Zachary Rolfe denies inventing justifications for killing Kumanjayi Walker

Zachary Rolfe has denied inventing false justifications for killing Kumanjayi Walker and setting out with a ‘clear plan’ to shoot him if he produced a weapon.

Constable Zachary Rolfe is being tried for murder over the death of Kumanjayi Walker. Picture: Glen Campbell

Zachary Rolfe has denied inventing false justifications for killing Kumanjayi Walker after becoming “obsessed” with the Aboriginal teenager and setting out with a “clear plan” to shoot him if he produced a weapon.

Constable Rolfe earlier this week told the jury in his murder trial that he fired at Walker ­because he believed the ­“extremely violent” youngster wanted to kill his partner, Remote Sergeant Adam Eberl.

But in cross-examination on Friday, crown prosecutor Philip Strickland SC suggested the young Northern Territory policeman’s explanations were implausible, irreconcilable with his training and inconsistent with body-worn video footage.

He suggested Constable Rolfe, 30, had “made up” fears for Sergeant Eberl’s life after shooting Walker unnecessarily and realising he had “gone too far” and “been gung-ho”.

Constable Rolfe shot Walker, 19, three times after the latter stabbed him with scissors during an attempted arrest.

The crown concedes the first shot may have been legally justifiable but says shots two and three were murderous.

Constable Rolfe has pleaded not guilty to three charges.

Body-worn video of the incident records Sergeant Eberl saying, “Did you …? F. k,” immediately afterwards, and Constable Rolfe replying, “It’s all good. He was stabbing me. He was stabbing you.”

In court Mr Strickland said: “You said (those words) to justify what you had just done … you knew you had gone too far … you knew you had been too gung-ho … and you knew, didn’t you, that the shooting had been captured on your own body-worn video?”

Constable Rolfe again denied the allegations.

He has told the jury Walker tried to grab his pistol and that he saw Walker trying to stab ­Sergeant Eberl in the neck and chest area.

Kumanjayi Walker

Under cross-examination, he conceded body-worn videos do not show evidence of ­either event.

Constable Rolfe accepted he was not personally in danger when he fired the fatal shots but denied he should have helped Sergeant Eberl “ground stabilise” Walker instead of using lethal force.

“After you fired shots two and three, you grabbed Walker’s right arm … that’s something you could have done before you fired shots two and three, isn’t it?” Mr Strickland asked.

“That would go against my training to go hands-on,” Constable Rolfe replied.

The jury has heard Walker threatened two police with an axe three days before the shooting.

Mr Strickland suggested to Constable Rolfe that he had become “obsessed” with Walker’s violent behaviour and “preoccupied” with the idea of tracking him down.

“The clear plan in your mind was that if Kumanjayi Walker ­resisted you, you would shoot him … if he presented an edged weapon to you, you would shoot him. That was your clear plan, wasn’t it?” he asked. Constable Rolfe ­denied that, too.

In re-examination, defence barrister David Edwardson QC reminded Constable Rolfe of his remark immediately after the shooting and asked if that reflected his “perception”.

“Did you have any reason to believe, at that point in time, that the body-worn video would not have captured the stabbing ­motion of Kumanjayi Walker with his right hand against Constable Eberl?” Mr Edwardson asked. “No, I didn’t,” Constable Rolfe replied.

The trial continues.

-

Listen to our gripping daily podcast Yuendumu: The Trial wherever you get your audio and at theaustralian.com.au/yuendumu