The death of Kumanjayi Walker was a tragedy but he was “the author of his own misfortune”, and the jury must not find constable Zachary Rolfe guilty of his murder, a court has been told.
David Edwardson SC, the defence barrister for Rolfe, said on Wednesday in his closing address in Rolfe’s murder trial that the Northern Territory police officer had acted courageously when he shot Walker and had been subject to a “flawed prosecution”.
Rolfe shot Walker three times while trying to arrest him on 9 November 2019 in the remote community of Yuendumu, about 300km from Alice Springs.
Rolfe is charged in relation to the second and third shots fired at Walker, a 19-year-old Warlpiri man. Rolfe has pleaded not guilty and is defending his actions on the basis they were justified in light of the risk that Walker, who had stabbed Rolfe with scissors immediately before the shooting, posed to him and a colleague, Adam Eberl.
“This case is tragic,” Edwardson said.
“A young man lost his life, and a young courageous police officer has been charged with the most serious offence under the criminal justice system … without any proper investigation, and that is a disgrace.”
Edwardson used his address to criticise the executive of the Northern Territory police and three of the witnesses for the prosecution.
He described Det Sr Sgt Andrew Barram, a senior NT police officer who reviewed the shooting, as neither credible nor reliable.
He argued Barram “stood alone” in questioning Rolfe’s response as it related to his training and was “undoubtedly the most controversial witness”. He described Barram as a “mouthpiece for the executive” who had been “wheeled out” in “dubious circumstances” to bolster the lack of a “meaningful investigation”, given Rolfe was charged only four days after the shooting.
He asked the jury to consider who they would rather have their back in a situation such as that faced by Eberl on the night of the shooting: Rolfe or the “armchair expert” Barram.
Edwardson’s address came on the final full day of the trial, with the judge, John Burns, indicating he expected the jury would be able to retire to consider its verdict by tomorrow afternoon.
He urged the jury to ignore attempts by the prosecution to show footage of the shooting incident frame-by-frame, describing it as “dangerous” and “wholly unrealistic”.
He also urged them to ignore evidence about whether Rolfe had acted outside his training or orders on the night of the shooting.
“What this trial is not about is a breach of general orders, some sort of non-compliance with orders or poor tactical awareness … it is [about] what Zachary Rolfe saw, heard, felt, and perceived when he made that critical decision.”
Edwardson said the prosecution’s suggestion that Rolfe had lied about seeing Eberl being stabbed by Walker and seeing Walker’s hand on his gun was absurd – and showed their “true colours”.
He sought to clearly define the threat posed by Walker, who he said was a “dangerous” and “violent” young man with a lengthy criminal record who was the “author of his own misfortune”.
He also accused the prosecution of “pandering to the notion” that Rolfe should have “somehow treated Kumanjayi Walker with kid gloves”.
“As tragic as it might be that a young man died as a consequence of his behaviour … in these circumstances, there can only be one verdict and that can only be not guilty of all charges.”
The trial continues.
