Full Court hears arguments on defences available to Zach Rolfe at upcoming murder trial

Both self defence and police immunity defences should be available to Zach Rolfe at his upcoming murder trial over the shooting death of Yuendumu teenager Kumanjayi Walker, a court has heard.

• Fourth question of law referred to Full Court in Zach Rolfe murder case
• Zach Rolfe may be immune from prosecution over Yuendumu shooting, court hears
• Two police shootings, two murder trials and two men dead in the desert sand four decades apart

UPDATE 4PM: PROSECUTORS in the murder trial of NT Police officer Zach Rolfe have responded to his lawyer’s contention that the defence of police immunity should be available to him.

In submissions to the Full Court on Wednesday afternoon, Crown prosecutor Phillip Strickland SC argued the defence would only be available if Rolfe was exercising a specific power set out in the Police Administration Act.

“The question is whether the act, being the second and third shots, was done in the exercise of a power under the act and the only relevant power we say, that is for the court to consider — whether it be this court or a jury eventually — is the power to arrest,” he said.

“It’s not artificial or absurd at all to draw a distinction between the attempt to arrest the deceased and the discharge of those shots — that distinction, in my submission, is fundamental.”

Mr Strickland said the immunity from criminal responsibility for police officers acting in the course of their duties under section 148B of the act would not apply to Rolfe if he was only exercising his police powers in a general sense.

“All that work that 148B can do and does do, it stops at the gate where the purpose of the act, in this case the discharging of (shots) two and three, that is the use of lethal force, is done for purposes other than that of arrest,” he said.

“Most arrests don’t involve the use of force at all, the classic example is record of interview arrests, they complete the interview and say you’re now under arrest there’s no touching, there’s no force.”

The Full Court is expected to reserve its decision this afternoon until a date to be fixed.

EARLIER: BOTH self defence and police immunity defences should be available to Zach Rolfe at his upcoming murder trial over the shooting death of Yuendumu teenager Kumanjayi Walker, a court has heard.

The trial was adjourned last week with four questions of law referred to the full bench of the Supreme Court, which heard submissions from the parties on Wednesday.

During the morning session, defence barrister David Edwardson QC told the court the suggestion that Rolfe could not be acting in the course of his duties while also defending a fellow officer was “absurd”.

“The premise of the argument set out in (the prosecution’s submissions) is that if an accused has in mind defending himself or another, that is mutually exclusive with exercising a power under the act and that is simply not right,” he said.

“Every arrest is, in a sense, an act of self defence and defence of another — when handcuffs are applied to a suspect they are applied because the police are concerned that the suspect poses a risk to their safety and that of others around them.”

The court will reconvene after lunch to hear arguments from Crown prosecutor Phillip Strickland SC before ruling on which defences should be available for the jury to rule on at Rolfe’s trial.

MORE TO COME

Follow @jas_walls