“We’ll also look at whether gaps or loopholes in the legislation as it related to military-style semiautomatic weapons (MSSAs) were known by Mr Tarrant and factored into his decision to move to New Zealand and enabled him to mount and execute an attack with such deadly effect.

“We need to explore whether – in the absence of errors or deficiencies in the licensing regime or the gap in the law related to MSSAs – Mr Tarrant’s plans might not have come to fruition, or the effect of the attack lessened.”

This is the second phase of the inquest.

The first was around the specific events of March 15, 2019 and the response of emergency services to the massacre.

The firearms licence process had been explored as part of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the terror attack.

However, the Deputy Chief Coroner had been asked by victims’ families and bullet-injured survivors to take a “fresh” look at the issues.

“They needed to see, hear and if necessary test the evidence that underpinned the Royal Commission’s conclusions and findings in which they had been unable to access,” she explained.

“They needed greater clarity as to the link between the firearms licence and the attack. They wanted to know whether the deficiencies that the Royal Commission had identified in the licensing system had now been fixed.

“They wanted to know that lessons had in fact been learned.”

She said the coronial process would not “re-do” the work of the Royal Commission – rather it was considered a “starting point”.

“For the first time, this inquiry has been able to obtain relevant information that was considered by the Royal Commission, but which was not made previously available to families or the public,” said Deputy Chief Coroner Windley.

“Not all evidence that relates to this phase of the inquiry will be heard in court. The inquest is a forum for testing the evidence under oath.

“Ultimately, I have a legislated mandate to make comments or recommendations confined to factors that are shown by the evidence before me to have contributed to have causally contributed to the 51 deaths.

“The second phase of this inquiry is an important opportunity to assess whether errors or deficiencies related to firearms and firearms licensing that can be shown to have contributed to the attack, including those by the Royal Commission have now been addressed.”

The Deputy Chief Coroner noted that some witnesses were “understandably concerned” that she was “seeking to blame them again”.

“That is not the purpose of this inquiry nor is exploring these issues in attempt to minimise or ignore the fact that these deaths were the result of the callous and brutal actions of Mr Tarrant,” she stated.

“But if the inquiry is to fully discharge its purposes and to provide agencies, law and policymakers with facts about whether firearms licensing and legislative gaps contributed to the attack; and any recommendations related to those factors, we can’t shy away from identifying any and all deficiencies and opportunities to make improvements without rigour in the inquiry process.”

She said “shying away” from asking the “difficult and uncomfortable questions” would “empty” the inquest process of “meaningful value” and the opportunity to learn lessons would be lost.

“At the end of the day, a meaningful and robust inquiry is for the benefit of all of us – the families who lost loved ones, the public who deserve to be kept safe from firearms, irresponsible firearms users,” she said.

Police gun expert – licencing “inconsistent” when Tarrant applied

The first witness called was Michael McIlraith – Firearms Safety Authority partnerships director.

He told the court that around the time Tarrant applied for his firearms licence – the police system nationally was “inconsistent” and “under-resourced”.

He explained that there were differing processes and training between the 12 police districts and “a lack of” training material at a national level.

McIlraith gave an in-depth explanation of New Zealand’s firearms licencing processes and also outlined the history of legislative changes.

During his evidence, he revealed that in 2017 the Minister of Police was briefed on “the legislative gaps relating to firearms” – particularly MSSAs.

Later that year a new Minister of Police was also briefed.

He said legislative changes were required through Parliament to close the loophole – and that a police “operational response wasn’t possible or effective”.

There was no change to the law on that issue before the terror attack.

McIlraith said even if Tarrant had not obtained a licence – there were other ways he could have acquired guns.

“Any one of those, had he chosen to use them, could have seen him obtain firearms and or a particular type of firearm,” he said.

“It would make it more challenging (without a licence) but not impossible to obtain (firearms).”

Police failures – what the Royal Commission identified

Deputy Chief Coroner Windley reiterated the findings of the Royal Commission in terms of the police firearms licensing process for the terrorist.

“Police accept… that they failed to meet the required standards in the administration of the firearms licensing system in three respects,” she said.

“First, police documentation didn’t provide coherent and complete guidance on processing applications.

“Second, police didn’t have arrangements to ensure firearms licensing, staff received systematic training and regular reviews of their practice.

“And third police didn’t adequately address whether Mr Tarrant’s referees knew him well enough to serve as referees.”