Mr Rolfe’s lawyer, Luke Officer, details five actions taken by Detective Senior Sergeant Wayne Newell he says are of “very serious concern”.
The father of Constable Zachary Rolfe, Richard Rolfe, says the “petty vendetta” against his son must not continue and Northern Territory Police Commissioner Jamie Chalker “must go”.
Mr Rolfe’s comments come after the Northern Territory Police intend to sack his son.
“We can’t allow Chalker to keep on getting rid of good police officers,” Mr Rolfe told Sky News Australia host Andrew Bolt.
“The Northern Territory Police Force has been decimated.
“The government have now lost confidence in Chalker.”
Mr Rolfe’s lawyers lodged the complaint last Friday in a letter sent to Acting Police Commissioner Michael Murphy.
Mr Rolfe was charged with murder over the November 2019 shooting of Indigenous man Kumanjayi Walker at Yuendumu, about 300km northwest of Alice Springs.
Last year a jury found him not guilty.
Mr Rolfe’s lawyer, Luke Officer, details five actions taken by Detective Senior Sergeant Wayne Newell he says are of “very serious concern”.
These include accusations he amended and edited the evidence of an independent expert witness, and that he withheld evidence that would have been favourable to Mr Rolfe.
“When one looks to the context of this case and its investigation, it gives the impression of an attempt to gather evidence to fit the prosecution case,” Mr Officer writes in the letter sent to Mr Murphy on Friday.
“These matters are cause for significant concern. Not the least of which is the concern held by our client whose life was altered in an irreparable way at the age of 28 when he was charged with murder.
“In our view he should never have been charged at all. The investigative conduct at best leaves a lot to be desired, and at worst, it was flawed and biased from the start.”
In response to questions sent to NT Police, a spokeswoman said: “NT Police are aware of the letter addressed to Acting Commissioner Murphy dated 16 June 2023. Police will be investigating the allegations an d it would be inappropriate to comment at this stage.”
Mr Officer references the draft coronial reports by Superintendent Scott Pollock and Commander David Proctor which raise concern about Sen-Sgt Newell exchanging emails with Professor Geoffrey Alpert, an American criminologist paid almost $100,000 by NT Police to act as an independent witness.
In emails attached to Mr Rolfe’s complaint, Professor Alpert asks Sen-Sgt Newell for suggested changes to a draft of his report which concluded the second and third shots fired by Mr Rolfe were an excessive use of force.
In one email sent by Professor Alpert to Sen-Sgt Newell on February 14, 2020, and attached to Mr Rolfe’s complaint, he writes: “I am attaching a draft of my preliminary report. It will give you an idea of the direction I am taking. Please let me know if there is more to review and if there is anything I have missed.”
Sen-Sgt Newell responds: “Thank you very much for that Geoff. Myself and (Superintendent) Kirk (Penutto) will have a look and get back to you.”
In another email where Professor Alpert attaches his bill, he writes that he looks forward to catching up with the two officers during a future visit to the Northern Territory.
“Please give my best to Kirk and let him know I will not let him off his offer for a beer. I look forward to meeting both of you in person at your favourite pubs!” he writes. “Do you think I will be asked to formulate a report for the Coroner’s Office? As you know I have the ‘guts’ already prepared and just need to swap out the different, and more comprehensive opinions and conclusions.”
In his letter to Mr Murphy, Mr Officer writes: “It goes without saying that an expert report is supposed to be compiled independent from any preconceived views of partiality. It seems that it might not have been the case in this matter.”
Mr Officer also raises concerns that expert opinions given to police by independent witnesses that would have been favourable to Mr Rolfe’s case were withheld from the defence.
He writes that two independent expert witnesses – Dr Keith Towsey and Dr Paul Botterill – had given Sen-Sgt Newell an opinion that the scissors used by Mr Walker to stab Mr Rolfe before he was shot had the capacity to inflict a lethal blow.
Instead, the prosecution relied on the evidence of Dr Marianne Tiemensma.
“Both Dr Botterill and Dr Towsey were approached by Detective Newell for comment and opinion on the same topic,” Mr Officer writes.
“They both gave an opinion, Dr Towsey’s verbal, and Dr Botterill’s in writing in relation to the lethality of the scissors.
“Both experts expressed the opinion that was in stark contradiction to that of Dr Tiemensma, and both of their opinions were that the scissors could have caused serious injury or death to either Constable Rolfe or (his partner) Constable (Adam) Eberl.
“Those opinions were not disclosed to Constable Rolfe’s legal team. While it was said that the failure to disclose the opinion of Dr Botterill was an oversight on behalf of the DPP, Detective Newell knew of its existence (as at 29 July 2020) and those opinions were obtained well in advance of the criminal trial and yet they were still not disclosed to Constable Rolfe’s legal team.
“It only became clear by sheer luck that before each of those witnesses was due to give their evidence that they had been approached by Detective Newell for this supplementary opinion, and gave that supplementary opinion, either in writing or verbally.”
Mr Officer asks Mr Murphy to give “full attention” to the issues raised in his letter and asked that they be formally investigated.
“At the very least, serious disciplinary action may be warranted. At this stage, of course, any outcome will depend upon a comprehensive and independent investigation being undertaken,” he writes.
Sen-Sgt Newell has been contacted for comment.