Northern Territory police officer Zachary Rolfe had no choice but to shoot 19-year-old Yuendumu man Kumanjayi Walker to save his fellow officer's life, the constable's defence barrister has told his murder trial.
WARNING: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised that this article contains an image of a person who has died, used with the permission of their family.
Constable Rolfe, 30, has pleaded not guilty to murder, and two alternative charges, over the death of Mr Walker in the remote central Australian community in 2019.
The officer fired his Glock pistol three times after the 19-year-old stabbed him in the shoulder with a pair of scissors as he and his partner, Constable Adam Eberl, tried to arrest him inside a house.
"Tragically, he had no choice," Mr Edwardson said.
"[Constable Rolfe] had to pull the trigger or risk the real possibility that Constable Eberl would or could be fatally stabbed."
Constable Rolfe's first shot, which was fired when Mr Walker was standing and struggling with Constable Eberl, was not the subject of any charges.
But prosecutors say the second and third shots were not legally justified because by then Constable Eberl had "effectively restrained" Mr Walker on the ground.
Mr Edwardson told the jury his client's "split-second, intuitive decision" to fire his weapon was in line with police training that dictates officers should draw and potentially use their firearm if threatened with an edged weapon.
"Each time he pulled the trigger, [Constable Rolfe] was acting in good faith, he was acting in a reasonable performance of his duties, and he was acting in self-defence — the self-defence of himself and his partner," he said.
Kumanjayi Walker 'author of his own misfortune', defence says
Mr Edwardson told the jury it appeared the prosecution believed Mr Walker should have been treated with "kid gloves" despite the fact he had threatened other officers with an axe three days before the shooting.
Mr Edwardson asked the jury to consider body-worn camera footage of the shooting in real-time rather than frame-by-frame, which he said distorted the "reality" of Constable Rolfe's actions.
The barrister was highly critical of key prosecution witness and senior NT police officer Andrew Barram, who previously told the court Mr Walker's arm was pinned beneath him when the second and third shots were fired.
But Mr Edwardson said it was impossible to see Mr Walker's right arm on the body-worn camera footage.
"We say that Senior Sergeant Barram is neither credible nor reliable," he told the court.
Mr Edwardson also dismissed the prosecution's claim that Constable Rolfe had tried to "justify the unjustifiable" by formulating a lie moments after the shooting.
In the body-worn footage, Constable Rolfe can be heard telling his partner: "It's all good, he's got scissors in his hand. He was stabbing me, he was stabbing you."
Mr Edwardson told the jury: "Those words were not, as the prosecution would have you believe, a lie made out of consciousness of guilt, but rather a graphic and clear description of exactly what Zachary Rolfe believed had happened to [both officers] at the hands of this high-risk, violent offender."
In his address, Mr Edwardson also delivered a scathing attack on the NT Police decision to lay the murder charge against Constable Rolfe four days after the shooting, describing it as "a disgrace".
He said "no proper investigation, or meaningful investigation" had occurred before the charges were laid.
"The executive of the NT 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," he said.
He said the prosecution had failed to negate any of the legal defences put forward by Constable Rolfe's legal team.
"In these circumstances, there can be only one verdict and that is one of not guilty to all charges," he told the jury.
Crown says second and third shots were not justified
Earlier on Wednesday, Crown prosecutor Philip Strickland SC finished his closing address by telling the jury there were two ways it could find Constable Rolfe's second and third shots were not legally justified.
The first way, he said, was if they believed Constable Rolfe knew that Constable Eberl had effectively restrained Mr Walker by the time those shots were fired.
"The Crown case is that at that time be believed [the threat] had been removed, but nevertheless [Constable Rolfe] kept shooting regardless," he said.
The second way, he said, was if the jury believed Constable Rolfe failed to adequately assess the situation.
"If you find that [Constable Rolfe] didn't assess the risk at all, then you would not find that he actually had a belief that Constable Eberl was at risk of serious harm or death," he said.
"And you would not find that his response in firing those two fatal shots, at point blank range, was a reasonable response as he perceived it."
Mr Strickland conceded that if the jury accepted Constable Rolfe's version — that he had seen Mr Walker stabbing his partner in the chest and neck and feared for his life — then they could only deliver one verdict.
"If you believe, as a reasonable possibility, that that evidence is true, you must find him not guilty on all three counts — no question about it," Mr Strickland said.
But the prosecutor pointed to several examples which he said undermined Constable Rolfe's credibility.
He said at no time did the vision show Mr Walker stabbing Constable Eberl in the chest or neck region.
He also noted Constable Rolfe's claim that Mr Walker had tried to grab his firearm during the initial struggle was not mentioned to any other officers after the shooting.
"That is because that never happened. He made it up," Mr Strickland said.
"And if you accept that, that is extremely damaging to your assessment of whether you believe [Constable Rolfe's] evidence that he saw Kumanjayi Walker stabbing Constable Eberl in the neck area and in the chest area, while he's on the mattress."
The trial continues tomorrow, when Judge John Burns is expected to summarise the case before the jury retires to consider its verdict.
