Yuendumu shooting of Kumanjayi Walker: Prosecution case against Zachary Rolfe consists only of ‘armchair experts’, says defence

Defence lawyers claim the prosecution case is based on ‘armchair experts’ assembled by police bosses.

NT Police Constable Zachary Rolfe ouside the NT Supreme Court, Darwin. Picture: Glenn Campbell

The “flawed” prosecution case against Zachary Rolfe consists only of “armchair experts” assembled by police bosses in a disgraceful bid to justify their unjustifiable charges, according to defence ­lawyers in the constable’s murder trial.

Appropriating a phrase used by a prosecutor accusing the 30-year-old constable of lying to “justify the unjustifiable” shooting of Kumanjayi Walker, defence lawyer David Edwardson QC suggested it was the crown’s case that ought to be on trial instead.

“Zachary Rolfe was arrested within four days of this tragic shooting,” he told the NT Supreme Court. “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 … without any proper investigation, and that, you might think, is a disgrace.

“The executive of the Northern Territory Police Force and those they deployed to justify these charges, you might think, have thrown everything at Zachary Rolfe because of a decision that should never have been made.

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

Constable Rolfe shot 19-year-old Walker three times after the latter stabbed him with scissors.

Mr Edwardson said each time his client pulled the trigger, “he was acting in good faith … in the reasonable performance of his ­duties and … in self-defence”.

He described Walker as “violent and in many respects … the ­author of his own misfortune” and said Constable Rolfe did no more than follow his training.

“Kumanjayi Walker wanted to kill these men. That is exactly what he said after he’d been shot three times,” Mr Edwardson told the court.

“Zachary Rolfe could not push the pause button … he had to make a split-second, intuitive decision based on his training … he had to pull the trigger or risk the real possibility that (his partner) Constable (Adam) Eberl would or could be fatally stabbed.”

He said the senior officer who sent Constable Rolfe’s police Immediate Response Team to Yuendumu to help local officers arrest Walker had “no idea what he was doing”.

Earlier in the day, prosecutor Philip Strickland SC argued in the second half of the crown’s closing address that Constable Rolfe’s account of the shooting was implausible, and the jury ought therefore to distrust his evidence.

“At the same time the accused says Kumanjayi Walker’s left hand is on the Glock, you can see his (Walker’s) left arm is trapped by Eberl,” Mr Strickland said.

“It never happened – he (Rolfe) made it up. If you accept that, it’s extremely damaging for your assessment of whether you believe his evidence that he saw Kumanjayi Walker stabbing Constable Eberl in the neck area … and it’s extremely damaging to your assessment of his credibility that he believed that Constable Eberl’s life was in immediate danger at the time he fired shots two and three.”

The actual injury Constable Rolfe received was “superficial”, and there was no proof Walker struck or injured Constable Eberl at all, Mr Strickland said. He said Constable Rolfe was not forced to make a split-second decision but rather “it was the accused and only the accused who decided to shoot a second and third time”.

“The speed with which he acted was not necessary or reasonable, nor was it in compliance with his own training,” he said.

“The accused knew or believed that Eberl had effectively restrained Kumanjayi Walker.

“He knew or believed that Walker posed a low level of risk to Eberl … the crown case is that at that time, he (Rolfe) believed it (the threat from Walker) had been removed. Nevertheless, he kept shooting regardless.”

Mr Edwardson branded Mr Strickland’s submissions “nonsense” and “utter rubbish”.

Judge John Burns will sum up the case on Thursday before the jury retires to consider its verdicts.