Abbott right to shoot Wallace, court told

By PAULA OLIVER

The jury in the country's first private prosecution of a police officer for murder is expected to begin considering its verdict late today.

The 11 jurors yesterday heard final evidence from lawyers representing Constable Keith Abbott, who claims he acted in self-defence when he fatally shot Steven Wallace.

Constable Abbott is facing a murder charge for the shots, which he fired at Mr Wallace in the early hours of April 30, 2000.

Mr Wallace had been smashing windows in the main street of Waitara.

Prosecution lawyers claim Constable Abbott had other options and did not need to shoot Mr Wallace four times.

Retired police inspector Ashley Edwards yesterday told the court that a reasonable officer in a scenario similar to that faced by Constable Abbott would be expected to shoot an offender.

"He does not have to lay down his own life in execution of his duty," Mr Edwards said.

The former inspector told the court he had 35 years of experience in the police.

During his career he had commanded an Armed Offenders Squad and a team that is now known as the Special Tactics Group.

Mr Edwards said a reasonable officer faced with a scenario similar to what defence lawyers say Constable Abbott faced would be expected to apprehend the offender.

He said in that scenario an officer should go forward and make contact with an offender, using voice appeal.

He should also try to cordon off and contain the scene, and would be expected to take a pistol if it was available.

A baton and pepper spray would be back-ups.

If an offender advanced aggressively and refused to respond to warnings, the officer eventually had to take a stand.

"If he fears for his safety, or the safety of anyone else, I would expect the officer to shoot the offender.

"Shoot the offender for his own survival."

Mr Edwards said that if the law and police instruction allowed for shooting, the officer was justified in killing the target.

Under cross-examination, Mr Edwards agreed that in a scenario where an officer did not have a gun backing away was a realistic option.

The court also heard written evidence read from a former police dog handler who said that a dog would not guarantee the disarming of an offender who had a weapon.

Sending in two dogs from different angles could be successful.

The court will today hear closing addresses from prosecution lawyer Mike Behrens, QC, and defence lawyer Susan Hughes. Justice Robert Chambers will then sum up the case and the jury is expected to retire in the afternoon.