The jury in the murder trial of Northern Territory police officer Zachary Rolfe has retired to consider its verdict over the fatal shooting of Yuendumu man Kumanjayi Walker.
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.
Mr Walker, 19, died after he was shot three times during an attempted arrest inside a house in the remote central Australian community in November 2019.
The court has heard Constable Rolfe, 30, fired his Glock pistol moments after Mr Walker stabbed him in the shoulder with a pair of medical scissors.
Constable Rolfe has pleaded not guilty to murder, as well as the two alternative charges of manslaughter and engaging in a violent act causing death.
None of the charges against Constable Rolfe relate to the first shot, which was fired when Mr Walker was still standing and involved in a struggle with Constable Rolfe's policing partner, Constable Adam Eberl.
The prosecution has argued that the second and third shots were not legally justified, because by the time they were fired, Constable Eberl had effectively restrained Mr Walker, who therefore no longer posed a significant threat.
After four weeks of evidence, Justice John Burns summed up the case and gave two hours of instructions to the jury before they retired at lunchtime on Thursday.
The jury opted to end deliberations for the day at 4.30pm, with the foreperson also requesting a transcript of the judge's directions.
Deliberations will recommence on Friday at 9am.
Judge explains elements of each charge and legal defences
In his address on Thursday morning, Justice John Burns told jurors: "Your function is to assess the evidence and determine whether the Crown has proven any charge to that standard beyond reasonable doubt."
In relation to the murder charge, he said the jury must first consider whether the Crown had proven three key elements:
- that Constable Rolfe intentionally engaged in conduct, namely the shooting of the second and third shots
- that the conduct caused the death of Mr Walker
- that he intended to cause the death of the deceased or cause him serious harm
In addition to proving the three elements of the charge, Justice Burns said the Crown also had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that three legal defences are not available to Constable Rolfe.
Specifically, he said the Crown must prove:
- the accused was not acting in defence of himself or his partner when he fired the second and third shots
- that his conduct was not reasonable in the circumstances for the performance of his duty as a police officer
- that he was not acting in good faith in exercising a duty or performing a function of a police officer
The judge said if the jury found any of the legal defences did apply to Constable Rolfe at the time of the second and third shots, then they should find him not guilty on all charges.
Constable Rolfe's perception 'every bit as important' as other evidence, judge says
Justice Burns said if the jury does not find Constable Rolfe guilty of murder, they then need to decide if the elements of the manslaughter charge apply.
He said unlike murder, manslaughter does not require proof that the accused acted with the intention of killing Mr Walker.
Instead, he said they must decide whether it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that Constable Rolfe acted recklessly or negligently.
And if they found that he had, the jury then needed to consider whether any of the legal defences applied to him.
If the jury found Constable Rolfe not guilty of manslaughter, the judge said they should then consider the final alternative charge of engaging in a violent act causing death.
In relation to the charge, the judge said the Crown must prove:
- that Constable Rolfe's conduct was violent
- that the conduct caused Mr Walker's death
- that the conduct was unreasonable in his performance of duties as a police officer
In addition to determining what happened when the shooting took place, Justice Burns said the jury also needed to consider Constable Rolfe's perception at the time of the shots.
"In the present case, the accused's perception of what was occurring is every bit as important as determining in hindsight what actually happened," he said.
As the judge delivered his directions, Constable Rolfe's family and supporters sat in the public gallery near the accused, as they have throughout the trial.
Several Yuendumu residents, including family members of Mr Walker, have also attended the proceedings throughout the trial.
The jury has indicated that if it has not reached a verdict by the end of Friday, it will not deliberate over the weekend, but will continue its considerations next Monday.
