Jury to rule on whether Zach Rolfe is excused from criminal liability in fatal shooting of Kumanjayi Walker

A jury will decide whether NT Police officer Zach Rolfe was acting in the course of his duties when he shot and killed Kumanjayi Walker in 2019, a court has heard.

• Zach Rolfe may be immune from prosecution over Yuendumu shooting, court hears
• Full Court hears arguments on defences available to Zach Rolfe at upcoming murder trial

A JURY will decide whether NT Police officer Zach Rolfe was acting in the course of his duties when he shot and killed Kumanjayi Walker in 2019, a court has heard.

Rolfe is due to face a murder trial in the Supreme Court in Darwin next week following the fatal shooting of the Yuendumu teenager during an arrest gone wrong.

On Friday, the Full Court ruled on a series of legal questions that will impact upon how the trial plays out, including whether Rolfe could be immune from criminal liability.

“We have redrafted question three as follows,” Justice Stephen Southwood said.

“Based upon the assumed facts, at the time the accused fired the second and third shots resulting in the deceased’s death, would it be open to the jury to find that the accused was acting in the exercise or purported exercise of a power or performance or purported performance of a function under the Police Administration Act such that section 148B arises for the jury’s consideration?

“And the answer to that question is ‘Yes’.”

Section 148B of the act excuses police officers from criminal responsibility for acts done “in good faith” during the performance of their duties.

Crown prosecutor Philip Strickland SC had argued that if Rolfe was acting in defence of a himself or a colleague, he was no longer exercising the police power of arrest.

But in their joint decision, Justices Southwood and Dean Mildren ruled there was nothing in the act “to prevent a police officer from exercising multiple powers and performing multiple functions during the course of a single incident”.

“The Crown’s submissions overlook the fact that at the relevant time the defendant may have been exercising his power of arrest and simultaneously performing his functions of preventing an offence and protecting the life of Constable (Adam) Eberl,” they wrote.

“It may be that when he fired the second and third shots the defendant was intending to both arrest the deceased and defend Constable Eberl.

“It would be open to the defendant, if he gives evidence, to state as much.”

The trial is due to start on Wednesday.

Follow @jas_walls