Response to Bryant licence/guns and Port Arthur shooting trial embargo
by Attorney-General Ray Groom
10 July 1998
Mr Gary Fleetwood
Assistant National Executive Director
Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia (Inc).
PO Box 2066
Kent Town South Australia 5071
Dear Mr Fleetwood
I refer to your letter dated 2 June 1998 concerning certain aspects of the Port Arthur shootings.
I set out below comments in relation to each of the questions you have raised:
- Martin Bryant was never issued with a Tasmanian firearms licence of any class.
The firearms presented to the Court on Bryant’s plea of guilty were as follows:
-
.223 Rem. Calibre Colt self loading rifle Model AR-15 badly damaged by fire which was recovered from the burnt ruins of the Seascape house. That firearm was matched by Ballistic experts with the spent shells recovered from the Broad Arrow Café and in the car park near it.
-
.308 Win. Calibre Fabrique Nationale (FN) self loading rifle Model FAL. This rifle was recovered from outside the Seascape Guest House and various parts of the rifle had suffered impact damage indicative of the rifle being struck with force against a hard object. Tests conducted on this rifle established that it was used by Bryant both in the car park outside the Broad Arrow Café and at the Toll Booth to the Port Arthur Historic Site where Bryant shot and killed 4 persons and commandeered the BMW Sedan.
-
A 12 guage Daewoo self loading shotgun with a detachable box magazine containing nine 12 guage cartridges. This weapon was recovered form the boot of Bryant’s abandoned Volvo Sedan which was left near the Toll Booth when he commandeered the BMW. This firearm was not used by Bryant at any stage on the 28th April 1996.
There has been no “embargo” placed on the Court proceedings involving Martin Bryant’s plea of guilty. The usual conditions on access to certain Court evidentiary material apply they apply to all other cases. The are:
-
There is no public access to the video recording of Police interviews with an accused person. They remain the property of the Police Department.
-
Any report (of an expert witness) which is not read in full but made available to the Court for its inspection is likewise not accessible. I understand this restriction applies to the medical reports of Dr. Ian Sale.
-
If a document is either read into evidence in its entirety or in part the transcript of that portion which is read is of course available but the entire document will not be. I understand this may apply to part of the report of Professor Mullen, the Psychiatrist retained by Martin Bryant’s legal advisers.
-
The transcript of the entire proceedings was made available to all Media outlets and I am sure would be made available on payment of a reasonable fee for copying if your organisation approaches the Registrar of the Supreme Court in Tasmania.
From your question it would appear that there has been a suggestion made that some restriction has been imposed upon he material relevant to Bryant’s plea of guilty and sentencing. That is just not so.
I trust that these details satisfy the questions raised in your letter.
Yours sincerley
(signed)
Ray Groom
Attorney-General
Original held SSAA National
Home > Research archive > 1998 > Response to Bryant licence/guns and Port Arthur shooting trial embargo