A former police vetting officer who interviewed the Christchurch mosque gunman for his firearms licence application says he was a “good actor” who was clearly hiding something more sinister.
He said he ultimately recommended he receive his firearms licence because he “appears to be a sound person who shows good attitudes and safety sense with the use of firearms”.
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 were 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.
Al Noor Mosque. Photo / RNZ
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 learned 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 interviewed only 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.
