How the school attack was thwarted

For nearly two years, blanket suppression orders prevented the New Zealand Herald from reporting the troubling case of a New Zealand teenager planning to shoot high school teachers and classmates. The teenager, armed with a pistol-grip shotgun and an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, described himself as a “terrorist” and a judge believed police may have prevented a tragedy similar to the Christchurch mosque shootings. .

A teenage student planned to shoot teachers and classmates at a school until police received a tip of disturbing posts on social media.

The student, who was 17 at the time, had a pistol-grip shotgun and a military-style semi-automatic rifle in his bedroom, as well as three “improvised explosive devices” made from gas canisters filled with gunpowder.

When police raided the teen’s home, they found a hand-drawn diagram of a school building with “primary targets” marked with an X, including staff offices, and arrows to show planned movements along the hallways.

The disturbing details can be reported today for the first time after the NZ Herald and Stuff fought a 22-month legal battle to overturn blanket suppression orders, which prevented any reporting of the case since the arrest.

Detectives were informed of the teenager’s “confrontational” posts on social media and searched his home, where they found documents the student had written, including one titled “Note to Investigator.”

It was a letter in which the student described himself as a “terrorist”, explained his actions, and detailed the steps that were taken to prepare for the shooting, such as collecting ammunition.

“The police are concerned that the equipment needed to carry out [the] The plans had been obtained by the accused and located at the address, ”the police wrote in a summary of the events, pointing out the firearms, ammunition, explosives, clothing, knives, and school sketches.

The alleged “terrorist attack” plan was discovered only after members of the public informed the police about the posts on social media.

These comments concerned blowing up a school and carrying out a shooting, as well as increasingly posting “inflammatory and extreme views.”

The student drew sketches of the school buildings with the proposed movements and objectives. Illustration / Andrew Louis

The student also posted photos online wearing a military-style tactical vest, military-style gloves, and a holster capable of holding the shotgun.

In some photos, the teenager was holding the shotgun that had been legally modified by replacing the stock with a pistol grip.

After last year’s arrest, the student’s classmates told police the 17-year-old made comments about “blowing up” the school stage and shooting people in the assembly.

Police also confiscated electronic devices from the student’s home, such as a laptop, iPad, and gaming devices.

They found hundreds of images of girls in bikinis, in sexual poses or being sexually abused.

The student was charged with illegal possession of the Mossberg shotgun and illegal possession of an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle.

Homemade bombs were powerful enough to blow someone’s hand off, according to a Defense Forces bomb disposal expert.

The student admitted to making them and shooting one in an abandoned building.

One count of illegal possession of explosives, as well as 19 counts of possession of objectionable material, were also filed in connection with images of girls found on the computer.

The self-described “terrorist” was armed with a pistol-grip shotgun and homemade bombs. Illustration / Andrew Louis

The young man, now 18, pleaded guilty to the charges and was sentenced last December to six months of community detention and two years of intensive supervision, with 15 strict conditions.

The ex-student’s movements are monitored by GPS, they cannot use internet-enabled devices, and must attend counseling and therapy sessions with clinical professionals.

“I have, and others who are trying to help him have done what they can. Now it’s your turn. I wish you good luck,” Judge David Ruth said in his closing remarks at the sentencing hearing in December.

“I don’t want to see you here again. I want you to have a good life, free from all this, but now it’s up to you. We have done everything we can. Work with people who want to walk with you and continue with a better life.”

Later, in requesting an order for the permanent removal of the name, the student’s defense attorney, Robert Lithgow, QC, said that the progress his client had made during rehab would unravel if his identity were made public.

If that happened, Lithgow said the case would attract “unwanted notoriety” and “misguided enthusiasm” from radical extremists, which would be a “nightmare” for New Zealand’s family and society if it encouraged copycat behavior.

The teen’s family also believed they would have to leave their hometown if his name was made public, Lithgow said, as they feared blame for the student’s behavior and expelled from the community.

Lithgow said his client would become lonely if appointed and stop interacting with clinical professionals or seeking study and employment opportunities in the future, increasing the risk of recidivism.

Their arguments convinced Judge Ruth to permanently delete the former student’s name, as well as the school’s, at a hearing in July this year. The school can be reported to be in the Tasman area.

“I think it would be inconceivable for this court to order that there be publication, or not grant permanent suppression to put it more precisely, knowing that all the organizations that have dealt with this young man [person] believes that it would undoubtedly destabilize the rehabilitation efforts that have been and will continue to be made for this young man [person]”Judge Ruth said.

“My take, as far as risk, is that I think it would be a high risk of crime of the kind that the defendant might have been contemplating in [their] written if there is publication. It is simply not a risk that this court should take. “

The teenager wrote a document to the police in which he explained the planned “terrorist attack” and the measures taken, such as the collection of ammunition. Illustration / Andrew Louis

However, Judge Ruth agreed to lift the blanket suppression orders to allow some, but not all, of the details of what he described as a “very unusual” case to be reported.

NZME, the publisher of the New Zealand Herald, and the website Stuff appealed this ruling in a Superior Court hearing last month to argue that all circumstances of the case must be disclosed.

However, Judge Francis Cooke dismissed the appeal, except to make some minor changes to the summary of facts agreed to in a ruling issued yesterday.

All other evidence and facts in the case are suppressed, Judge Cooke ruled in a decision that lifted the veil of total secrecy imposed on the case over the past 22 months.

There is no way of knowing if the student would have gone ahead with the plot or if he would have succeeded in executing staff and students in a mass shooting at a school.

These acts of extreme violence are most often associated with the United States, such as the Sandy Hook and Columbine massacres.

But in an earlier court hearing, Judge Ruth dismissed any attempt to downplay the student’s behavior as “mere reflections of a disgruntled teenager”, as the student’s preparation went “far beyond any such suggestion.”

The judge also wanted to “make it clear” that any increased sensitivity following the Christchurch mosque shootings did not influence his thinking.

Shortly after the student’s arrest, 51 people were killed while praying in two mosques in Christchurch on March 15, 2019. The mosque shooter, Brenton Tarrant, has been sentenced to life in prison without parole.

At the teenager’s sentencing indication hearing in September last year, Judge Ruth said the terrorist attacks in Christchurch were “irrelevant” to her decision and, if anything, police actions may have prevented a similar tragedy.

“I came to the opinion long, long before the March incident that this was a matter of considerable gravity,” Judge Ruth said at a hearing in September 2019.

I share the opinion expressed by the police that, at least at first glance, he is a very disturbed and worried young man [person].

“My only reference to the March 15 episode is that perhaps by incarcerating this young man [person] and taking the court’s cautious and conservative approach, it is arguably the case that we prevent another episode similar to those that occurred in Christchurch. “

The teenage student wore tactical military clothing to pose with a shotgun in ‘confrontational’ social media posts. Illustration / Andrew Louis

And similar to the Christchurch terror attack, this case raises serious questions about the vetting of firearms licensees.

The student had a Category A firearms license and was in possession of the Mossberg shotgun, a birthday present, which was kept in a locked closet in his room.

Police confiscated the shotgun along with a Colt AR-15 semi-automatic rifle also stored in the locker.

Under the law at the time, anyone with a Category A license could own an AR-15.

However, this particular model, which had been loaned to the family for review prior to purchase, had been modified with a flash suppressor and bayonet lugs.

This meant that the AR-15 was technically a military-style semi-automatic (MSSA) that needed a category E endorsement on the license, which the student did not have.

Lithgow said neither his client nor the owner of the AR-15 knew that the firearm needed an E endorsement.

The AR-15 has gained notoriety as the weapon of choice for mass shootings around the world, including the March 15 terrorist attacks in Christchurch.

Following the mosque shootings, the government banned semi-automatic firearms such as the AR-15.

Assistant Commissioner Mike Johnson said public complaints in 2018 and 2019 were taken “extremely seriously,” allowing police to arrest the teen and “defuse any threats to the community.”

“The case highlights the significant value of the information provided by the public and we thank all those who reported their concerns to the police,” Johnson said.

“It also shows how important it is for parents and caregivers to closely monitor what young people are doing online.”