Jury out in Zach Rolfe murder trial, cautioned against ‘strong emotions’, ‘outside views’

The jury in Zach Rolfe’s murder trial have retired to consider their verdict, with the judge cautioning them against “strong emotions”. SEE ALL THE EVIDENCE FROM THE CASE

JURORS in Zach Rolfe’s Supreme Court trial for the alleged murder of Yuendumu teenager, Kumanjayi Walker, have retired to consider their verdict.

In summing up the case on Thursday, Justice John Burns told the jury that in addition to proving Rolfe had intentionally shot and killed Mr Walker on November 9, 2019, prosecutors had to negate three key defences.

First, that he was acting reasonably in defence of himself or his partner; second, that he was acting reasonably in the performance of his duties; and third, that he was acting in good faith in the performance of his duties.

“Everyone, whether police officer or not, is entitled to defend themselves or to defend others who are under attack, indeed a police officer has a duty to defend others who are under attack,” he said.

Police Union bosses leave the NT Supreme Court as the jury deliberates. Picture: (A)manda Parkinson

“The legislature of this Territory has provided that the Crown must prove the second and third matters when prosecuting a police officer in recognition of the fact that police officers are frequently called upon to make split second decisions in the course of their duties.

“They frequently do not have the luxury of time to reflect, particularly when confronted by violent offenders, and it would be contrary to the public interest if police officers were deterred from making these often crucial decisions by the threat of criminal prosecution.

“For this reason, they are provided with a measure of legal protection when acting in the course of their duties.”

Justice Burns said jurors “would be forgiven for thinking” the outcome of the trial depended on whether Rolfe had followed his police training or a pre-established arrest plan but “that is simply not the case”.

Rolfe enters the Supreme Court ahead of closing arguments. Picture: (A)manda Parkinson

He said Rolfe was not charged with breaching police regulations, and even if jurors were satisfied he had done so, “that in itself cannot establish that the accused is guilty” of murder.

“You cannot reason that the accused is a person of bad character or is a bad police officer and accordingly is likely to have committed the offences with which he was charged,” he said.

“Police officers are human beings. You may think, and it is a matter for you, that perfect adherence to training cannot always be expected in the heat of the moment.

“You may think this is particularly so in circumstance of a surprise attack followed by a very brief but violent struggle with an offender wielding an edged weapon.”

Justice Burns cautioned jurors to approach their deliberations “dispassionately but also fearlessly” and “not let emotion or sympathy affect your verdicts”.

“During the course of this trial, you have seen and heard evidence of a confronting nature about the death of the deceased, such evidence has the potential to provoke strong emotions, this is something that you must guard against when you consider your verdicts,” he said.

“Outside the court, there may be those who have expressed views about the conduct of the accused and there may be those who have expressed views about the conduct of the deceased, you cannot become involved in that exercise.”

Rolfe has pleaded not guilty to murder, as well as alternative charges of manslaughter and engaging in violent conduct causing death and the trial continues.

Top brass ‘threw everything’ at Zach Rolfe to justify charging him ‘without a proper investigation’, court hears

NT POLICE top brass have “thrown everything at Zachary Rolfe” to justify charging him with the murder of Kumanjayi Walker without “any meaningful investigation”, a court has heard.

In making his closing address to jurors in Rolfe’s Supreme Court trial on Wednesday, his barrister, David Edwardson QC, told the court that each of three times his client pulled the trigger, he was acting in good faith, the reasonable performance of his duties and the defence of himself and his partner.

“When Kumanjayi Walker deliberately and, I suggest, viciously, tried to stab both officers with potentially fatal consequences, the only appropriate response was to draw his firearm and pull the trigger, discharging each bullet into the seen body mass of Kumanjayi Walker until the threat was removed,” he said.

“It is for the prosecution to negate each of the three defences beyond reasonable doubt and they simply have not.”

Defence team David Edwardson QC and Luke Officer outside court. Picture: (A)manda Parkinson

Mr Edwardson told the jury Rolfe had been arrested within four days of the fatal shooting in Yuendumu on November 9, 2019 “without, you might think, any meaningful investigation”.

“This case is tragic, a young man lost his life and a young courageous police officer has been charged with the most serious charge known to the criminal law, as I said, without any proper investigation and that, you might think, is a disgrace,” he said.

“In truth, this prosecution is, you might think, all about the executive of the NT Police force attempting to justify what was the unjustifiable.”

Mr Edwardson said after Rolfe identified Mr Walker as the axe wielding perpetrator of an “axe attack on his colleagues three days before” he was doing “exactly what the NT Police force had trained him to do”.

“At that very moment, Kumanjayi Walker, suddenly and without notice, deployed a previously hidden pair of scissors and stabbed Constable Rolfe, landing his blow to the shoulder, close to Constable Rolfe’s neck – if Walker had hit his carotid artery, Zachary Rolfe would be dead,” he said.

“In the face of this spontaneous, ambush-style attack with an edged weapon, Constable Rolfe was justified in drawing his police-issue firearm and firing a shot into the seen centre body mass of Mr Walker.”

Mr Edwardson said the Crown had produced 40 witnesses “to support the narrative that Rolfe, a police officer, is guilty of murder” but “we say, they have not come close”.

“What Zachary Rolfe did was not only what he was trained to do, but his response by firing all three shots was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances,” he said.

The trial continues with Mr Edwardson set to conclude his closing address on Wednesday before jurors begin their deliberations on Thursday.

Jury ‘must acquit’ if they believe Zach Rolfe’s testimony, court hears

IF JURORS in Zach Rolfe’s murder trial believe his testimony that he could see Kumanjayi Walker stabbing his partner when he fired the shots that killed him, they “must find him not guilty”, a court has heard.

But in making his closing submissions to the jury in the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Crown prosecutor Philip Strickland SC, said the NT Police officer was lying “to justify the unjustifiable”.

“If you believe, as a reasonable possibility, that that evidence is true, you must find him not guilty on all three counts, no question about it,” he said.

“But we would say that you would be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that what he said was a lie.”

Mr Strickland said Rolfe’s claim that he could see Mr Walker’s upper body moving as he wrestled with Constable Adam Eberl on the ground in the 2.6 second before he fired his first and second shot was not backed up by the body-worn camera footage.

“The Crown case is that you would reject what the accused says about seeing Eberl being stabbed on the neck and on the chest because that is not remotely what you can see in the body-worn video,” he said.

“You can’t see from the body-worn video anything remotely like a stabbing motion by Walker towards the chest or neck or any part of his body, and you didn’t hear the accused say ‘Knife, knife, knife’, which he would have said, because, we say, you couldn’t see the knife at the relevant time.”

Zach Rolfe arrives at the Supreme Court on Wednesday. Picture: (A)manda Parkinson

Mr Strickland said it was the Crown case that Rolfe must have known that Constable Eberl had effectively restrained Mr Walker by the time he fired his Glock for the second time.

“He would not have taken those two shots if he believed there was a risk of accidentally shooting Eberl,” he said.

“He was confident that there wouldn’t be this split second flipping of positions and he had that confidence because he knew that Constable Eberl was effectively restraining Kumanjayi Walker on the mattress.”

Mr Strickland said Rolfe’s decision to continue firing his pistol after the first shot was not in line with his training, nor legally justified under the circumstances.

“The speed with which he acted was not necessary or reasonable,” he said.

“He did not, as he was required to, reassess the risk when he saw Constable Eberl on top of Kumanjayi Walker.

“And having assessed that there was no imminent threat to life or serious harm, the accused did not have justification for firing the second and third shots.”

Mr Strickland said Rolfe had “completely failed to reassess the situation” after Mr Walker and Constable Eberl fell onto the mattress and after firing the first shot, which is not the subject of any charge.

“He didn’t give himself time to think about the issue of whether Kumanjayi Walker posed an imminent threat to Eberl’s life,” he said.

“If you find that, that he didn’t assess the risk at all, then you would not find that he actually had a belief that Constable Eberl was at risk of serious harm or death.

“And you would not find that his response in firing those two fatal shots at point blank range was a reasonable response as he perceived it.”

Rolfe has pleaded not guilty to all charges and the trial continues on Wednesday afternoon when his barrister, David Edwardson QC, will make his final address to the jury.

Zach Rolfe ‘lied to justify the unjustifiable’, Crown tells jurors in closing address

NT Police officer Zach Rolfe “lied to justify the unjustifiable” in testifying that he feared for his partner’s life when he fatally shot Kumanjayi Walker during an attempted arrest in a remote Aboriginal community, a court has heard.

Rolfe has pleaded not guilty to all charges in relation to the 19-year-old’s death in Yuendumu in 2019 and his barrister, David Edwardson QC, closed the case for the defence on Tuesday.

In his closing address to jurors in the Supreme Court trial, Crown prosecutor Philip Strickland SC, told the 12 men and women “that on the evidence before you, you can conclude the following”.

Zach Rolfe. Picture: Glenn Campbell

“That the accused did not see Kumanjayi Walker stabbing Constable Eberl in the chest or neck area when he was on the mattress or when he was standing up,” he said.

“Secondly, that the accused did not fear for Constable Eberl’s life when he fired shots two and three, and the Crown case is that the evidence the accused gave in court that he had those beliefs was a lie, and the accused lied to justify the unjustifiable, namely the fatal shooting of Kumanjayi Walker.

“And even if the accused believed that (Constable Eberl) was at some risk of harm while on the mattress, the accused did not believe Eberl was at risk of death or serious injury.”

Mr Strickland said Rolfe’s career history, including a tour of Afghanistan with the Australian Army, applications to join special forces units and private firearms training in the United States, revealed “an obvious desire to become involved in direct action”.

“We suggest that the accused would have known better than most in the NT Police force when and how to deploy his firearm, even in a split second,” he said.

“And we say that is relevant to how the accused reacted, both when he saw the body worn (camera footage) of the axe incident, and when he was tasked to arrest Kumanjayi Walker on 9 November, and when he decided to fire those shots in house 511.”

Mr Strickland said there was “a lot of evidence in this case” that Rolfe was “at the very least, preoccupied with Kumanjayi Walker and wanted to be involved with tracking him down”.

“His sole mission and preoccupation was to track down Kumanjayi Walker,” he said.

“His sole mission and preoccupation was to arrest him as soon as he could.”

Crown prosecutors Philip Strickland SC and Sophie Callan SC outside the Supreme Court in Darwin. Picture: (A)manda Parkinson

Mr Strickland said Rolfe had admitted on the stand that he had his hand on his Glock and had released a safety retention device on his holster while searching for Mr Walker prior to the fatal shooting.

“Hand on our Glock, ready to draw you Glock, is not some empty gesture, it’s not symbolic, if you have your hand on your Glock, you’re ready to draw, and if you’re ready to draw, you must be ready to deploy it,” he said.

“It is clear from looking at the body worn video and the accused’s own evidence that he had his hand on his Glock – not his taser, not his OC spray, but his Glock – and it’s clear that he released the retention device because he intended to draw his firearm if he came across Kumanjayi Walker.”

The trial continues on Wednesday when Mr Strickland will conclude his closing address to the jury followed by Mr Edwardson’s own address.

Glock should have been Zach Rolfe’s ‘default option’, murder trial hears

LETHAL force via his Glock should have been Zach Rolfe’s “default option” when attacked with an edged weapon by Kumanjayi Walker, an expert defence witness has told his murder trial.

Rolfe has pleaded not guilty to all charges in the Supreme Court after fatally shooting the 19-year-old during an attempted arrest in Yuendumu in 2019.

On Tuesday, veteran former Australian Federal Police special operations team leader and field supervisor, Ben McDevitt, told the court it was “ludicrous” for prosecution witness detective Senior Sergeant Andrew Barram to suggest Rolfe should have used “empty hand tactics” instead.

Mr McDevitt also said it was “entirely appropriate” for Rolfe to “at least” have his hand on his gun while searching a house in which Mr Walker was previously known to have rushed at police armed with an axe in the lead up to the shooting.

“They are going into potentially a very, very dangerous situation, they had, certainly, reason to believe Kumanjayi Walker may be inside the premises,” he said.

“They were aware of his history of violence, in terms of his criminal record, and they’d also been made quite graphically aware of the propensity and preparedness by him to take up a weapon.”

Once the officers made their way into the house where they ultimately located Mr Walker, Mr McDevitt agreed with Sgt Barram that the first of three shots Rolfe fired was justified.

But he rejected Sgt Barram’s view that the threat posed by Mr Walker had been neutralised once he and then constable Adam Eberl fell to the ground, saying it actually “became a far more dangerous and dire situation for Constable Eberl”.

“Const Eberl no longer had the use of his legs and there are two primary uses of those legs,” he said.

“One is to be able to actually create distance and get away, which is a lot harder when you’re on the ground.

“The second is that in his training, he would have been taught, similar to all other police, that the legs can be a very powerful strike weapon and again, that capability’s greatly diminished once you’re lying down on the ground.”

Mr McDevitt said another reason “the situation had become more perilous” was that it was “far more difficult in a ground struggle” for an officer to defend against an offender reaching for their own weapon.

“So not only was there potentially the threat of the edged weapon, but it’s easier in my view, and in my training, to be able to take a weapon from somebody during a ground struggle than it is during a standing struggle where they can simply push away and twist and create distance,” he said.

When asked whether he agreed with Sgt Barram’s opinion that Rolfe should have reholstered his pistol and switched to “empty hand tactics”, Mr McDevitt said he did not.

“It’s a ludicrous statement and it’s just not in accordance with the training or with the use of force model,” he said.

Under cross examination by Crown prosecutor, Philip Strickland SC, Mr McDevitt agreed the officers “got too close” to Mr Walker, had no clear plan of action and allowed him to “dictate what happens next”.

But Mr McDevitt said he was only able to reach those conclusions with the benefit of hindsight, knowing the man in house 511 was in fact Mr Walker and that he was armed at the time.

“I’ve pointed out six areas where I believe, in hindsight, that they were tactical errors that I believe that the police officers made,” he said.

“(But) the reason that they made those tactical errors was that they did not have in their possession two critical pieces of information that I had at the time I wrote this (report).”

Mr McDevitt also agreed that it would be consistent with police training to yell out “he’s got my gun” if Mr Walker went for an officer’s Glock, as Rolfe had testified, “where possible”.

“You would yell out and that would be consistent with the training if the circumstances allowed it,” he said.

But Mr McDevitt rejected Mr Strickland’s suggestion that a 10-year-old boy should have been evacuated from the house where Rolfe began the search for Mr Walker and is seen on body worn camera footage placing his hand on his Glock.

“It wouldn’t have been practical,” he said.

“I’ve gone into dozens of houses with far more firepower than what Mr Rolfe had which have had children inside.”

The trial continues.

Zach Rolfe trial to return to court after funeral delay

THE trial of NT Police officer Zach Rolfe will return to the Supreme Court on Tuesday after proceedings were delayed due to a funeral.

Rolfe has pleaded not guilty to all charges relating to the shooting death of 19-year-old Kumanjayi Walker in Yuendumu in 2019.

Prosecutors and Rolfe’s lawyers attended court for legal argument on Monday but Justice John Burns gave the jury the day off after receiving a note from one of them last week.

“Members of the jury, I received earlier today a note from one of your number indicating that this particular juror has a funeral which they wish to attend on Monday at 10.30am,” he said.

“I am quite prepared to accommodate the wishes of that juror so that the best course, I suspect, is that we will simply not sit on Monday, so that after we break today we will then resume on Tuesday.”

Justice Burns indicated the court would return to normal sitting hours between 10am and 4.30pm going forward, “in line with the current position in terms of chief health officer directions”.

“I understand that an agreement may have been reached among the jury yourselves that you will continue to wear masks, and if that is the case, then that’s a matter for you, that’s your choice,” he said.