Police and Chansey Paech have revealed legal arguments in Zach Rolfe appeal of Coroner’s ruling

NT Police and Attorney-General Chansey Paech have revealed their arguments in an appeal bid by Constable Zach Rolfe. Read what they say about his upcoming testimony.

Constable Zach Rolfe leaves court after invoking the “penalty privilege’” last year. Picture: Jason Walls

NT Police and Attorney-General Chansey Paech have urged the Supreme Court to uphold a ruling compelling Zach Rolfe to answer questions about the fatal shooting of Kumanjayi Walker.

Constable Rolfe was acquitted on all charges after shooting the 19-year-old Warlpiri-Luritja man three times during a bungled arrest in Yuendumu in 2019.

He then took the stand at a Coronial inquest into the shooting in November, but refused to answer some questions on the grounds that his answers could incriminate him in disciplinary proceedings.

Territory Coroner Elisabeth Armitage ruled the officer could be forced to answer questions, under the protection of an immunity certificate, about the night of the shooting as well as racist text messages sent between him and other NT cops.

Constable Rolfe appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court and lost, with lawyers for the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency (NAAJA) successfully arguing he was not entitled to any such protection.

But he appealed again, with NT Police and Mr Paech now urging the Territory’s highest court to uphold Ms Armitage’s original ruling.

In documents filed with the court, lawyers for NT Police argued the provisions in the Coroners Act dealing with self-incrimination “clearly abrogate the penalty privilege”.

“It (should) be declared that in respect of any questions the answer to which would tend to subject or expose the appellant to a penalty (within the meaning of the privilege against exposure to penalty) the Coroner may require the appellant to answer the questions subject to the terms of section 38 of the act, including the provision of a certificate,” they read.

Meanwhile, lawyers for Mr Paech argued while NAAJA’s interpretation of the act was “open for the learned primary judge to find”, NT Police’s interpretation was “preferable”.

Constable Rolfe had been due to return to the witness box when the inquest resumes next month but now may not be recalled if the appeal remains on foot.

If his current action is unsuccessful, Constable Rolfe’s only option to challenge the decision will be to seek special leave for a further appeal to the High Court of Australia in Canberra.

The inquiry is expected to resume as planned regardless of the current legal action with other witnesses available to testify from February 27.