Tarrant v R - [2026] NZCA 148

Criminal practice and procedure — extension of time — conviction appeal

On 26 March 2020 Mr Tarrant pleaded guilty to 51 charges of murder, 40 charges of attempted murder and one charge of engaging in a terrorist act.  He was convicted of those 92 offences immediately upon pleading guilty.  On 27 August 2020, Mr Tarrant was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.  On 3 November 2022, Mr Tarrant filed a notice of appeal against his convictions and sentence.  His notice of appeal was filed 505 working days out of time.

The hearing in this Court was confined to Mr Tarrant's conviction appeal and his application to extend time to appeal those convictions.  After the hearing, Mr Tarrant filed a notice of abandonment, advising the Court that he no longer wished to pursue either his conviction or sentence appeal and the accompanying extension of time applications.

Issue one: should Mr Tarrant be permitted to abandon his applications for extensions of time and any resultant appeals?
Held: No, in part.  An appellant loses their absolute right to abandon their appeal once the hearing of the appeal has commenced.  Once this occurs, wider public interest considerations become relevant.  Mr Tarrant's application and conviction appeal are of significant public interest, and so we decline Mr Tarrant leave to abandon his application for an extension of time and any resultant conviction appeal.  Different considerations apply to Mr Tarrant's sentence appeal.  This was not addressed at the hearing, and so we accept Mr Tarrant's notice of abandonment to the extent it relates to his sentence appeal.

Issue two: should Mr Tarrant's application for an extension of time to bring an appeal against his convictions be granted?
Held: No.  This Court does not accept Mr Tarrant's evidence about his mental state.  There were inconsistencies in Mr Tarrant's own evidence, and his evidence is at odds with the detailed observations of prison authorities and the assessments of mental health professionals at the time of him entering his pleas.  His evidence is also at odds with the evidence of his two very experienced trial lawyers.  The only evidence in support of Mr Tarrant's case was given by Witness B, a clinical psychologist.  However, Witness B's opinions were significantly undermined both by the fact that the basis upon which he was asked to assess Mr Tarrant's state of mind was not borne out by the evidence, and by his responses to the Crown's questions in cross-examination.

Mr Tarrant's guilty pleas were voluntary.  He was not coerced or pressured in any way to plead guilty.  The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that he was not suffering any significant psychological impacts as a result of his prison conditions at the time he pleaded guilty.

Ultimately, Mr Tarrant's proposed conviction appeal is utterly devoid of merit.  Mr Tarrant has also failed to adequately explain the delay in filing his notice of appeal.  His own evidence was that his health started to improve well before November 2022, and prison records show that Mr Tarrant had almost unlimited access to lawyers.  While this Court accepts that Mr Tarrant was not able to find a lawyer who was willing to accept his instructions to file a notice of appeal, he was aware of the process of filing a notice of appeal and had no difficulty personally doing so in November 2022.  This Court does not accept his claims that he believed two other lawyers he had instructed were going to file a notice of appeal on his behalf.  The overall interests of society and the administration of justice also favour declining the application to extend time to appeal.