Lawyer must pay $13K for discussing Tarrant case

AUCKLAND: The lawyer who first represented Brenton Tarrant after his arrest for the March 15, 2019, Christchurch mosque attacks has been ordered to pay $13,000 for discussing the case with the media.

The New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal this week censured Christchurch lawyer Richard Peters and ordered him to pay costs of $13,000.

It decided not to suspend him for what the tribunal deemed a ‘‘reckless disregard’’ for the privileged conversations between a client and lawyer, the New Zealand Law Society said.

Mr Peters was the first lawyer to represent Tarrant and did so as the duty solicitor.

He spoke to the gunman by phone after his arrest and appeared for the mass killer at the first appearance in the Christchurch District Court on March 16, 2019.

Following the hearing, Mr Peters then spoke to the media, including to an Otago Daily Times reporter.

He also spoke to RNZ, the exchange airing on March 19, and granted an interview to The New Zealand Herald.

Mr Peters said in the interview Tarrant ‘‘seemed quite clear and lucid’’.

‘‘He didn’t appear to me to be facing any challenges or mental impairment, other than holding fairly extreme views.’’

Mr Peters then speculated on how the unprecedented case might play out.

‘‘I suspect that he won’t shy away from publicity, and that will probably be the way he runs the trial. The job of the trial judge will be to deal with that,’’ he said.

‘‘But it’s not a place for any views to be put forward. It’s simply there to determine innocence or guilt. The court is not going to be very sympathetic to him if he wants to use the trial to express his own views.’’

He also said he did not have any issues representing Tarrant.

‘‘It’s not an everyday event . . . It’s difficult in this case to take a dispassionate view, but you’ve got to put that to one side and say, ‘right, let’s simply process things’.

‘‘My job was simply to appear in court and advise him of his rights and procedure.’’

Mr Peters’ comments to the media were initially the subject of a liability decision by the tribunal in December last year, which found him guilty of misconduct, but an order was made to suppress its publication until the conclusion of Tarrant’s case.

The lawyer at first did not consider he had breached any rules, but later accepted his error.

He argued his comments amounted to unsatisfactory conduct, rather than misconduct.

In its penalty decision from Tuesday, the tribunal said duty lawyers must ‘‘protect and hold in strict confidence all information concerning a client’’.

The tribunal said Mr Peters’ lapse of judgement was ‘‘more in the nature of a ‘reckless disregard’ of the rules, and accordingly misconduct, rather than a simple breach or lapse of professionalism’’.

After Mr Peters briefly acted for the killer, Tarrant then indicated he would represent himself. Ultimately, the task was taken on by Auckland barristers Shane Tait and Jonathan Hudson.

The pair represented Tarrant, who initially pleaded not guilty, through most of the hearings, including for his change of pleas in March this year.

The 30yearold Australian national sacked both Mr Tait and Mr Hudson in July and announced his intentions to represent himself again ahead of his sentencing in the High Court at Christchurch.

Tarrant was sentenced in August to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. — The New Zealand Herald

❛ He didn’t appear to me to be facing any challenges or mental impairment, other than holding fairly

extreme views