attacks. Only two directly related to affected whānau, survivors, and witnesses. A proposed restorative justice process was recommended but later abandoned, limiting opportunities for survivors to seek meaningful restorative engagement.

Q: Why do extremist figures seek attention through legal proceedings?

A: Extremist figures have historically used court proceedings and legal challenges to regain media attention, reinforce their ideological narratives, and reach online supporters. Legal visibility can act as a platform for notoriety, even when cases are procedural rather than substantive.