Before an immigration tribunal appeal hearing to determine his deportation, police were aware of the potential risk of Ahamed Samsudeen committing an attack, as revealed in an inquest.
In September 2021, the 32-year-old carried out a stabbing attack at a Countdown supermarket, resulting in his death by police gunfire and injuries to eight individuals.
During the inquest into Samsudeen’s death, evidence was presented indicating that police had knowledge in the month leading up to the LynnMall terror incident that he was likely to commit an attack prior to the immigration tribunal appeal hearing scheduled for 13 September 2021.
A lawyer assisting the Coroner, Erin McGill, questioned a senior police officer from the National Security Group about a surveillance warrant application made on 17 August 2021, which expressed concerns about the risk of an attack before the appeal hearing.
At that time, Samsudeen was in the process of losing his refugee status, with his deportation pending the outcome of his appeal.
McGill inquired whether the surveillance team monitoring Samsudeen would have been aware of the information regarding the risk of an attack, to which the officer responded affirmatively.
It was noted that towards the end of August, the 13 September hearing date was being rescheduled due to delays caused by the Covid-19 lockdown and Samsudeen changing his legal representation, with the rescheduled date remaining uncertain.
According to a timeline from a coordinated review of Samsudeen’s management by government agencies, Samsudeen arrived in New Zealand from Sri Lanka in 2011 on a student visa and later obtained refugee status.
Police had been aware of Samsudeen since 2016 for posting objectionable material depicting graphic violence.
In 2017, a former flatmate informed the police that Samsudeen had expressed a desire to travel to Syria to fight for ISIL and mentioned carrying out a knife attack if prevented from doing so.
Subsequently, in May 2017, Samsudeen was arrested at an airport while attempting to fly overseas, charged with possession of objectionable material, and spent almost four years in custody.
Could the attack have been prevented earlier?
The senior police officer from the National Security Group was questioned about the possibility of stopping the terror attack sooner if a surveillance officer had followed Samsudeen into the mall on 3 September.
Just seven weeks before the attack, Samsudeen had been released from prison, where he was under constant surveillance by covert police officers due to his high national security risk.
During the inquest, it was revealed that a surveillance officer, identified as Officer D, had followed Samsudeen that day but opted not to enter the mall with him.
The senior officer explained that Officer D had been monitoring Samsudeen for seven weeks and observed nothing unusual in his behavior that day.
Additionally, Officer D likely did not know that the supermarket sold knives, as acknowledged by the senior officer.
When queried about the potential different approach to surveillance if the team had known about the knives, the senior officer was unable to provide a direct response.
McGill highlighted that Officer D’s testimony indicated that Samsudeen was making positive plans for the future around the time of the attack, such as exploring job and housing opportunities.
After extensive questioning, the senior officer admitted that following Samsudeen into the mall could have raised an alarm slightly earlier but could not guarantee that it would have prevented the attack sooner.
He noted that due to the covert nature of surveillance, Officer D would unlikely have been in the same aisle as Samsudeen to witness his actions.
However, if a team member had observed Samsudeen taking a knife from the shelves, it would have prompted a call to the Special Tactics Group.
At the outset of the inquest, Coroner Marcus Elliott clarified that it would not reassess the Independent Police Conduct Authority’s finding that the officers were justified in shooting Samsudeen and that Officer D’s decision not to follow him initially was reasonable.
Nevertheless, he emphasized the importance of learning from the incident and discussing potential recommendations during the inquest.
