A former police vetting officer who interviewed the Christchurch mosque gunman for his firearms licence application says he was a “good actor” that was clearly hiding something more sinister.
The inquest into the deaths of the 51 worshippers murdered at Al Noor Mosque and Linwood Islamic Centre on March 15, 2019 has re-convened for its second phase.
Deputy Chief Coroner Brigitte Windley is examining how the terrorist obtained his firearms licence.
On Friday, the vetting officer told the coroner’s court he did not recall anything remarkable about Brenton Tarrant during the interview process.
He said he ultimately recommended he receive his firearms licence as he “appears to be a sound person who shows good attitudes and safety sense with the use of firearms”.
The vetting officer told the coroner’s inquest if the terrorist had revealed any extremist beliefs he may not have thought much of it. (Source: 1News)
The vetting officer said at the time, the terrorist was a “reasonable sort of guy to talk to and had a pleasant personality”.
He was clearly a “good actor” who was hiding something more sinister, and good at not showing it, the officer told the court.
Nothing the terrorist said at the time of the interview caused him any concern and he did not choose to probe further on any answers he gave.
That included the terrorist saying “I don’t have any enemies” when asked if there would be concern for anyone’s safety if he was to hold a firearms licence.
The vetting officer said he was not required to ask any questions about racist or extremist views.
However, if he had mentioned the word “terrorism”, he said: “I probably would have thought about it.”
The vetting officer said he was employed in the role on a casual basis for nine years by 2017.
He did not receive any formal training and there was no specific policy implemented for how vetting officers worked.
He had gone along with another vetting officer to two home visits before starting on his own and learnt how to do the job along the way.
It was usual practice for vetting officers to interview the applicant and their two referees unless the referees did not live in the same area.
In this case, he only interviewed the terrorist, and another vetting officer interviewed his referees.
It had also been normal for referees to be interviewed before applicants, but that requirement relaxed over time — something the vetting officer was unhappy about.
He had questioned his manager about whether he would receive the referee’s responses for the terrorist’s application but was told to process the application without them and give a recommendation without them, too.
He told the court the change in practice “was crazy” and not something he agreed with.
The inquest continues next week.
By Danielle Clent of rnz.co.nz
