Supervisor says priority decision was ‘right at the time’

The supervisor mentoring a junior 111 call-taker says she would like to think a call about the terrorist’s manifesto would have been acted on differently had they realised the threat was genuine.

The supervisor, who has name suppression, told the inquest yesterday that she could not recall if she ever thought about upgrading the call to a priority 1 event.

Earlier evidence in the inquest showed a parliamentary staffer’s call about Brenton Tarrant’s manifesto was categorised as Natsec (national security) priority 2.

The call-taker told the court she categorised it that way as it was an unusual call and unclear when and where the attack would take place.

The supervisor had agreed with the call-taker’s decision.

The caller relaying second-hand information and seeming confused about the information being given led her and the call-taker to believe it was of a lesser priority, the supervisor told the court.

Counsel assisting the coroner, Abigail Van Echten, suggested it should have been a priority 1 call because of the threat of violence.

The supervisor agreed the threat of violence was highlighted in the phone call but continued to believe labelling it a priority 2 was the right decision at the time.

When asked if her opinion on the call would have changed had she been aware the attack of Al Noor Mosque was already under way, she said: “I’d like to think I would handle it differently.”

Earlier in her evidence, she became so upset that a lawyer stood up and requested she be able to take a break.

The supervisor broke down in tears while speaking of the moment she learned there was an active shooter in Christchurch.

RNZ