Superintendent Richard Bryson ’refused’ Rolfe murder indictment, ‘nixed perjury advice’: Inquest

A brief of evidence for perjury compiled after a judge found Zach Rolfe lied under oath was never reviewed by prosecutors despite a detective advising it was ‘in the public interest’, an inquest hears.

Police found there was insufficient evidence to charge Zach Rolfe with perjury. Picture: (A)manda Parkinson

A senior NT Police officer who “refused” to sign off on Zach Rolfe’s arrest for murder later vetoed a plan to seek advice on prosecuting him for perjury, a court has heard.

Constable Rolfe was acquitted on all charges by a Supreme Court jury in March last year after fatally shooting 19-year-old Warlpiri-Luritja man Kumanjayi Walker at Yuendumu in November 2019.

An inquest into his death has previously heard Judicial Operations Section Superintendent Richard Bryson “had some hesitations” about signing an indictment against Constable Rolfe for Mr Walker’s alleged murder without written advice from prosecutors.

Instead, Assistant Commissioner Martin Dole told the inquest he offered to sign the document himself after obtaining the advice from the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in person.

It came after a local court judge earlier found Constable Rolfe had lied under oath about the violent arrest of an Aboriginal man, describing his evidence as “pure fabrication”, with the judge’s comments ultimately ruled inadmissable at Constable Rolfe’s trial.

On December 12, 2019, a month after the shooting, Detective Acting Senior Sergeant Jakson Evans wrote to the DPP, pending approval by Superintendent Bryson, indicating there was a prima facie case for perjury.

Zach Rolfe leaves the Supreme Court after being acquitted on all charges in March. Picture: (A)manda Parkinson

Sergeant Evans wrote that while “the prospect for conviction is low in being able to prove (the offence) beyond a reasonable doubt”, an “independent assessment” by the DPP was “in the public interest”.

But on December 23, Superintendent Bryson knocked back the referral, saying there was “no evidence” Constable Rolfe had lied or fabricated evidence, saying “undue reliance” had been placed on the judge’s findings.

“My reading of the material on file more properly demonstrates that (sic) the members actions as being unprofessional, not criminal,” he wrote.

“The resources of this office and that of the DPP to provide considered opinions are finite and should not be wasted reviewing material that clearly is short of the benchmark.

“I am not minded to forward the files for opinion at this time unless the investigation is furthered and some admissible and persuasive evidence is evident on the briefs.”

Under questioning by counsel assisting the Coroner, Peggy Dwyer, on Wednesday, Assistant Commissioner Bruce Porter agreed the file should have been referred to the DPP but not that Superintendent Bryson “might not be seen to be objective”.

“I don’t know if you could say that, because, like I said, Superintendent Bryson is a qualified lawyer,” he said.

“He’s been in charge of prosecutions for a number of years, he’s dealt with the DPP for a considerable time, I think he has the skills and experience to make an assessment.”

Dr Dwyer asked: “Do you really think if there’s an officer who is involved, or is asked to make a decision in relation to, the charging of Constable Rolfe for the most serious crime on the criminal calendar a month earlier … and refuses to charge, (they) should be the one to make a decision about a perjury charge a month later? Do you not have a problem with that?”

Mr Porter replied: “I do have a problem, and myself, I would have referred it to the DPP.”

The inquest continues on Thursday.