Two police officers who were involved in the failed murder trial and flawed investigation of Constable Zach Rolfe have complained to management about him returning to work, claiming they too would be “triggered” if they saw him in the workplace, the NT Independent understands.

Sgt Andrew Barram, who acted as the prosecution’s use-of-force expert at the trial despite having an identified “conflict of interest” and Sgt Wayne Newell who took a lead role in the murder investigation and had suggested edits to an independent use-of-force expert’s report that was inexplicably withdrawn before the murder trial, have joined former Yuendumu office-in-charge Julie Frost in having Constable Rolfe banned from NT Police premises, including all stations and the police gym, sources have confirmed.

Constable Rolfe has taken stress leave as a result of the ongoing ban that saw him placed behind a computer with access to police facilities revoked after being reinstated on July 18 – four months after a Supreme Court jury found him not guilty of murder in the shooting death of Kumanjayi Walker.

Constable Rolfe’s father Richard Rolfe told the NT Independent the move to ban Zach from attending police premises based on the claims of three officers who worked to pin the murder charge on him was disgraceful and symptomatic of a police executive who lied and withheld evidence and “tampered” with witnesses.

“How many times does Zach need to be stabbed in the back by his own police force?” he said.

“How can the NT Police force be taken seriously when they refuse to allow an innocent and courageous police officer to return to work because of the fictitious claim that Frost, Newell or Barram might be ‘triggered’?”

Sgt Barram had testified against Constable Rolfe at the murder trial as the prosecution’s star witness despite concerns raised by the then-head of Professional Standards Command that Sgt Barram was “not suitable” because he was too entrenched in the police force, having been the officer-in-charge at the police college when Zach Rolfe trained there and he also had oversight of the police’s Operational Safety and Tactics Training (OSTT).

“I state this on the basis that all these reasons [raised by another officer] would place him in a perceived Conflict of Interest in relation to providing this report for Op Charwell [the taskforce investigating Rolfe],” Cmdr Danny Bacon wrote in an email dated November 20, 2019, previously reported by the NT Independent.

“It perhaps could be mitigated if we were dealing with matters on a discipline level, but this matter is a Criminal Murder Charge and I think the less conflicts we have in place surrounding expert evidence the better it will be for the Integrity of the File.”

Despite his concerns, someone overruled him and Sgt Barram appeared as the only use-of-force expert the prosecution presented at the murder trial.

His testimony that Constable Rolfe was not justified in the second and third shots fired at Kumanjayi Walker after being stabbed was refuted by defence witness and former AFP assistant commissioner Ben McDevitt who said Sgt Barram’s testimony was “ludicrous” and conflicted with the “very training” he had provided officers.

Sgt Newell provided ‘suggestions’ to independent expert’s report on fatal Yuendumu shooting, not used at trial

Independent use-of-force expert and criminologist Geoffrey Alpert, from the University of South Carolina, was first contacted by the NT Police to provide a report in December 2019 as police built their murder case against Constable Rolfe after failing to find any Australian experts willing to testify.

His report, which taxpayers paid nearly $100,000 for, was used at the committal hearing to find Constable Rolfe fit to stand trial for murder, however the report was inexplicably not used at the murder trial.

The NT Independent had previously revealed that Sgt Wayne Newell had offered Prof Alpert “a couple of suggestions that you may wish to consider”, including that he should reconsider a sentence in his report about Sgt Julie Frost’s arrests instructions in Yuendumu that may “require more context”.

Prof Alpert later said it was “more efficient to remove” the line, with that issue later becoming a major point of contention during the trial.

Other emails showed Prof Alpert had made “changes” to his initial report and later sought “corrections or modifications” by Sgt Newell.

Commissioner Jamie Chalker previously refused to explain Sgt Newell’s influence on the “independent” report or why it was not used at trial, and who had authorised Sgt Barram to testify as the use-of-force expert despite the conflict of interest.

Both Sgt Newell and Sgt Barram did not respond to questions for this article.

Richard Rolfe says police executive withheld evidence at trial, ‘tampered’ with witnesses

Mr Rolfe said Sgt Barram and Sgt Newell had disgraced themselves and, along with Sgt Frost, were now trying to inflict pain on Constable Rolfe having failed to have him convicted of murder.

“Sgt Barram was appointed to be the NT use-of-force expert [and] wrote a completely biased and inaccurate report about the shooting in Yuendumu that was uniformly rejected by the jury and was eviscerated by the defence’s solitary witness Ben McDevitt, who wrote the use-of-force book for every police jurisdiction in Australia,” he said.

Mr Rolfe said the four incidents of alleged historic excessive use of force by Constable Rolfe, that were aired publicly after the trial, had been raised by Sgt Barram but ultimately dismissed by others before he was allowed back at work.

“Every one of those use-of-force disciplinary actions against Zach have now been dismissed in line with the original decision by every Sergeant, Senior Sergeant or Commander who had reviewed Zach’s performance,” Mr Rolfe said. “[Sgt Barram] attempted to portray Rolfe as a bad cop [and it] was a desperate and unethical attempt to ruin a good cop’s reputation.”

Mr Rolfe said other evidence not presented at the trial showed Sgt Newell had withheld evidence from the night of the shooting from other experts used in the investigation, including from medical experts.

Mr Rolfe added that Sgt Newell’s influence on the Alpert report about Sgt Frost’s orders at the time of the shooting were troubling.

“Simple as that, the order to arrest Walker by Frost on the Saturday disappeared and this was the report tendered by the Crown in the committal [hearing],” he said.

“Once this deception was uncovered it meant that Alpert could no longer play any part in the trial. His testimony and report were completely tainted, he failed in his duty of independence, and the Director of Public Prosecutions refused to hand over his initial reports, only the final version.”

Mr Chalker and Sgt Newell did not respond to a question about whether Sgt Newell was disciplined for his actions and for costing taxpayers $100,000 for a report that was not used.

Mr Rolfe said Mr Chalker and his executive team had done everything in their power to see Constable Rolfe convicted and that included lying under oath and withholding evidence, including the original coronial report undertaken by Sgt Scott Pollock.

“Unfortunately, the Chalker version of a ‘first rate investigation’ without fear or favour plunged to new depths by encouraging disgraced police officers such as Frost and Barram to lie under oath or deliberately withhold evidence, or in the case of Newell to tamper with witnesses and withhold expert opinions that contradicted the Crown’s case,” he said.

“Fortunately, the frontline police officers are able to dissect fact from fiction, and they know a liar when they see one.

“Hundreds have voted with their feet and left the NT Police Force. Of those left, 80 per cent have zero confidence in Chalker.

“How many more police can the Police Minister allow to leave before action is taken?

“Only one police officer needs to leave to restore integrity and confidence in their command, and everyone on the planet knows who that is.”