Source: COLFO Media Release
7 October 2024
The Christchurch Masjidain Attack Coronial Inquiry is due to start its investigation tomorrow (Tuesday, 8 October) into how Police gave a firearm license to Brenton Tarrant and the link to the attack, with the Council of Licenced Firearms Owners saying the inquiry could finally reveal the full extent of Police responsibility.
COLFO spokesperson Hugh Devereux-Mack says that five years on from the national shame and the subsequent crackdown on firearms and firearms owners, Police responsibility for the tragedy would now be spotlighted.
He said many questions could be answered and clarified:
What was it about the existing firearm licensing law that allowed Tarrant to be licensed, if anything?
What was it about Police resourcing and management of the licensing system that allowed Tarrant to be licensed?
Did Police enquire about Tarrant’s background in Australia or overseas? If not, why not?
How did the people Tarrant used as character referees differ in their relationship to Tarrant, and their knowledge and experience of him, from referees required for most licences?
Had the Tarrant’s referees known him for at least three years?
Were the referees interviewed before or after Tarrant?
What professional judgment or intuition did the vetting officers apply to the suitability of these referees, and of Tarrant?
To what extent did the process deviate from Police rules, guidance, and training?
To what extent did the process deviate from the approach in other NZ Police regions?
Did a senior police officer review Tarrant’s application and the referees before the Christchurch attack?
Why were Police certain they had vetted Tarrant correctly, leading to their confident claim in a 22 March 2019 media release?
When were Police in possession of information that indicated the referees were not adequate?
When was that information given to a senior person to review?
Why did Police not withdraw their claim Tarrant was properly vetted as soon as they were aware Tarrant was improperly licensed?
What loophole did Tarrant exploit to modify his firearms to the point that he was not entitled to use them?
When was that loophole pointed out to Police and the Police Minister?
How changes made by Police HQ to the administration of the licensing system may have contributed to how Tarrant’s application was processed?
Why did Police not push for stricter firearm licensing thresholds, harsher penalties on license breaches, and restrictions to firearms, before the Christchurch attack?
Notes
The Second Phase Inquest into matters relating to firearms licensing processes (“Issue 10” of the Inquiry) will start 7 October at the Christchurch Law Courts.
COLFO ex-President Michael Dowling will give evidence to the Inquiry.
The strict rules on conduct and admissible information will be closely followed by COLFO during the hearings.
//ENDS
Comments