High Court reserves decision on whether Zach Rolfe murder trial will proceed

A NT police officer charged with the killing of an indigenous teenager will have to wait until the morning his murder trial is due to start to learn whether it will proceed as planned.

Zachary Rolfe arrives at the NT Supreme Court. Picture: Glenn Campbell

A Northern Territory police officer charged with the killing of an indigenous teenager will have to wait until the morning his high-profile murder trial is due to start to learn whether it will proceed as planned.

Zach Rolfe stands accused of murdering 19-year-old Kumanjayi Walker, who was shot during an arrest attempt in the Central Australian community of Yuendumu in November 2019. He has pleaded not guilty.

NT prosecutors on Friday made a last-ditch attempt to convince the High Court to delay the trial, but after hearing from Crown prosecutor, Philip Strickland SC, and Rolfe’s barrister, Bret Walker SC, Justice Jacqueline Gleeson decided to reserve her decision until 9am on Monday morning – just hours before the trial is due to start.

Mr Strickland argued the trial should be put on hold to give the court a chance to consider an application appealing a previous decision made by the full bench of the NT Supreme Court.

The decision allows Constable Rolfe to claim immunity from civil and criminal liability under the Police Administration Act.

To overcome that defence, the Crown would need to prove ­beyond reasonable doubt that Constable Rolfe was not acting in good faith when he shot Walker three times.

Mr Strickland on Friday argued that if the trial proceeds as planned, Mr Rolfe could be acquitted of a “most serious charge” because of the full court’s “error.”

“This is an exceptional case … that is the alleged murder of an indigenous man by a police officer. In the course of what is said to be his duty, it has divided the police and the indigenous community and has captured the interest of the territory and the nation,” he said.

Under NT law, if Constable Rolfe were to be acquitted using the ­immunity defence and the full bench ruling was later found to be incorrect, he could not be retried.

Mr Strickland argued the issue of whether the defence of good faith applied went to the “heart of the case” and therefore the trial should be delayed.

But Mr Walker fired back, declaring the case was not exceptional and the trial should proceed as planned.

“This is just the ordinary case of the Crown having run and lost arguments and wishing to be heard by way of appeal against an outcome that is not exceptional at all,” he said.

A separate hearing to decide whether the court will grant special leave to appeal the decision of the NT court has been set for September 10.