The white supremacist who massacred 51 people in the Christchurch terror attack attempted to engage a leading human rights lawyer to act as his "mouthpiece".
Australian Brenton Tarrant wants the Court of Appeal to overturn his convictions and sentence for the March 2019 shootings at Christchurch's Al Noor Mosque and Linwood Islamic Centre.
The 35-year-old now claims he pleaded guilty only because he was irrational due to the solitary nature of his prison conditions.
On Wednesday afternoon, the court heard from Dr Tony Ellis, who represented the terrorist for about six months in 2021, and Ron Mansfield KC, who represented him for just over a year from late 2021.
Ellis told the court he was primarily engaged by Tarrant to obtain a copy of the Royal Commission of Inquiry's report into the terror attack.
He obtained a copy of the report and sent it to the prison, however, it did not reach the terrorist.
Ellis said the terrorist had also raised the possibility of launching an appeal. But the lawyer was not willing to act for him.
"If I was going to act for him on appeal he wanted me to do precisely as ordered and basically act as his mouthpiece," he said.
"I told him I wasn't prepared to act in those circumstances."
Ellis had spoken to the terrorist a dozen times on the phone and the conversations were often lengthy.
"Many clients who have been detained in solitary confinement, they want to have a chat with somebody because its psychologically harmful to be left in solitary confinement and you need human interaction," he told the court.
Mansfield had primarily been engaged to assist the terrorist in preparing for the coronial inquiry into the deaths of the 51 people murdered on 15 March 2019.
He then assisted the terrorist with taking steps towards seeking judicial review of his prison conditions.
Mansfield found the terrorist's prison conditions to be unsatisfactory.
The terrorist had also raised the possibility of appealing his convictions and sentence, Mansfield said.
However, the terrorist had discussed the possibility of representing himself.
The terrorist dispensed with Mansfield's services in April 2023 after becoming frustrated at the time it took for his legal matters to progress.
The Court of Appeal will hear legal arguments on Thursday and Friday.
Psychologist questions report
A forensic psychologist has called into question a report prepared for Tarrant.
On Monday, a psychologist, whose name is suppressed and is only known as Witness B, told the court the prison conditions affected the terrorist's mental health.
The psychologist said the conditions were onerous and would have affected anyone's mental health.
On Wednesday, forensic psychologist Professor James Ogloff, Dean of Health Sciences at Swinburne University in Melbourne, questioned the conclusions of that psychologist.
The terrorist was not subjected to deprivation or torture in prison, Ogloff told the court.
Ogloff said he believed when the terrorist spoke with Witness B he might have been consciously exaggerating the distress he claimed to be under at the time he pleaded guilty.
The terrorist's argument for setting aside his guilty pleas was he claimed he was incapable of making a rational decision at the time because of the torturous and inhumane prison conditions.
A psychologist and a psychiatrist assessed the terrorist before his sentencing in August 2020. Both concluded he was fit to plea at that time.
Ogloff said he had no reason to call into question those assessments.
However, Witness B's report appeared to reach the opposite conclusion and Witness B based much of his thinking on speaking to the terrorist several years after the time in question, Ogloff said.
When giving evidence on Monday, Witness B had tried to minimise his disagreement with the earlier assessments and appeared to back down from many of his report's points, Ogloff said.
The terrorist was housed in the prisoners of extreme risk unit in Auckland Prison.
He was cut off from meaningful interaction with other people, including fellow prisoners.
Ogloff said he was not claiming the prison conditions were positive, but nor were they so harsh that severe mental deterioration was inevitable.
On Tuesday, the court heard from the two lawyers who represented the terrorist from late March 2019 until July 2020.
The pair presented an image of a man who was concerned with the attention he received in the outside world, who wanted to control the aspects of his legal proceedings he could, and who was often dismissive of his lawyer's advice.
The terrorist had indicated to his lawyers he wanted to plead guilty in late July 2019 before again changing his mind several days later.
He finally pleaded guilty in March 2020 but the process was rushed.
However, both lawyers told the court the terrorist had indicated he would always plead guilty but he wanted to control when that happened.
Neither had any concerns about his fitness to provide instruction or to plea.
The court will hear evidence from the final witnesses on Wednesday afternoon before legal arguments on Thursday and Friday.
If the terrorist is successful, his guilty pleas will be overturned and he will stand trial in the High Court.
If he is unsuccessful, an appeal of his sentence will be heard, likely later this year.
