NZ Police believe key questions around why officers weren't in the supermarket at the time of the LynnMall terror attack, and their tactical response, have been addressed and there's nothing to gain from another inquiry.
Coroner Marcus Elliot is hearing submissions on the matter, as he considers the form and scope of the coronial inquiry about the events leading up to the attacker Ahamed Samsudeen's death on September 3, 2021.
Police fatally shot the Sri Lankan refugee, 32, after he attacked several shoppers at the Auckland Countdown with a knife.
On behalf of the NZ Police, lawyer Todd Simmonds submitted the issue of why police weren't in the supermarket and how they responded to the attack had already been addressed by previous investigations.
The Independent Police Conduct Authority has previously ruled that police were justified in shooting Samsudeen and that they had access to appropriate tactical options.
And a coordinated review by multiple agencies also addressed these issues as it concluded key government agencies, including police and corrections, missed opportunities to de-radicalise Samsudeen.
Yesterday, lawyers on behalf of the survivors and the family had both raised questions around the police response.
For the survivors this included why officers weren't in the supermarket already at the time of the attack.
Simmonds said the surveillance officers had limited tactical options available to them and they were not in a position to confront an armed offender in the midst of an attack.
He said all the officers had were a small earpiece, and a retractable baton, "which does not lead to a sensible conclusion that the officer should have therefore gone in and confronted the offender".
Simmonds also highlighted how since then police have received better training and are now equipped with Glock pistols.
"It doesn't change anything on the day in question, but is a useful option that tactical staff may have as an option when deployed in a high risk dynamic situation."
For Samsudeen's family, a key question was whether the use of tasers could have prevented their son, and brother's death, and in the event of a future similar situation, others' lives.
Simmonds in his submission reinforced the IPCA findings, that officers were justified in their entirety to use lethal force, and that it was "reasonable and proportionate".
"There was an overwhelming sense, and need, for urgency. The officers were justified to deploy without delay and move forward with the tactical options they had...not spend time arming up with other options.
"Time could well have cost lives for those that were in the supermarket".
He said even if a taser had been available, it would not have been an appropriate tactical option anyway, given the challenge of deploying a taser at a rapidly moving target.
If the taser had failed, he said it would have put members of both police and the public "at risk of death or grievous bodily harm".
He says given the prior thorough investigations the various authorities have made, it would be "wrong" to further litigate these issues.
"It's common ground that the officers were justified in deploying firearms and shooting him as they did.
"Police occupy a special place in that they are permitted to use force, as long as justified. This is of course a high-end illustration of that principle."
But after some discussion with the Coroner, Simmonds accepted looking at the use of tasers could fall within the scope if it was looked at as a more general consideration of the issue.
SHARE ME