Former NT police officer Zachary Rolfe loses bid to avoid answering questions in coronial inquest

Former NT police officer Zachary Rolfe has lost his Supreme Court appeal and will be compelled to answer questions in the coronial inquest into the 2019 fatal shooting of Kumanjayi Walker.

Former NT Constable Zachary Rolfe’s appeal to be exempt from answering questions in the coronial inquest into the fatal shooting of Kumanjayi Walker in 2019 has been dismissed by the NT Court of Appeals.

The former police officer was acquitted on all charges by a Supreme Court jury last year after fatally shooting 19-year-old Kumanjayi Walker in a bungled arrest in Yuendumu.

Mr Rolfe was dismissed from his position with the NT Police in April, a decision he is currently appealing.

In the 53-page judgment, Chief Justice Michael Grant, Justice Peter Barr and Justice Sonia Brownhill stated the requirement to answer questions in coronial proceedings should be “unfettered”.

“The continued operation of a penalty privilege after the abrogation of the privilege against

self-incrimination would contradict or diminish the operation of the coronial legislation and the achievement of its purposes,” it stated.

Constable Zach Rolfe outside the Alice Springs Local Court on November 16 for an inquest into the death of Kumanjayi Walker. Picture: Jason Walls

Justice Brownhill, who read the Judgement on behalf of Justice Grant and Justice Barr in the Alice Springs Supreme Court on Wednesday, gave parties 28 days to file for a submission for a costs order and to appeal the decision to the High Court of Australia, if they chose to do so.

The decision means Mr Rolfe and Alice Springs police officer Sergeant Lee Bauwens can be forced to give evidence in the inquest, which resumes in October.

The appeal was launched after Supreme Court Justice Judith Kelly dismissed an application by Mr Rolfe in December to overrule a decision by Coroner Elisabeth Armitage in November which compelled him to testify.

His lawyers argued Justice Kelly was wrong to conclude Mr Rolfe was unable to invoke a “penalty privilege”, which would exempt him from answering questions which could land him in disciplinary action at work.

The original judgment by Justice Kelly found penalty privilege was never intended to apply to coronial inquests, and if it was, Mr Rolfe could still be compelled to testify under an immunity certificate.

The coronial inquest resumes in October, and is expected to go into next year.