Mosque video share sentence appealed
The sentencing of Philip Arps, who shared the Christchurch mosque shooting video, was heavily swayed by the views he held and some of the things he had said, the Court of Appeal has been told.
The white supremacist is serving a 21-month jail term on two charges of distributing an objectionable publication.
He has already lost one appeal against the sentence but in Wellington yesterday in the Court of Appeal his lawyer, Anselm Williams, said the district court sentencing and High Court appeal had been coloured significantly, and heavily swayed, by the views the courts considered Arps held. Arps pleaded guilty to two charges of distributing the video. He admitted that after the March 15 massacre he had sent the video to 30 people, and asked a friend to modify it by adding cross-hairs and a ‘‘kill count’’.
Williams told the three Court of Appeal judges, including Christchurch-based judge David Gendall, that Arps shared the video with people he thought would find it interesting, and deleted the modified video because by the time he received it Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern had said the video was likely to be classified objectionable.
Williams said the conditions of Arps’ sentence made it harder for him. He was in solitary confinement in maximum security at Christchurch Men’s Prison because of the nature of his offence. Home detention was available and should have been imposed.
The video was widely shared generally on social media but Arps accepted he had crossed the line into the criminal law. Arps would not step back from his views but he denied getting pleasure from viewing the video, Williams said.
Justice David Collins, presiding, said Arps told police he thought the video was ‘‘awesome’’ but Williams said there was no evidence before the court of the ‘‘nuances’’ of Arps’ views.
Williams said Arps’ was against Muslim immigration to New Zealand and considered himself an activist. He had political views he thought he could express.
The Court of Appeal decision is expected to comment on the limits of Arps’ right to freedom of expression. Justice Collins said Arps was not punished for his views, which he was entitled to regardless of how offensive others might find them.
Crown lawyer Fergus Sinclair said Arps was considered at high risk of reoffending and his attitude meant more was needed to denounce and deter what he had done. The 21-month sentence could be seen as falling on the ‘‘light side’’, he said.
Distributing the video while some did not even know if their family members were victims marked what Arps did as being particularly callous, Sinclair said. The video was classified as objectionable and that limited the right to freedom of expression in relation to it. Arguably violent forms of expression were not protected in any event, he said.
Arps’ previous offensive behaviour conviction for leaving a pig’s head at the entry to a mosque counted against him at sentencing for the video offences.