5. Bruce Rifle Club allegations

5.1 Overview

1

On 19 March 2019, Peter Breidahl claimed in a Facebook post to have had concerns about the culture and conduct of people (including the individual) at the Bruce Rifle Club. These concerns arose from a visit Peter Breidahl made to the Bruce Rifle Club on 19 November 2017 to take part in a shooting competition.

2

He also claimed that he had raised these concerns with New Zealand Police in late 2017. In the Facebook post, he said that the Bruce Rifle Club was “the perfect breeding ground” for someone to train for a terrorist attack. He repeated these allegations during an interview with New Zealand Police on 21 March 2019.

3

If Peter Breidahl’s allegations are correct, this means that New Zealand Police had information (in the form of the complaint) before 15 March 2019 about a group of people that included the individual. The position of New Zealand Police is that no such complaint was made.

4

Our Terms of Reference required us to identify what information New Zealand Police held about the individual. We had to therefore address whether:

1. the individual was present at the Bruce Rifle Club on 19 November 2017 (and so was a subject of the alleged complaint); and
2. Peter Breidahl made a complaint to New Zealand Police as he claims.

5

In the course of our inquiries, we have spoken to Peter Breidahl, his former partner, a friend of his who accompanied him to the Bruce Rifle Club on 19 November 2017, members of the Bruce Rifle Club (including some who were present at the competition on 19 November 2017) and the former District Arms Officer to whom he claims to have made the complaint and who gave evidence to us under oath. We have reviewed New Zealand Police interviews of those involved, the club’s records, relevant email correspondence, photographs taken on the day of the competition, Facebook posts made by Peter Breidahl and the diary of a club member. We also asked the individual whether he went to the Bruce Rifle Club on 19 November 2017.

6

In this chapter we evaluate the issues raised under the following headings:

1. The allegations.
2. What happened at the Bruce Rifle Club on 19 November 2017?
3. Was the individual present at the Bruce Rifle Club on 19 November 2017?
4. Did Peter Breidahl make a complaint to New Zealand Police about the Bruce Rifle Club?

5.2 The allegations

7

Peter Breidahl is not a member of the Bruce Rifle Club. Before 19 November 2017, he had been to its range on one occasion, to sight a rifle. The reason for his visit on 19 November 2017 was to participate in a shooting competition that was open to non-members.

8

Peter Breidahl’s position is that, because of what he saw and heard on 19 November 2017, he was concerned about the “ethos and values of the club members”. This position was explained in his 19 March 2019 Facebook post, during his interview with New Zealand Police and during discussion with us. He has given several reasons for his concern:

1. Some members of the Bruce Rifle Club were dressed in camouflage “to look like militia at the range” and others were wearing military rank insignia. He told us that he thought other rifle clubs would send home anyone dressed in that way and, if it happened again, ban the person from the range.
2. He heard numerous Islamophobic comments. For example, he heard a club member say that the number of Muslim immigrants in New Zealand meant that the New Zealand Army would have to be deployed in the streets to counter the risk of terrorism.
3. There was a person present who was talking about combat and the 1996 Port Arthur mass shooting in Tasmania, Australia while holding the same kind of weapon used in that attack. His belief is that this person was the individual.
4. Some members passed around military style semi-automatic firearms to other members who were not authorised to handle such firearms.
5. Confederate flags hung from the walls of the Bruce Rifle Club. Although this is what Peter Breidahl said during his interview with New Zealand Police, when speaking to us he conceded that he had not seen confederate flags but claimed to have seen confederate stickers on vehicles and gun cases.
6. He heard a member say that if university students can carry skateboards, he should be allowed to carry a firearm on the basis that skateboards and firearms are both sporting equipment.
7. Some members were talking about zombies and the perfect weapon for a zombie apocalypse. Peter Breidahl told us that he thought this was not an appropriate conversation to have at a rifle club.

9

In his statement to New Zealand Police made after his 19 March 2019 Facebook post, Peter Breidahl said that:

1. the culture of the Bruce Rifle Club, and particularly the discussion about the Port Arthur attack, disturbed him to such an extent that he left the shooting competition early; and
2. on 20 or 21 November 2017 he lodged a formal complaint in person with the former District Arms Officer at Dunedin Central Police Station.

10

In his interview with New Zealand Police on 21 March 2019, and again when speaking to us, Peter Breidahl said that he asked New Zealand Police in 2017 to send a plainclothes officer to a range shoot at the Bruce Rifle Club. He expected that, if this happened, it would result in members’ firearms licences being revoked. He said that the former District Arms Officer he spoke with dismissed his concerns and told him “they’re a bit funny down there but they’re all right, it’s nothing to worry about”. He also told us that the former District Arms Officer responded to concerns he expressed about a particular member of the Bruce Rifle Club by saying that the member was “a silly old duffer” and not to worry about them.

11

In his Facebook post on 19 March 2019, Peter Breidahl said that he had met the individual at the Bruce Rifle Club on 19 November 2017 and that he was “not fucking right”. In his statement to New Zealand Police on 21 March 2019, Peter Breidahl said that he “strongly” believed he had seen the individual at the competition. He said the individual was involved in the conversation about the Port Arthur attack, and that he had been holding the same kind of weapon used in that attack at the time. He said that the individual “knew far too much about what happened [in Port Arthur]”, such as where victims were shot and the position of their bodies. Peter Breidahl also confirmed to us that he believed he had seen the individual at the Bruce Rifle Club on 19 November 2017 (although he conceded he could not be certain). He recalled that what stood out about the person he thought was the individual was his lack of empathy when discussing the details of the Port Arthur attack.

5.3 What happened at the Bruce Rifle Club on 19 November 2017?

12

We think it is appropriate to review the evidence about what happened at the competition held at the Bruce Rifle Club on 19 November 2017.

13

We were not required to make findings about the conduct of private individuals and thus did not attempt to resolve all differences of opinion about what happened that day. There is no doubt that Peter Breidahl was concerned about what he saw and heard at the Bruce Rifle Club on 19 November 2017 and that for this and perhaps other reasons, his interactions with members were acrimonious.

14

In a series of posts made on 19 and 20 November 2017 on a Facebook page titled “canterbury long range lead throwers club”, Peter Breidahl discussed what had happened at the competition. In these posts he mentioned the word zombie, complained about the clothing worn and claimed that someone had said that because refugees were being let in “we will have the army deployed on the streets of Dunedin soon due to all the terrors attacks we will be facing”. He also mentioned that there had been discussion of a “sniper threat” at the university and whether someone could bring a gun to the university, and that there had been a suggestion equating skateboards to firearms as they were both sporting items. We will come back shortly to the detail of some of these posts.

15

A friend of Peter Breidahl went with him to the Bruce Rifle Club on 19 November 2017 but did not take part in the competition. On 26 March 2019, this friend told New Zealand Police they remembered staying at Peter Breidahl’s house the night before the competition and driving with him to the Bruce Rifle Club the following morning.

16

Peter Breidahl’s friend told New Zealand Police they found it concerning that there was “glorification” by Bruce Rifle Club members of camouflage clothing, branded hats and shooting equipment. They recalled a conversation at the competition about gun regulation, and a comment that it was unfair that university students could carry skateboards on campus, but firearms owners could not carry weapons. They told New Zealand Police they were “a bit concerned” about this comment and told us that Peter Breidahl had openly disagreed with it at the time. They also told New Zealand Police, and later repeated to us, that there was “quite a heated discussion” at the end of the competition that Peter Breidahl may have been engaged in, but they could not remember what it was about.

17

Peter Breidahl’s friend told New Zealand Police that they left the competition with the overall impression that the Bruce Rifle Club was not a “healthy social community”, that its members “shared similar viewpoints” and did not seem to “have many other social interactions”. They told New Zealand Police and us that they and Peter Breidahl talked about their shared concerns during the car ride home and at dinner that evening. However, they did not know whether Peter Breidahl had told anyone else about his concerns.

18

Peter Breidahl’s former partner told us that he had complained about the competition when he returned home that night, specifically that attendees were dressed in camouflage clothing and talked about what they would do when the zombie apocalypse came. They believe that Peter Breidahl may have had issues with safety at the Bruce Rifle Club but could not recall him raising any other complaints. They told us they did not think anything of his complaints at the time.

19

In his interview with New Zealand Police on 21 March 2019, Peter Breidahl said that his account of what happened at the Bruce Rifle Club on 19 November 2017 could be backed up by a member who had been at the competition. That person was also interviewed by New Zealand Police on 21 March 2019. They recalled the conversation about the Port Arthur attack but said that it was about the changes to firearms legislation in Australia, that there was “nothing untoward” about what was said and that there had been no one “supporting what had occurred [during the attack]”. They also said that Peter Breidahl did not leave the competition early, instead staying to complete the competition.

20

Members of the Bruce Rifle Club who gave statements to New Zealand Police after the terrorist attack and who spoke to us strongly challenged most of Peter Breidahl’s claims about the culture of the club. They:

1. confirmed that Peter Breidahl had complained on the day about people at the competition wearing camouflage, but noted that some members, including former military personnel, choose to wear camouflage clothing as it is hard wearing and practical;
2. believed that, to the extent that political views and issues are shared and discussed at the club, they are not extreme or otherwise of concern;
3. confirmed that while members talk about mass shootings, particularly if they have recently been in the news, these are general discussions and do not glorify such events;
4. denied having seen military style semi-automatic firearms passed to people who were not authorised to handle them;
5. denied having seen confederate flags at the club; and
6. believed that any conversation about zombies would have related to television shows or marketing of firearm accessories, such as Zombie Max ammunition.

21

One of the Bruce Rifle Club members stated that, while the club generally has a friendly and welcoming atmosphere, racist statements might be made occasionally. No one from the Bruce Rifle Club we spoke to could recall anyone making racist comments on the day of the competition.

5.4 Was the individual present at the Bruce Rifle Club on 19 November 2017?

22

The individual’s first contact with the Bruce Rifle Club was in January 2017, when he emailed the club (from Europe) enquiring whether it was still open. During the communications that followed, he said that he was “not in the area” but was looking to “move down that way sometime in August” and would “[h]opefully drop in sometime in August” (see Part 4, chapter 3).

Figure 38: Timeline of events relevant to whether the individual was present at the Bruce Rifle Club on 19 November 2017

23

There are some elements of uncertainty about these events:

1. We do not know when the individual received his firearms licence card. It must have been after 16 November 2017 (when the former District Arms Officer approved his application) but before 4 December 2017 (when he bought his first firearm). It is, however, almost certain that he would not have received his firearms licence card by 19 November 2017, because the former District Arms Officer only asked for his card to be created on 16 November 2017. It usually takes several weeks for the card to be made and sent out to the licence holder.
2. We know that the secretary of the Bruce Rifle Club met the individual, but not when this was. The secretary told us they met the individual at the Otago Shooting Sports Rifle and Pistol Club in late November or early December 2017. This seems unlikely. The individual did not email the Otago Shooting Sports Rifle and Pistol Club until 7 December 2017 and there is no record of him attending that club until 7 January 2018. As well, records indicate that the first time both the individual and the secretary attended the Otago Shooting Sports Rifle and Pistol Club was on 18 February 2018. It is likely that the individual and the secretary met on that date because on 22 February 2018 the secretary copied the individual into a group email telling interested parties that the Bruce Rifle Club would be open on Sunday 25 February 2018.
3. The individual is first recorded as attending the Bruce Rifle Club on 14 December 2017. The context in which this occurred in unclear, but it appears that it was a probationary shoot. We have not been able to obtain evidence which establishes clearly how this was arranged. The individual told us that he had contacted the club and had arranged to meet a member at the gate. When we explained to him that there is no record of relevant emails in December 2017 between him and the club, he said that the contact may have been by text.

24

The following factors support the view that the individual was at the Bruce Rifle Club on 19 November 2017:

1. Peter Breidahl believes that the individual was there and discussed the Port Arthur attack while holding the same kind of weapon used in that attack. As we have earlier noted, the individual had been to Port Arthur (see Part 4, chapter 2). The individual purchased the same kind of weapon used in the Port Arthur attack but not until 12 December 2017.
2. Peter Breidahl’s friend who attended the competition with him also believes that the individual was there. In their discussion with us, Peter Breidahl’s friend pointed out a person in one of the photographs from the competition whom they thought was the individual. That person is not the individual.
3. The individual’s confirmed attendance at the Bruce Rifle Club on 14 December 2017 may have been encouraged by discussions with members if he had been at the competition on 19 November 2017.

25

There are several factors that suggest that the individual was not at the Bruce Rifle Club on 19 November 2017:

1. It is distinctly unlikely that the individual had his firearms licence card by 19 November 2017, and he had not bought any firearms by that date. There is evidence (attendance records and emails) confirming his presence at shooting ranges after he had bought his first firearm (on 4 December 2017) but no such evidence of any earlier attendance.
2. The individual is not noted as a member or non-member attendee on the competition attendance sheet. Although there were four observers (that is, non-participants) at the competition whose names were not recorded, the individual does not appear to have known anyone who was there and there is no apparent reason why he would have gone as an observer.
3. The behaviour attributed to the individual by Peter Breidahl is odd. It does not seem very likely that the individual would have gone to a club, where he did not know anyone, and made unpleasant remarks about the Port Arthur attack while holding the same kind of weapon used in that attack. If he had been holding that weapon, it would have been someone else’s, given that he had not yet bought his first firearm. Such behaviour is not consistent with how the individual behaved at the Bruce Rifle Club after he joined nor his general caution about drawing attention to himself.
4. The individual is not visible in photographs taken at the competition.
5. If Peter Breidahl and his friend saw the individual on 19 November 2017 as they believe, this would have been the only occasion they ever met him. This was 16 months before the terrorist attack.
6. Members of the Bruce Rifle Club who were at the competition on 19 November 2017 say that the individual was not there. They are better placed to comment on this, as they have the advantage of having come to know the individual after he became a member in February 2018.
7. The individual told us that he was not present at the Bruce Rifle Club on 19 November 2017.
8. We have checked electronic records of the individual’s financial transactions and attendance at his gym. There is nothing in that evidence that is inconsistent with him being at the Bruce Rifle Club on 19 November 2017. He did, however, use a credit card at Pak N Save South Dunedin at 1.53 pm that day. As the competition ran from 9.00 am to 3.00 pm, the individual could have attended in the morning, but, given the distance between the Bruce Rifle Club and the supermarket (approximately 50 kilometres), he would have to have left the club by 1.00 pm or shortly afterwards. Peter Breidahl could not recall exactly the time of day when he talked to the man whom he thought was the individual. But Peter Breidahl said that he felt as though it was more likely towards the end of the day. It is not very probable that the individual would have driven from the supermarket to the Bruce Rifle Club to arrive there just before the competition ended.

26

Based on the evidence we have reviewed, we think it more likely than not that the individual did not attend the competition at the Bruce Rifle Club on 19 November 2017. Accordingly, we conclude that he was not there. It follows that we also conclude that any complaint Peter Breidahl may have made to New Zealand Police about the Bruce Rifle Club was not about the individual. This conclusion may be enough to address the requirement in our Terms of Reference but, for the sake of completeness, we think it appropriate also to address whether such a complaint was made.

5.5 Did Peter Breidahl make a complaint to New Zealand Police about the Bruce Rifle Club?

27

Peter Breidahl claims that he lodged a formal complaint to the former Dunedin District Arms Officer on 20 or 21 November 2017 about the Bruce Rifle Club. The position of New Zealand Police is that Peter Breidahl did not make such a complaint. There are no records of any such complaint. The former District Arms Officer to whom Peter Breidahl claims the complaint was made has no recollection of Peter Breidahl raising any concerns.

28

We have no doubt that at the time, and in the immediate aftermath, of the competition, Peter Breidahl had concerns about the Bruce Rifle Club. It is clear that he took exception to the wearing of camouflage clothing. We note that the friend who accompanied him also had some concerns about the participants at the Bruce Rifle Club. And his former partner confirmed that, following the competition, Peter Breidahl voiced complaints about some of the behaviour he had observed that day. That he had concerns and complaints is perfectly apparent from his comments on the “canterbury long range lead throwers club” Facebook page.

29

The former Dunedin District Arms Officer had dealt with Peter Breidahl on two earlier occasions. On 27 June 2017, the former District Arms Officer and a sworn police officer met with Peter Breidahl. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss whether Peter Breidahl’s firearms licence should be revoked, after New Zealand Police had received evidence that he had stored a firearm in the boot of his car secured by a cable. In a statement to New Zealand Police and in evidence to us, the former District Arms Officer recalled Peter Breidahl being “agitated” and “swearing repeatedly” to the point where the sworn police officer told him to calm down.

30

Following the meeting, Peter Breidahl was issued with a warning in relation to the firearm in the boot incident. One of the conditions of the related decision not to revoke his firearms licence was that he had to surrender a firearm. On 30 June 2017 he handed over that firearm to the former District Arms Officer. The former District Arms Officer had been anxious about dealing with Peter Breidahl again, given his behaviour on 27 June 2017. As it turned out, Peter Breidahl’s behaviour when he handed over the firearm on 30 June 2017 was unremarkable.

31

When he spoke to us, Peter Breidahl acknowledged that he had previously dealt with the former District Arms Officer and a sworn police officer in the context of the discussion over whether his firearms licence should be revoked. He also acknowledged that the former District Arms Officer would have remembered those interactions.

32

Some of Peter Breidahl’s 19 and 20 November 2017 posts on the Facebook page titled “canterbury long range lead throwers club” are relevant to whether he made a complaint to the former District Arms Officer. We have already referred to one post in which he said one member believed that the army would be “deployed on the streets of Dunedin”. In the same post he mentioned another member, saying:

33

The person Peter Breidahl was talking about is the same person he (Peter Breidahl) told us he complained about to the former District Arms Officer. He told us that the former District Arms Officer had responded saying that the member was a “silly old duffer”.

34

In response to this post, another commenter offered this advice:

35

Peter Breidahl responded to this advice, on 20 November 2017:

36

Three points come out of this.

37

First, it is clear that Peter Breidahl was not the first person to raise the idea of making a call to the former District Arms Officer, as it was suggested by another commenter in response to his Facebook posts.

38

Second, in response to the commenter, Peter Breidahl indicated that he did not intend to call the former District Arms Officer. When we put this to him in the natural justice process (see Part 1, chapter 4), Peter Breidahl said:

It’s not my place to make the call on who should or should not make the call as to who is the holder of a firearms license. That is the job of the arms officer.

39

This explanation is not consistent with the details of the exchange. The suggestion was made that he "make a call to the Arms Officer". His response was that it was not for him "to make that call". This most easily reads as a statement that he was not going to call the former District Arms Officer as had just been suggested. Indeed, it is difficult to read it any other way. Although it is possible that he later changed his mind, an initial statement on 20 November 2017 that he did not intend to contact the former District Arms Officer (“it’s not my place to make that call”) followed by an immediate change of heart on 20 or 21 November 2017 (when he says he made the complaint) is not particularly consistent with his overall narrative.

40

Third, Peter Breidahl told us that the former District Arms Officer had dismissed his complaint about a member of the Bruce Rifle Club by saying that that member was a “silly old duffer”. Peter Breidahl used the same uncommon expression (“old duffer”) about that club member in his Facebook post before he could have talked to the former District Arms Officer. If what he says is correct, this is a surprising coincidence. A more likely explanation is that Peter Breidahl misattributed to the former District Arms Officer a view about that member – that they were an “old duffer” – that reflects not what the former District Arms Officer may have said but rather what Peter Breidahl thought.

41

In his discussion with us, Peter Breidahl said he told the friend who had gone with him to the competition that he would go to New Zealand Police with his concerns about the Bruce Rifle Club. The friend cannot recall this.

42

In a statement to New Zealand Police on 22 June 2019, his former partner recalled Peter Breidahl saying, about a week after the competition, that he had been to the Dunedin North Police station to make a complaint about what had happened during the competition. While his former partner could not remember what Peter Breidahl’s complaint was about, they remembered him saying that the person he spoke to had asked him to make a written statement, but he had declined to do so. He had felt his word was enough. The former District Arms Officer was based at the Dunedin Central Police station. The former partner told us it would have been unlikely that Peter Breidahl would have gone to the Dunedin Central Police station after his experiences there in June 2017. They also said that they would have remembered if Peter Breidahl had gone to the Dunedin Central Police station as previously, he had been critical of the former District Arms Officer in relation to those experiences.

43

When speaking to us, Peter Breidahl was emphatic that his complaint had been made to the former District Arms Officer at Dunedin North Central Police station and not at the Dunedin Police station.

44

Given what had happened on 27 and 30 June 2017, we think it unlikely that the former District Arms Officer would have forgotten if Peter Breidahl had, about five months later, made a complaint about the Bruce Rifle Club. And if such a complaint had been made, we think it also unlikely that the former District Arms Officer would not have recorded it or referred it on to a sworn police officer.

45

Based on the evidence just described, we conclude that Peter Breidahl did not complain to New Zealand Police about the culture of the Bruce Rifle Club on 20 or 21 November 2017.

5.6 Concluding comments

46

We conclude that:

1. the individual was not present at a competition held by the Bruce Rifle Club on 19 November 2017; and
2. Peter Breidahl did not complain to New Zealand Police about the culture of the Bruce Rifle Club on 20 or 21 November 2017.

47

We are therefore satisfied that New Zealand Police did not hold information about the individual in relation to the Bruce Rifle Club before 15 March 2019.

48

This is not to say, however, that the individual’s behaviour at the Bruce Rifle Club after he joined it was unremarkable. The individual shot while standing up, he went through a large amount of ammunition and his primary interest appeared to be firing and changing magazines quickly (see Part 4, chapter 5). As well, some members at least were aware of his firearms injury and were involved in discussion with the individual about large capacity magazines.