By Belinda Feek, Open Justice reporter of 
Joel Buckley was 42 when he died. Photo: Open Justice / Supplied
The former wife of a man killed in a shootout with police in Hamilton believes he was about to carry out a mass shooting with hopes of getting a "higher death count" than the Christchurch mosque shooting.
But the woman has been heavily criticised by Coroner Bruce Hesketh's counsel, Chris Gudsell, for not telling police the risk posed by Joel Robin Buckley sooner. Gudsell claimed she had "orchestrated" events before and after the shooting.
Buckley was shot by Armed Offenders Squad members outside his O'Donohue St apartment late on the evening of 14 July, 2021.
An Independent Police Conduct Authority report found the fatal shooting was justified, but there were "significant" firearm licensing failures, including giving back a seized weapon to the shooter and not acting on his earlier concerning behaviour.
An inquest was part heard in November last year before Coroner Hesketh, and resumed this week in Hamilton, looking at the circumstances surrounding the 42-year-old's death.
Photo: Open Justice / Supplied
Buckley's estranged wife, and her new partner - who both have name suppression - have given evidence this week about the hours and days before the shooting.
'Joel told me he had found the perfect spot'
When questioned by Gudsell about where the mass shooting was supposed to occur, the woman claimed it was in Whanganui.
"It was on his work route, toward Whanganui, but before the Whanganui sign."
She said Buckley planned to call 111 and "make it sound urgent as possible ... and then get [police] by surprise".
"Joel said that he's found the perfect spot, height advantage is a definite quote and a high death count."
But Gudsell was dubious.
"This is what novels are made of, fantasies are made of ... it's not like this has happened at all."
Gudsell said Buckley had a firearms licence and had no criminal convictions.
The woman replied that two AOS members "were almost shot dead" because of Buckley that night.
Gudsell quizzed her why she never told police during her interviews with them in the days leading up to the shooting, about his threats to kill police, but after leaving an interview at the
station, she would instead just hours later, tell a psychiatrist.
That psychiatrist then contacted police.
"There were years and years of evidence I could have given," she replied, "But it would take days or even weeks to give that," she said.
"There were a lot of people threatened," she said. "It was indiscriminate."
The woman said she didn't tell police because she didn't think they would believe her and she had instead been collating evidence, including taking photos of drug paraphernalia and ammunition, that he'd had.
"I didn't feel ... much weight would be given to what I said without evidence, and that's on me I suppose."
She claimed Buckley's mass shooting had been in the planning for months.
However, in July she believed it was imminent as he confirmed where it would happen, and that he had more weaponry.
In questioning about it from Crown Solicitor Jacinda Hamilton, the woman said, "he knew he was ready".
"He had his guns and bags and holsters at a playground. He knew."
Asked how she knew, the woman said, "By what he told me, by what he showed me".
"The ammunition, the guns, the new holster, trying to transfer guns into other people's names.
"Asking me to make sure that his daughter gets the letters that he had written over the years.
'Controlling the narrative'
Gudsell put to the woman that she was "controlling the narrative" of the police investigation both before and after the shooting by not handing over, or telling police, critical information.
That included threats made before the shooting and her ringing Buckley on the evening of his death to tell him that police were looking for him and to ditch his phone.
As police frantically tried to find him, she only told them of an 027 number - and not a burner phone that he was using.
After he was shot, she then refused to hand her phone over to police.
They were instead forced to get a warrant on 15 July, which was granted the following day.
By then she had deleted more than a month's worth of messages from her various encrypted applications, including Threema, WhatsApp, and Signal, right back to June 11.
She instead sent screenshots of conversations she'd had with Buckley, in the days and months leading up to the incident, to detectives.
Gudsell pressed the woman about why she deleted the messages, and she initially struggled to answer.
"I do not remember if it would have been between the 15th and 16th of July.
"I have deleted many messages over a long period of time ... it's still something I do now."
After several more requests to answer the question, she eventually responded she deleted them as it "would have been some form of security or protection for either myself or Joel or both".
'Playing with his emotions'
Gudsell also put to her that three months earlier she had been "playing with Joel's emotions knowing how dependent he was on you".
He cited 12 May, when she was in hospital and her new partner had taken her phone off her.
Buckley then gave her a "burner" phone so they could keep in touch.
After texting her new partner that she loved and missed him "a lot, a lot, a lot", she then spent the next few hours trying to reach Buckley, by text and phone.
"Please try and come see me for five minutes even," she texted him, "hope you are awake", "this sucks", and "love you".
Gudsell puts to her that she was telling both men she loved them, but the woman responded that it was also how she texted her friends.
"You were playing with Joel's emotions, knowing how dependent he was on you," Gudsell said.
"You were texting him regularly to come see you. You were phoning him and you were signing off there ... telling him you love him."
The woman said the text didn't say, "I love you", but "love you".
"I don't think there should be too much weight added to that."
'You chose to do nothing'
The woman's new partner, who also has name suppression, was also questioned about why he didn't stop her from interfering with the police investigation the night Buckley was shot.
"Were you concerned for your safety," Hamilton asked him.
"Not really," he replied.
"What about your parents?"
"I was told to be."
"And yet when you saw your partner interfering with the police investigation you chose to do nothing?" she asked.
"Yes, if you look at it in hindsight."
* This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald.
