At the conclusion of yesterday’s evidence in the trial of Senior Constable Keith Abbott for the murder of Steven Wallace
the difficulty of the jury’s task was shown in sharp relief through the eyes and ears of almost-eye-witness Todd Wilson.
Senior Constable Abbott stands accused of the murder of 23 year old Steven Wallace, whom he shot in Waitara, Taranaki in
April 2000. Abbott pleads not guilty to the charges against him, claiming that he acted in self-defence.
Wilson had met Wallace earlier in the evening of the fateful night in The Mill night-club in New Plymouth. Then Wallace
had seemed fine he said. After returning to Waitara in the early hours Wilson and four friends, in his Holden Kingswood,
came across Wallace in the midst of an attack on an ATM machine. Wallace told them to “fuck off”.
Wilson saw Wallace twice more before he died. Firstly he saw him briefly in McLean St smashing windows. And then later –
after dropping off a passenger - Wilson pulled into a side-street, just as Wallace’s sixty four second walk down Mclean
Street to his death began.
During Constable Abbott’s evidence in the morning these sixty-four seconds - between the policemen alighting from their
patrol car and the volley of fatal shots - seemed to those in the court to have taken an eternity.
Through both examination in chief and cross-examination the jury heard in minute detail about these sixty-four seconds,
as it is on these seconds that the trial rests. The Jury is being asked to put itself into Abbott’s mind for this period
as he makes the life and death shoot-don’t shoot decision while walking backwards down the street.
By and large the evidence in the trial addresses what happened, and what Abbott’s options were during this period. In
theory his options – as outlined by former Police Superintendent Bryan Rowe in evidence yesterday - were:
- to wait for the police dog handler;
- to use his pepper spray;
- to run away (usually described as making a “tactical retreat”) and make a new plan for tackling Wallace;
- to get his fellow Constable Jason Dombroski to help him tackle Wallace physically using their PR 24 batons;
- to shoot to wound;
- or to shoot to stop.
Under cross-examination Prosecution Counsel John Rowan QC asked Abbott repeatedly if at various points Abbott had
considered using these alternative options. Always the answer was no. (see below for a fairly complete transcript of
this.)
“But there was time to think of them?” Rowan prodded again and again. “But I didn’t”, replied Abbott.
On its face this might seem a little unreasonable, but then over and above all this talk of “options” there is the
question of time. Sixty four seconds of time. Moreover what is at issue in the trial is not what Abbott could have done,
but what he was actually thinking.
Abbott said that to him the sixty four seconds, “seemed like ages”. Not so to Wilson and his three friends.
Wilson’s Holden Kingswood pulled into the side-street, around the corner from McLean Street, just as Wallace was
crossing the intersection walking towards two policemen. The policemen were pointing something at Wallace, Wilson said.
“The tall policeman told us to fuck off or something. But we hung around for a little bit.”
Q: “Did you hear anything?”
A: “Yes. Five or six gun shots. First one then a pause then four or five.”
Under re-examination by the prosecution Wilson was asked to recall the exact time periods again.
Q: “How long was there between losing sight of them and the shots?”
A: “Thirty seconds to one and a half minutes. Not quite a long time.”
Judge Chambers intervened to clarify, “you say quite a long time?”.
A: “No, not quite a long time. Basically we got out of the car and then it was all on.”
Q: “How long was there between the shots.”
A: “Bang….(1 second pause).. then bang, bang, bang, bang.”
And that was what the 64 seconds were like for Wilson. Just enough time to get out of his car, have a quick look around
and then bang…. bang, bang, bang, bang. It was “all on”.
And it is this 64 seconds that the Jury is asked to deliberate on in considering its verdict.
What was in Constable Abbott’s mind during this period? Did he fear for his life as he pulled the trigger? Did he think he had any other option available at the precise moment he fired? On this question rests the so-called “absolute
defence” to murder of self-defence. If Abbott thought he was in imminent danger of being killed by Wallace, if he
thought he had no other option, then he was entitled to pull the trigger to defend himself.
Till now the picture of what happened in these final few moments has been hazy. Several eye-witnesses have given
different accounts. And till now Constable Abbott himself has not given evidence in a court.
Today the Jury heard the direct evidence of Constable Abbott on this. Constable Abbott’s description of what happened
has already been covered already in… ”Abbott Murder Trial: Constable Abbott Takes The Stand”.
In this evidence Constable Abbott stated clearly that he was in fear for his life when he pulled the trigger, and that
he felt he had no other option. Under examination and cross-examination he stuck to his account, as first the defence
counsel Susan Hughes, and then Prosecutor John Rowan, who is prosecuting Abbott on behalf of Wallace’s family, canvassed
the available options during that crucial sixty four second period.
Firstly there was the option of waiting for the dog handler. Abbott said he didn’t know the handler was on his way. And that said, he had seen an offender fend off two dogs with a
baseball bat in the past.
Secondly there was his pepper spray, which he had with him, holstered on his utility belt. Pepper spray has a range of 1 to 3.5 meters.
“Initially when we approached he was well outside that range,” Abbott said. “When he hot within that range I had my
weapon drawn and not enough time to draw the pepper spray. Also I knew that it does not always work on a determined goal
driven person, intoxicated and the like. Had I used it and it not worked he would have been on top of me.”
“What about the other constables?”
“As far as I was concerned it was just me and Steven Wallace. Constable Herbert was 30ms to my left and Dombroski was to
my right somewhere.”
Then there was his PR 24 police baton and his brown belt karate skills. “Why didn’t you defend yourself with your baton,” Hughes asked.
“I consider this outside my capabilities. This was not an ordinary guy. He was enraged. Out of his tree. Even if all
three of is had taken him on one of us would have been killed or injured.”
And the “Shoot to wound” option. “In the Armed Offenders Squad we are always taught to shoot for the center body mass. If you shoot for legs, arms or
shoulders you can miss.” Abbott said that in a “combat” situation with a pistol there is not enough time to aim, “you
shoot instinctively, reflexively is what we say in the AOS.”
Abbott then recounted a previous situation when he was involved in an AOS operation to foil a bank robbery. Then he had
been shot at by a bank robber from a distance of just a couple of meters. He responded by shooting four shots with a
revolver at the offender, all four shots had missed.
Finally there was the tactical retreat option. “He got to such a point that I could not let him get any closer.” Abbott said that behind him was the kerb, some
planters and other obstacles. Had he tripped Wallace would have been on top of him.
And so, sixty four seconds after getting out of his car, and having walked backwards around 50 ms down McLean Street
away from Wallace, Abbott says he had no choice but to shoot to stop.
Q: “When you shot him what did he do?”
A: “He dropped the baseball bat. It seemed to happen slowly….. The bat rolled down the camber of the road into the
gutter. He slowly sank to his knees. He was still shouting abuse. To my amazement he stood up. Stooped at the waist. I
stayed in my location….. Mr Wallace went down on to his hands and knees and then rolled over onto his back…. I called
out for an ambulance and stayed in my spot.”
CROSS EXAMINATION
The cross-examination from John Rowan concentrated mainly on the option of tactical withdrawal. The account below starts
at the beginning of the sixty-four second period. At times in the exchange Rowan raised questions of consistency between
Constable Abbott’s description of events and those of other witnesses, it would appear that the prosecution case will be
based upon these inconsistencies.
Rowan: Initially you could have tactically withdrawn?
Abbott: There was no need to.
Rowan: But he was really angry?
Abbott: At that stage there was no reason to withdraw.
Rowan: There was time to consider withdrawing though?
Abbott: I didn’t.
Rowan: And it continued like that, you withdrawing backwards and him coming towards you?
Abbott: Yes
Rowan: He was taking no notice of what you were saying?
Abbott: No he wasn’t.
[McLean Street is four lanes wide with a median strip approximately a lane wide in the middle, overall the street is
17meters wide. ]
Rowan: You were still 20 meters apart when you drew your pistol?
Abbott: About.
Rowan: There were other options at that stage?
Abbott: Which ones?
Rowan: Tactical withdrawal, going towards Constable Dombroski, calling for assistance.
Abbott: I didn’t consider them.
Rowan: You knew Dombroski was armed and could cover you?
Abbott: He was in a position. But I didn’t know where.
Rowan: You could have called him. You didn’t?
Abbott: No.
Rowan: You could have moved and didn’t?
Abbott: No I stayed focussed on Mr Wallace.
Rowan: You knew that wracking [Sliding the cocking mechanism backwards and forwards] your pistol would wind him up?
Abbott: No. That was not my intention.
Rowan: You had time to withdraw?
Abbott: I did not consider withdrawing.
Rowan: He was coming at a constant pace?
Abbott: Yes.
Rowan: You had to take control?
Abbott: Yes.
Rowan: And use Constable Dombroski?
Abbott: I was trying to take control. I did not consider Dombroski at that stage?
Rowan: You could have called Dombroski to assist and formed a quick plan?
Abbott: Things were moving quite fast.
Rowan: But you were the experienced Police Officer who knew how to handle it?
Abbott: I would have hoped so.
Rowan: You said to this person, “put it down you little cunt”?
Abbott: Definitely not.
Rowan: And that wound him up?
Abbott: I did not use that word.
Rowan: And you got a response, “get fucked you bastards”?
Abbott: I told him to put his weapons down.
Rowan: You had room still to move all the way down the street?
Abbott: Things were moving very fast.
Rowan: But you had room to move?
Abbott: I was moving, backwards.
Rowan then asked Abbott about the testimony of two earlier witnesses, Messrs Luxton and Cooper, whose accounts of the
final few moments vary slightly from that of Abbott.
Mr Cooper said that rather than walking straight towards Abbott, Wallace had stayed on his own side of the road and that
they had tracked down the road walking in roughly parallel tracks.
Mr Luxton, whose flat overlooks the site of the actual shooting, said that before firing his warning shot Abbott had
advanced towards Wallace.
According to Abbott both witnesses were partially mistaken about what they saw, though he conceded eventually that as
Wallace had died in the middle of the median strip while advancing towards him across the road Wallace must have stayed
on his own side of the road for the entire 64 seconds of the standoff.
In relation to Mr Luxton’s evidence Mr Abbott said he had not advanced towards Wallace at any time, other than when he
first got out of the police car.
Approaching the final moments in the sixty-four second standoff the question line of the prosecution, and the answers
from Abbott, remained the same.
Rowan: You could have moved towards Constable Dombroski?
Abbott: I didn’t
Rowan: Surely at some stage you must have looked to see where Constable Dombroski was and what he was doing?
Abbott: No I didn’t?
Rowan: You must have wanted his help?
Abbott: It would have been helpful.
Rowan: Do you accept that at the time you fired the warning shot you could have moved away from Mr Wallace?
Abbott: No.
Rowan: If the separation was 20 meters and this man had a baseball bat, there was no reason to fire a warning shot at
him?
Abbott: I never fired a warning shot at him. I may have been wrong about the 20 meters.
Rowan: You had room to move laterally [sideways]?
Abbott: No.
Rowan: You could have glanced around and moved backwards.
Abbott: No I didn’t.
Rowan: But you had time to orientate yourself?
Abbott: No.
Rowan: The pace of his approach after the warning shot did not speed up did it?
Abbott: I got the distinct impression that it did. Along with his determination.
Rowan: You still had time to move quickly out of his path?
Abbott: No.
THE FATAL SHOTS
Nearing the end of the cross-examination Rowan question Abbott on the actual shooting. The prosecution alleges that the
third shot of four was the fatal shot, and that there was a pause between the first two shots and the second two shots.
Rowan: Is your training to fire a double tap? [A double tap is two shots in rapid succession]
Abbott: We do fire double taps. The main objective though is to stop the threat.
Rowan: You started your fire with a double tap?
Abbott: I recall three shots equally spaced. Bang. Bang. Bang.
Rowan: Do you accept four shots were fired.
Abbott: Yes.
Rowan: Do you accept the evidence of pathologist Dr Thompson that there was a space between the shots? [Note: The
Defence is going to call its own pathologist who has a different view on this.]
Abbott: I can only recall four shots. The warning shot and the three shots.
Rowan: Then how was Steven Wallace shot in the back?
Abbott: I can’t explain that.
Rowan: You have told us you were focussing on him. You must have seen movement before the fourth shot was fired?
Abbott: No I didn’t.
The trial is continuing.
In This Edition: Shoot, Don’t Shoot - A Reader Responds To Police Feedback
NOTE: Authors of this report will be anonymous and wide ranging, and occasionally finely balanced. Indeed you are
invited to contribute: The format is as a reporters notebook. It will be published as and when material is available.
C.D. Sludge can be contacted at sludge@scoop.co.nz. The Sludge Report is available as a free email service..Click HERE - http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/myscoop/ to subscribe...
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0106/2d4d04d1f86e4b53b0ab.jpeg
Steven Wallace As Shown In The 60 Minutes Re-enactment
Sludge Report #84
Shoot, Don’t Shoot
A 60 Minutes documentary screened last night (See… Shoot; Don't Shoot - 60 Mins On Steven Wallace) on TV1 raised significant questions about the shooting Waitara student Steven Wallace in the early hours of April 30th
last year.
In the report presented by Kim Webby and featuring footage of a re-enactment of the shooting incident (from which the
two accompanying images are taken), two experienced police officers, were interviewed about the police shooting. They
concluded, after considering the evidence as presented in the police report into the shooting, that the police officer
Keith Abbott – identified in the report as Constable A - seriously mishandled the incident.
Meanwhile, a Sludge Report reader strongly concurs with the conclusions of the two police officers.
Writing in response to police feedback on an earlier Sludge Report on the shooting, (See… Sludge Feedback: Police Re: Steven Wallace ), the reader expresses his views remarkably succinctly. So succinctly that C.D. Sludge feels no further explanation is
required.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/images/0106/a36e69d6115184f4cbe0.jpeg
Constable Keith Abbott As Shown In The 60 Minutes Re-enactment
A Reader Responds To Police Feedback
“Your correspondent, Michael Player, suggested this:
‘The investigation report is, at the moment, the only factual record on which to base any form of informed debate. The
purpose of the investigation was to establish whether there was any criminality or breach of the law. The report was
thoroughly scrutinised by the Office of the Solicitor General.’
Well, in keeping with Michael's style, and using the heavily edited police report as a reference, here are some facts:
FACT: Keith Abbot and Jason Dombroski made no attempt whatsoever to incapacitate or restrain Stephen Wallace with
non-lethal methods. They did not use mace, they did not rush him with riot shields and batons, they did not try to pin
him under the car, they did not cordon, contain and appeal, they did not try running away from Stephen - even though
Keith claimed that he , '..genuinely feared for..' his life.
The rather pathetic attempt to communicate with Stephen (well, it's alleged in the report...) went something like, "Can
we talk?" I think most people over 30 would know that that is a stupid thing to say to an angry young man. About as
stupid as saying, 'calm down'. Why is a person with sub-standard intelligence allowed to go out with a gun and do this
sort of thing? Commissioner Robinson, please answer if you can.
FACT: Three trained police'men' should be able to confront and restrain one boy with a bat. It's a public expectation.
I would ask, if they can't do this, why are they still in the police force?
FACT: Stephen Wallace did not pose a threat to Abbot or Dombroski - he was talking too much, and was moving too slow to
be a real threat.
FACT: Keith Abbot is taller than Stephen Wallace. This gave him a psychological and physical advantage over Stephen.
FACT: Keith Abbot is a gun freak who knew - before, during, and after he'd killed Stephen Wallace - of the lethality of
a handgun at close range - and still he made no attempt to restrain or otherwise incapacitate Stephen. In Abbot's mind,
there was no option but to shoot (ie. kill) Stephen.
FACT: Keith Abbot is a good enough marksman to have injured/incapacitated Stephen with one shot. He shot 5 times.
FACT: The police report uses a distorted and shrunken window of accountability to determine the lawfulness of Abbot's
actions.
Q: Why wasn't Abbot's omission to consider other means taken into consideration?
A: His actions can only be lawful if the time before the 'approach' is ignored, and the actions after the shooting are
ignored. How very convenient that they have.
FACT: Our law requires /reasonable/ use of force in self-defence.
FACT: Our law is riddled with the phrase, "any act or omission", and this is particularly apparent in the crimes act
regarding homicide.
FACT: Our law puts duties on us respecting the preservation of life.
FACT: Keith Abbot and Jason Dombroski did not use reasonable force, they omitted to consider or /attempt/ non-lethal
alternatives and they left Stephen to die on the street alone. They treated a dying young man as a 'crime scene'.
FACT: Abbot and Dombroski, through their solicitor, don't want to testify at the coroners inquest unless they're assured
that they won't be subject to a private prosecution.
Their actions were disgusting. Their actions were cowardly. And to top it all off, their actions appear to be perverting
justice.
There used to be a tradition of courage and ingenuity in the Police. Now it appears, all we have is a legally sanctioned
gang of boys with guns who are encouraged to roam around and commit acts of physical and economic violence.
And I put it to Michael Player; the only reason NZ Police haven't acted properly in this matter, is that to do so would
open the organisation to the scrutiny it so desperately needs. An honourable reason to ignore the law, yes?
LINKS:
TVNZ Publicity On The 60 Minutes Report- http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/GE0106/S00023.htm
Shoot; Don't Shoot - 60 Mins On Steven Wallace
Earlier C.D. Sludge - http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0105/S00106.htm
Sludge Report #65 – Killing The Silence
Sludge Report #66 – Steven Wallace’s Last Words
Police Response To Sludge #65 - http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0106/S00049.htm
Sludge Feedback: Police Re: Steven Wallace
Justice Campaigner Dermot Nottingham’s Report - http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0105/S00140.htm
One Law For All - The Steven Wallace Killing
Anti©opyright Sludge 2001