Survivors of the Christchurch mosque attacks, as well as relatives of those who were killed, have asked a New Zealand coroner to look at whether "police were confrontational or aggressive" to those who were still alive when officers arrived on the scene of the shooting in 2019.
"The overwhelming evidence from our clients is that the terrorist was not the only one that pointed guns at our clients or their loved ones that day," lawyer Kathryn Dalziel told New Zealand's Coroner's Court on Tuesday.
"And they are concerned … that this was trauma that their loved ones experienced which may have contributed to the ease in which they subsequently died."
Warning: This story contains content which may be distressing
There will be a coronial inquiry into the terrorist attack that killed 51 people while they attended Friday prayers at two Christchurch mosques and this week's hearing is designed to what issues should be included.
Coroner Brigitte Windley heard from counsel representing family members and survivors of the attack on Tuesday.
Today, lawyers for Islamic associations as well as New Zealand Police, St John's Ambulance and the Canterbury district health authorities will make submissions.
On Thursday, counsel representing the Human Rights Commission, as well as the convicted terrorist, will speak.
This "scope hearing" is one step in a long legal process.
But for the families and survivors who say their questions have gone unanswered for three years, exactly what is included and excluded in the coronial inquiry is everything.
Will the police response be included? What about the factors that led to the offender's radicalisation? Will the coroner look at how he obtained his gun licence, or will that be outside her scope?
These are some of the issues being discussed in this week's hearing and it's apparent some of them are incredibly important to whether those still grieving will ever feel a sense of closure — or that they were included in the process.
Ms Dalziel said she imagined "what happened immediately after the police arrived" at Al-Noor mosque would be sensitive for the service as "they were trying to determine what was going on, whether the scene was safe, particularly to allow the first responders to enter".
But she said her clients believed the police response should be within the inquiry's scope.
"Because it could be part of the reason that deaths occurred," she said.
"Because the time taken by the police in securing the scene, the way that they treated and spoke to people at the time and whether or not this is best practice and whether or not recommendations can be made for the future to prevent the risk that such behaviour of the police may add to trauma and possibly to death — that is a genuine inquiry that my clients wish to be made.
"We've had clients come to us and say they tried to speak to the police to say the terrorist had left, they tried to tell them and they were being yelled at with guns pointed at them to sit down and shut up.
The ABC approached New Zealand Police for comment and was directed to the findings of the royal commission into the attack.
That inquiry was set up to investigate whether police or intelligence services could have done more to prevent the attack from occurring and eventually found there were failings in the lead-up to March 15, 2019, but none "within any government agencies that would have allowed the terrorist's planning and preparation to be detected".
The royal commission terms of reference state it was not set up to inquire into "how relevant agencies responded to the particular attack, once it had begun".
The coroner will hear submissions from New Zealand Police as to the scope of her inquiry today.
The opportunity to scrutinise evidence
The shooting was the worst terrorist attack and worst mass homicide in New Zealand's history.
The shooter Brenton Tarrant was charged with 51 counts of murder, 40 counts of attempted murder and one terrorism charge.
He eventually entered guilty pleas for all charges, so there was no criminal trial.
And for national security reasons, the royal commission heard evidence behind closed doors.
So for families who have specific questions about the last moments of their loved one's life, they say there has been little opportunity to get answers.
Anne Toohey, the counsel representing Aya al-Umari, whose brother Hussein was killed in the attack, said there was frustration among families over the lack of information.
"The family members haven't had the opportunity to really understand what really happened; to understand the cause and circumstances of death," she said.
In a statement to the ABC, Ms al-Umari said hearing Tuesday's submissions "really cements what families have highlighted in the past".
"That access to information and understanding the circumstances of how our loved one was murdered is really important."
On Tuesday, Ms Toohey gave an example.
She also represents Zuhair Kamel, whose brother Kamel Darwish was fatally shot within the Al-Noor mosque on March 15, three years ago.
"The police have advised Mr Kamel Darwish died immediately upon being shot at approximately 1:44pm," Ms Toohey said.
In her oral submission, Ms Toohey said Zuhair Kamel was at the scene of the shooting because he'd already planned to meet his brother there and he immediately started to call his brother's phone.
The police recovered and examined Mr Kamel Darwish's phone as well as calls it made and messages it sent that afternoon, including those to Zuhair Kamel.
"The police acknowledge a phone call was made to Mr Kamel Darwish's sister-in-law with a duration of 197 seconds at 2:05pm, ie 20 minutes after the police say Mr Kamel Darwish died. And the police have concluded that that phone call was made," Ms Toohey said.
"In addition, there was an outgoing call made by an application on Mr Kamel Darwish's phone at 2:05pm and at 2:06pm a message was sent from that same app ... which was a love heart emoji sent to his wife.
"So the police have accepted that these two calls [were made] and message were sent after they believe Mr Kamel Darwish died."
There were also calls later in the day that appeared to connect.
"My client says he could hear someone, but they did not speak," Ms Toohey told the hearing.
"There is an obvious issue here, your honour, as to whether Mr Kamel Darwish was, in fact, alive in the mosque after the time the police believe he was dead and this is highly relevant, your honour, because he was left in the mosque until the following day."
Ms Toohey said there was "bewilderment" among her clients at the lack of understanding as to what exactly happened to their family members.
"It's very hard for Mr Darwish to accept his brother died immediately from a gunshot wound without seeing the evidence that led [police] to that conclusion," she said.
As well as specific information on the cause and circumstances of death, there is a desire among families to understand more about why the shooter was able to obtain a gun licence and how the police determined he acted alone.
One of the issues tabled in the scope hearing is in regards to: "Did the terrorist have direct assistance from another person present on March 15, 2019."
On Tuesday, one lawyer said it was of "major importance" to the families they represented that this be tested in the inquiry.
Among impacted families, this inquiry is seen as one of the last opportunities to get information from government agencies as to the details of that day three years ago.
But as some community members have told the ABC, this moment is also seen as one of the best forums in which to ask questions and have the answers interrogated.
The scope hearing will continue today and tomorrow.
