NT Police $100,000 report into Zachary Rolfe ‘a waste of money’

An expert says he is shocked that the NT Police paid an American criminologist up to $100,000 to produce a 12-page report supporting its murder charge against Zachary Rolfe.

Bond University associate professor Terry Goldsworthy. Picture: Richard Gosling

An Australian “use-of-force” ­expert says he is shocked that the Northern Territory Police paid an American criminologist up to $100,000 to produce a 12-page ­report supporting its murder charge against Constable Zachary Rolfe when he could have conducted an independent review of the shooting for “a few grand”.

Bond University associate professor Terry Goldsworthy, who spent almost 30 years as a Queensland police officer before becoming an academic, said all of the reports he had produced for court were up to 60 pages long but cost less than $5000.

“I am perplexed as to how a 12-page report costs $100,000,” the former detective inspector said.

“I would be interested to see a breakdown of costs on the ­expert’s invoice. His examination would or should have been limited to the explicit use of force that led to the death, as that was the substantial base for the murder charge, so that would limit the material he would have had to examine.”

This comes after The Australian revealed NT Police awarded a $99,750 contract to professor Geoffrey Alpert of the University of South Carolina after apparently failing to find a local subject-matter expert to review Constable Rolfe’s use of force in fatally shooting Kumanjayi Walker.

Constable Rolfe was last month found not guilty of murdering Walker at the remote outback community of Yuendumu during an arrest on November 9, 2019.

“For a matter like this I would background the circumstances leading up to the incident,” Dr Goldsworthy said. “I would do a timeline immediately prior to the shooting and after, primarily using the (body cam) footage, and I would then insert the other relevant evidence around this from witness statements, medical and forensic reports etc.”

Despite Professor Alpert being issued a voluminous brief of evidence, Dr Goldsworthy said a criminologist would narrow their focus to material directly related to the shooting. “The crucial evidence to be examined would have been the footage from the body-worn cameras of the police involved in the arrest and the statements of direct witnesses,” he said. “The record of interviews with the police who were there would also be of importance. But the previous incident with the axe and the instructions from superiors merely provide context to the shooting and do not render it lawful or unlawful one way or the other.”

Dr Goldsworthy, who investigated more than 25 homicides during his 28-year policing ­career, said a subject matter expert would ultimately need to “fully explore” the five-minute window in which the shooting occurred.

“I have done other use-of-force matters that are similar time events … and I have never had to spend more than five or six days looking at the evidence,” he said.

“This case may be a bit more complex, but I could not see how I would ever get near $100,000.

“I charge $1000 a day and I would be surprised if I could not review the shooting and provide a thorough report for under $20,000 at the absolute most.”

The Australian also revealed this week that Professor Alpert repeatedly altered his conclusions at the request of detectives investigating Walker’s death.

Police emails show that Professor Alpert sent multiple draft reports to Operation Charwell bosses throughout February and March 2020, who would then ­request a phone call with him to discuss his findings.

Dr Goldsworthy said he was “amazed” at the level of police “input” into drafting Professor Alpert’s final report. “In terms of changing the report at the request of detectives, that is non-negotiable,” he said. “I cannot understand how an independent expert with a duty to provide expert evidence to a court would commit himself to sending copies of his report for editing by the police.”

On March 26, 2020, Professor Alpert signed a statutory declaration – seen by The Weekend Australian – stating that he had read the Expert Witness Code of Conduct and agreed to be bound by the code, which stipulates: “An expert witness is not an advocate for a party and has paramount duty, overriding any duty to the party to the proceedings or other person retaining the expert witness, to assist the court impartially on matters relevant to the area of expertise of the witness.”

NT Police said it would not comment “due to ongoing investigations”. Professor Alpert did not respond to questions.