YES    NO                 

Follow the trial and see if Keith Abbot is found guilty.

If Constable Keith Abbot is found Guilty or Innocent. True Justice would have been served.

DISCLAIMER

4the December 2002

Constable Keith Abbott held his head high as he walked from the Wellington High Court.

The first New Zealand police officer to face a private prosecution for killing in the line of duty was acquitted of a charge of murder by a jury that deliberated for less than three hours.

After the verdict, Police Commissioner Rob Robinson promised he would seek legislation to prevent any other officers going through Constable Abbott's ordeal

The officer was escorted from the court building by armed diplomatic protection squad members, having heard Justice Robert Chambers express the hope that he and his family could finally get on with their lives.

Constable Abbott's actions on the main street of Waitara during a 64-second confrontation on April 30, 2000, not only took the life of Steven Wallace, but changed the policeman's life irrevocably.

In the days after the shooting, sympathisers with the Wallace family waved the Maori sovereignty flag above the Taranaki township and spoke of racism and retribution.

Police in Waitara and New Plymouth received threatening phone calls, one telling the operator people would come to the station and "blow staff's heads off".

Constable Abbott, who is Maori from his mother's side, had lived in Waitara for 20 years.

After the killing he and his family were moved to safety.

His wife, Lois Abbott, a registered nurse, left her job and their young sons were taken from kindergarten and primary school.

The family home, where their sons were born, was sold at a $15,000 loss.

Court suppression orders prevent the Herald revealing where the family went.

Justice Chambers described the past 2 1/2 years as a period of great stress for the family.

To Constable Abbottt, he said: "You and your family have been subject to attacks and threats and it is well known that you have had to relocate."

To the Wallace family, he said everyone felt for the loss of their son. The case had been an important one for New Zealand, and taking a private prosecution was a right that they had exercised.

Although they had not succeeded, he hoped that they would accept it was a fair trial.

"Constable Abbott and his family must be able to get on with their lives in safety and without threat, and I hope you get on with yours."

When the verdicts were read to the court, Constable Abbott maintained the same composure he had throughout the trial.

His wife, whose every movement outside the court was guarded by armed police, clasped the hand of a friend and smiled.

Outside the court Constable Abbott maintained his silence.

Much earlier, in a affidavit he supplied in an attempt to keep his name secret, he spoke of the effect the incident had had on his life.

If his identity became public, he said: "I will always be known as the police officer who shot Steven Wallace".

In the affidavit, Constable Abbott said he had been subjected to a number of threats, and had been forced into protective custody.

"It is difficult to describe the turmoil and distress my family and I are enduring. We are receiving counselling. In effect our lives will, irrespective of the publication of my name, be turned upside down for what I consider was simply me doing my job."

The family home, he said, was full of distress and stress caused by the "dislocation" of family and the sense that they were "on the run from the media and those who threaten us".

Yesterday Police Association president Greg O'Connor said the joy of the verdict was tempered by the "unacceptable hell" the Abbott family had been through.

"The state must provide better protection for those it expects to move into dangerous circumstances," he said.

Commissioner Robinson said he had spoken to the Police and Justice Ministers about further legislative protections for officers on duty.

"My officers are on the streets day after day, putting their lives at risk. I believe there is an opportunity for Government to offer further protection to officers."

Mr Robinson said Constable Abbott and his family would enjoy a well-earned break, and it was hoped he would return to police work in the New Year.

Outside the court, Steven Wallace's father, Jim, thanked all those who had supported the family in taking the private prosecution.

The Wallace family have re-mortgaged their house, raised money through sausage sizzles, raffles and hangi, and received donations from across the country.

Mrs Raewyn Wallace said the verdict was a sad day for New Zealand, but she was glad the prosecution had reached the courts.

All the case did was show the "incompetence" of the police, in not using their batons, dogs, and spray against her son.

She began to talk of loving her son and "he wasn't a bad person" when she was drowned out by her daughter, Kelly, who told her to "shut the f*** up, mum".

Kelly later threw a glass bottle at reporters and left hurling abuse at the police.

Keith Abbott's 31-month agony

April 30, 2000 - Constable Keith Abbott shoots and kills Steven Wallace in Waitara.

May 2000 - Te Puni Kokiri - the Ministry of Maori Development - issues a paper on allegedly racist incidents involving Waitara police.

May 2000 - The Herald wins the right to publish the name of Constable Abbott but decides not to use it at that stage.

August 2000 - An internal police criminal inquiry and Police Complaints Authority investigation find that Constable Abbott had acted lawfully.

September 2000 - Race Relations Conciliator Dr Rajen Prasad says race relations are no worse in Taranaki than in other places, but recommends changes to address a "systems failure" in dealing with Maori-Pakeha relations.

September 2001 - The family of Steven Wallace take out a private prosecution accusing the officer of murder.

October 2001 - Two High Court judges rule that Constable Abbott should not have name suppression.

January 2002 - After a three-week depositions hearing in Taranaki to determine if Constable Abbott will be tried for murder, two justices of the peace rule that the police officer acted in self-defence. The case is dismissed.

June 2002 - Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias examines the JPs' decision and rules that a High Court jury should decide whether Constable Abbott murdered Mr Wallace.

November 18, 2002 - Constable Abbott's murder trial begins in the High Court at Wellington.

December 4, 2002 - A jury finds Constable Abbott not guilty.

The jury in the country's first private prosecution of a police officer for murder has found Senior Constable Keith Abbott not guilty.

The 11 jurors at the High Court trial in Wellington took less than 3 hours to decide, returning their verdict about 4.15pm today.

The Wallace family brought a private prosecution against Constable Abbott for fatally shooting 23-year-old Steven Wallace on April 30, 2000.

Constable Abbott had approached Mr Wallace during an early morning window-smashing spree in the Taranaki township of Waitara.

During the trial, prosecutors said Constable Abbott had other options and did not need to shoot Mr Wallace four times.

The Wallace family lawyer, John Rowan, QC, said that the last, ultimate and lethal option was the only one taken by Abbott the night he shot Mr Wallace.

There was no justification for the number of shots when Mr Wallace had only a baseball bat that was not a distance weapon, he said.

But Constable Abbott told the trial he genuinely feared for his life in the seconds before he pulled the trigger.

He also feared that the man advancing on him with a softball bat may have had a gun in his car.

"I believed if he got to me he would do me serious harm," he said. "I genuinely feared for my life."

Abbott said he fired three shots instinctively at the man's body. He felt he had no alternative.

The Police Association union greeted the verdict by saying staff and officers were elated.

But the Association also used the decision to urge greater legal protection for police officers.

Association president Greg O'Connor said joy at the verdict was tempered by thoughts of the "unacceptable hell" Mr Abbott and his wife had been "unnecessarily put through over the past two and a half years".

Mr O'Connor said the court case set a precedent. Officers who used lethal force in future could expect to face a similar ordeal to Mr Abbott.

The Crown Solicitor and Police Commissioner had both found Mr Abbott's actions to be justified, Mr O'Connor said.

Anonymity and freedom from prosecution were just as important for protecting law-abiding police officers as their duty belts and patrol cars.

"The state must provide better protection for those it expects to move into dangerous circumstances."

The Association paid for Mr Abbott's legal costs. Mr O'Connor said Mr Abbott was a credit to the force, and it had been a "privilege" to represent him.

03.12.2002

Constable Jillian Herbert shows how Steven Wallace wielded his bat. Picture / Mark Mitchell

A constable who watched the fatal shooting of Steven Wallace said yesterday she was afraid he was going to "bash the living daylights" out of her and her colleagues.

Constable Jillian Herbert said she wondered why Constable Keith Abbott kept trying to talk to Mr Wallace as he went towards him with a softball bat.

"I thought 'why don't you shoot him. Shoot him and stop him from getting to you'," Constable Herbert told the Wellington High Court.

Constable Abbott is on trial for the murder of Mr Wallace on April 30, 2000.

He fatally shot Mr Wallace after approaching him during an early morning window-smashing spree in the Taranaki township of Waitara.

The landmark private prosecution brought by the Wallace family is expected to end this week.

Constable Herbert said Mr Wallace had attacked her police car shortly after she arrived in Waitara on the morning of the shooting.

She said she had parked near his car when Mr Wallace approached with a long weapon and hit her car.

Her police partner told her to put the car into reverse, but as she tried Mr Wallace came to the side of the car and hit both the front and side window.

She said he smashed the side window and she was showered in glass. "There was so much effort behind his swings that I knew that if I hadn't got that car into reverse that golf club would have come right through," she said. "He just looked like he was real angry. In a real rage."

Constable Herbert later watched as two colleagues approached Mr Wallace with guns drawn.

She said she heard the officers warn Mr Wallace that they were armed, but he headed for Constable Abbott and threatened to kill him.

"He had a really, really aggressive stance ... I thought his intentions were that he was just going to bash the living daylights out of him [Constable Abbott]."

Constable Herbert said she was so scared of Mr Wallace that she did not want to go near him even after he was shot.

Under cross-examination from Mike Behrens, QC, Constable Herbert agreed that her evidence had differed from the statement she made on the day of the shooting.

The "armed police, put down your weapons" warning she recounted was not in the statement.

Nor were the threatening words she said she heard Mr Wallace say to Constable Abbott.

Mr Behrens asked if she had made up the memories.

Constable Herbert said she had not.

Later in the day Superintendent Neville Matthews told the court that New Zealand police were trained to shoot for centre body mass - not to shoot to wound.

He said any shots were aimed to bring about incapacitation as quickly as possible.

Police did not shoot to wound because it increased the danger of missing, and possibly hitting someone else. It also meant officers would be more likely to shoot at a lower level of threat.

Superintendent Matthews said this policy was similar to those used by police in England, Wales, Hong Kong and Australia.

The jury heard from Sergeant Kevin Gatfield, who said that people could still move forward even after they were shot.

Officers had to be ready to shoot again until the target was stopped.

The court also heard that Senior Sergeant Kevin Moran had recently attempted a test on a police issue PR-24 baton using an aluminium softball bat.

The baton broke the second time it was struck by the bat.

Forensic pathologist Martin Sage disputed earlier evidence the jury had heard about the sequence of shots fired at Mr Wallace.

Dr Sage said he believed the first shot fired at Mr Wallace was the fatal one that entered his liver.

The jury had previously heard from another pathologist who said the fatal shot had been the third shot fired.

29.11.2002

The man who brought a ground-breaking private prosecution against a police officer he accuses of murdering his son went into the witness box in the High Court at Wellington today.

Senior Constable Keith Abbott fatally shot Waitara man Steven Wallace, 23, about 4am on April 30 2000.

Four shots hit Mr Wallace in Waitara's main street. He died later in hospital.

Police decided not to charge Abbott, but Mr Wallace's father Jim, brought the first private prosecution against police for murder.

Mr Wallace today answered questions about the morning his son died.

Defence lawyer Patrick Mooney asked Mr Wallace about Steven Wallace's return home in the early hours of April 30.

Mr Wallace said he was woken by the "screeching of tyres and loud music" and went outside to his son Steven in his car.

He refused to come inside when asked and drove off but returned a short time later.

Mr Wallace said he heard him kick a fence.

He could not say what sort of mood Steven Wallace was in.

Mr Wallace acknowledged his wife Raewyn had earlier called 111 but did not say why.

He said his son was a very good softball player.

Jarrod Atkinson told the court he saw Steven Wallace, with a softball bat and golf club, smashing shop windows sometime after 3.30am.

Mr Atkinson had returned to Waitara from an outing at a pub in New Plymouth where he had seen Mr Wallace drinking earlier in the evening.

He and some friends had stopped to see what Mr Wallace was doing while he smashed the windows but were frightened away.

"Yes he did (see us). He looked at us and came forward to us in a very staunch manner, with his weapons in the air," he said.

"If we didn't take off I think he would have done something...he was very wild, his eyes were very big."

The group later saw Mr Wallace advancing towards a policeman in the middle of McLean Street.

Mr Atkinson said he heard the officer telling him to "f--- off".

He also heard Mr Wallace say to the officer: "what the f--- are you going to do about it?"

He saw Mr Wallace advance on police before he heard shots fired. The group then left the scene.

The case was adjourned this morning and is set to resume next week.

Prosecution Expert Casts Doubt On Police Account Of Wallace Shooting

28 November 2002

An expert witness for the prosecution in the murder trial of Senior Constable Keith Abbott, has raised serious doubts on the accuracy of a police witness’ account of the events leading up to the fatal shooting of Steven Wallace in Waitara.

In April 2000, Wallace broke windows and attacked a police car before being shot dead after a confrontation with Abbott and another police officer, Constable Jason Dombroski. Abbott has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him, claiming that he acted in self-defence.

Peter Wilson, an experienced ESR (Environmental Science & Research Limited) forensic scientist, attended Wallace’s post mortem, examined the scene of the shooting, and conducted firing tests on Abbott’s Glock pistol. Wilson’s evidence throws doubt on the accuracy on oral evidence given by Dombroski last Wednesday, and on a written statement given by Abbott some 4 hours after the shooting which was read to the Court today.

At the centre of the inconsistencies raised by Wilson is evidence that Wallace’s body bore 4 bullet wounds, including a wound to the back. Last week Dombroski testified that Abbott fired 3 shots at an enraged Wallace as he launched a frontal assault on Abbott with a raised baseball bat.

This mirrors a written statement made by Abbott shortly after the shooting which was read to the Court today. Wilson’s forensic evidence challenges these accounts, suggesting that one of the 4 shots was fired into Wallace’s back as he was doubled over with his back to Abbott.

Wilson also suggested that the position of 5 bullet cartridges at the scene was inconsistent with Abbott’s supposed position, which was allegedly marked with tape by Dombroski shortly after the shooting.

Wilson testified that tests on the ejection pattern of cartridges from Abbott’s pistol, suggested that Abbott would have been in a position to the left of the marked position. Wilson’s evidence follows an allegation made last week by another prosecution witness, Barbara George, that she saw Dombroski pick something up from the road in the moments before ambulances arrived to tend to Wallace. Dombroski has denied this allegation.

Earlier in the day, the jury heard evidence from three further police personnel, including two senior police officers.

Constable Michael Sandle was an experienced doghandler who had been called to Waitara and was about to set out on short drive from his home when he learned of Wallace’s shooting and was told to stand down. The prosecution alleges that Abbott and Dombroski should have waited for Sandle’s arrival before attempting to confront the enraged and intoxicated Wallace.

Sandle and his dog, Jero, were experienced in the apprehension and pursuit of armed offenders. Susan Hughes, cross-examining Sandle for the defence, established that the use of a dog was no guarantee for successfully apprehending and disarming an armed offender.

Detective Senior Sergeant Grant Coward trained with Abbott and is a senior New Plymouth police officer who led the early stages of the investigation into Wallace’s shooting. He also served with Abbott as a member of the police’s Armed Offenders Squad (AOS).

Coward described receiving a call from Abbott shortly after 4am in which a “concerned” Abbott informed him that he had shot someone in Waitara. Upon being asked if the victim was dead, Abbott responded “No, but he could die”.

Coward described speaking briefly to Abbott at the Waitara Police Station, where he suggested that Abbott be interviewed. In response to questions by John Rowan QC for the prosecution, Coward testified that he had not conducted any firearm residue tests on Abbott or Dombroski, and had not conducted anything other than a cursory examination of the officers’ firearms.

Coward also confirmed that he had not required that a blood sample be taken from Abbott. A blood test, which is normally used for matching to evidence at the scene, could also have been used to detect the presence of “other substances”, such as alcohol or drugs.

The impression given by Coward’s testimony was that Abbott’s version of events had been taken at face value, and that normal procedure had not been followed with its usual strictness.

The jury was then shown a police training video about the use of the long-handled baton, which Abbott had with him on the night of 30 April 2000. A variety of assailants armed with baseball bats and piping were repulsed and disarmed using the baton.

An important part of the prosecution’s case is that Abbott and Dombroski had other less extreme means at their disposal to apprehend Wallace. Susan Hughes cross-examined Coward for the defence. Coward testified that, in his opinion, Wallace presented too much of a danger for Abbott and the other officers on the scene to have safely waited for the doghandler to arrive. He also said that he would not have deployed the three officers on the scene any differently.

The jury also learned more about Abbott’s character and personal qualities. The Court heard how Abbott excelled in marksmanship, and was a member of two gun clubs in New Plymouth.

The Court was also told of the intensive training Abbott underwent as part of his selection and induction into the AOS. Both Sandle and Coward considered themselves to be close friends of Abbott and spoke highly of his qualities both as a police officer and as a person.

In defense cross examination by Susan Hughes, a picture emerged of Abbott as mild mannered, even tempered and a good communicator, an “outstanding” police officer whose judgement was beyond reproach.

Hughes also delved into a previous incident in 1991 when Abbott and other AOS members foiled an armed bank raid by members of the Mongrel Mob in Motorua. Coward spoke of Abbott’s bravery in facing an offender armed with a shotgun, which was fired at him from close range.

Next in the witness box was Detective Senior Sergeant Garth Bryan who interviewed Abbott later in the morning of 30 April 2000, and had taken a written statement from him.

Bryan read Abbott’s statement to the Court. In it Abbott speaks of finishing the late shift in Waitara at 11pm, and then having a cup of tea, some food and watching TV before retiring to bed at around midnight.

Abbott’s statement closely matched the evidence given last Wednesday by Constable Jason Dombroski. Abbott did, however, state that he believed that Dombroski was alone at the scene and was unaware that Constable Jillian Herbert, who remained in a patrol car, had accompanied him.

This will provide further evidence to support the prosecution’s contention that Abbott, as the senior officer on the scene, should have developed a more coherent plan to intercept Wallace, rather than hastily drawing firearms and rushing out to apprehend him.

Bryan read Abbott’s account of the escalating tension in the moments preceding Wallace’s shooting. Abbott spoke of Wallace behaving dangerously and erratically, and his fears that he may have had a firearm in the boot of his car.

Wallace shouted words to the effect that “You are persecuting me and I have had enough” before threatening to “do” Abbott. Abbott claimed to have feared for his life as he retreated before an incensed Wallace who hurried towards him brandishing a baseball bat.

Interestingly, Abbott’s account also spoke of three shots being fired at Wallace. This is consistent with Dombroski’s testimony, but is challenged by the forensic evidence presented by Peter Wilson today and by other prosecution witnesses present in Waitara that night. At this stage Abbott himself is not expected to give oral evidence.

On a technical level, the charge against Abbott was today amended to one of murder only. In practice this will make little difference: Justice Chambers directed that the jury could still find Abbott not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter if his plea that he acted in self defence in shooting Wallace fails.

The Court will convene early tomorrow morning to hear evidence from David Painter, another expert witness for the prosecution. Painter is currently in the United Kingdom and his evidence will be presented to the jury by satellite link. Mr. Wilson will then conclude his evidence.

The trial is expected to continue for the next fortnight, with 3 members of the Wallace family anticipated to give their evidence later this week.

Firing A Warning Shot At Wallace “Simply The Worst Thing I Could Imagine”, Prosecution Expert Claims

Wednesday, 27 November 2002

The jury has been hearing more evidence from prosecution experts on the sixth day of the Keith Abbott murder trial yesterday. Following evidence given Monday, the testimony from the prosecution’s expert witnesses has raised more questions on the accuracy of police testimony of the shooting.

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.

Justice Chambers discharged one member of the jury of 8 men and 4 women early this afternoon. The reasons for the judge’s decision cannot be reported. However, Justice Chambers told the jury in open court that the reasons did not reflect badly on the juror, the prosecution or the defence, and should not be the subject of speculation by the remaining 11 jurors who will now reach a verdict on Abbott’s guilt or innocence.

This morning, the jury heard from David Painter, an expert in police dog handling.

Painter, who gave his evidence by video link from the United Kingdom, was the Chief Dog Handler for the New Zealand Police for 7 years until his retirement. Examined by John Rowan QC for the prosecution, Painter gave his opinion that a police dog and handler, supported by 3 police personnel on the scene, should have been able to apprehend a single offender armed with a baseball bat.

Although there was some risk that the dog could be injured or even killed, Painter suggested that this was a preferable alternative to human death or injury. Patrick Mooney, cross-examining Painter for the defence, extracted a grudging concession from Painter that there was no guarantee that an armed offender could be disarmed. However, Painter stuck by his opinion that he would have expected them to be successful.

Much of the expert evidence today focussed on the sequence and timing of the shots fired by Abbott at Wallace, and on the forensic evidence found at the scene.

Peter Wilson, an ESR scientist who began giving his evidence Monday, restated his view that Wallace was shot four times: twice in the upper arms, once in the sternum and lastly once in the back.

The prosecution alleges that the shot to the sternum, which bisected Wallace’s liver, was the fatal wound. The defence does not dispute this, but will suggest in its own expert evidence that the sternum shot was the first shot fired.

The defence, in cross-examination by Susan Hughes, also took steps to establish that Abbott had not moved when shooting Wallace. Given the impact of the bullets on Wallace’s body and the energy that would thereby be transferred, the prosecution experts conceded that the likeliest scenario was Wallace spinning round before the shot to his back

Attention also focussed on forensic evidence found at the scene, with two of the prosecution experts today (Wilson and Maubach) expressing their view that Abbott’s position, as marked by Dombroski, was not consistent with the position of cartridge shells at the scene.

The suspicion raised is that either Abbott’s position was marked incorrectly, or that the cartridge cases were moved in some way. As Maubach observed, given the cartridge ejection pattern of a Glock pistol, Abbott must have shot Wallace with his pistol upside down for the cartridges to be ejected to his left.

In questions put to Wilson, Justice Chambers also probed another evidential anomaly: that one bullet was found behind the position from which Abbott is alleged to have shot Wallace. Peter Wilson said that he had agonised over this issue, and could only conclude that the bullet had been picked up, examined and then discarded, or had been trapped inadvertently in the sole of a shoe and carried to this position.

The Court then heard from Dr. Kenneth Thomson, an experienced consultant forensic pathologist from Wellington. Thomson elaborated on points made by Wilson in his evidence about the sequence of shots, and the position of the wounds on Wallace’s body.

During prosecution questioning by John Rowan QC, Thomson stated his view that the logical sequence of shots followed that presented by Wilson. In particular, Thomson asserted that the position of the arms when the first two shots were fired would block a shot into the sternum.

The impact of the two bullets on Wallace’s arms, which shattered the bones in his forearm, would have caused the arms to drop leaving a clear path for the fatal wound. In defence cross examination by Susan Hughes, Thomson admitted that he could not completely reject the sequence of shots presented by the defence, but maintained that he preferred his interpretation as the more logical.

Last in the witness box today was Bernard Maubach, the prosecution expert on police operational procedure, instruction and policy. Maubach is a retired senior German police officer who emigrated to New Zealand in 1978, and who headed various counter terrorism units in Germany. He was involved in police operations against the Black September movement (who shot dead Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics), the notorious Baader-Meinhof gang, and the raid on Entebbe Airport near Kampala, Uganda during Idi Amin’s despotic regime.

Maubach gave the Court his opinion that a confrontation with an unpredictable and aggressive offender armed with a baseball bat was not unusual. He asserted that Abbott and the other police officers at the scene could and should have used other options to defuse the situation.

He robustly stated his opinion that confronting an unpredictable offender with a firearm would just inflame the situation and was not necessary. A more patient and measured approach was required, particularly as Wallace was not armed with a firearm and was only damaging property. In his view, firing a warning shot was, “simply the worst thing I could imagine”, and was not part of police policy and training in the use of firearms.

The prosecution expert evidence is expected to conclude tomorrow, and the defence could open its case as early as tomorrow afternoon.

The case is continuing.

27 November 2002

Expert witness tells Abbott trial that police should sidestep potentially violent situations

The High Court in Wellington has been told that trained police officers should sidestep potentially violent situations until help arrives.

Constable Keith Abbott faces a private prosecution for murder brought by Steven Wallace's family after his death two and a half years ago.

Former German police officer Bernard Maubach told the court that a trained member of the Armed Offenders Squad would have stood back from the situation.

He says that if officers are not in danger of being harmed by someone in an aggressive frame of mind, they should sidestep the situation.

Bernard Maubach says there would be no need for police to take quick action if all the offender was doing was smashing windows.

26.11.2002

A ballistics expert has told the Wellington Court that the police officer who shot Steven Wallace fired at him more times than necessary

.

26.11.2002

The policeman accused of murdering Waitara man Steven Wallace genuinely feared for his life in the seconds before he pulled the trigger, a court heard yesterday.

He also feared that the man advancing on him with a softball bat may have had a gun in his car.

Constable Keith Abbott shot Mr Wallace, 23, who had been smashing windows in Waitara in the early hours of April 30, 2000.

Abbott is standing trial for murder in an historic private prosecution brought by the Wallace family.

In the High Court at Wellington yesterday, Justice Robert Chambers instructed the jury that Abbott no longer faced an alternative charge of manslaughter, which had been in place since the trial began last week.

But he said that did not prevent the jury from delivering a verdict of manslaughter.

The court yesterday heard Detective Senior Sergeant Garth Bryan read a statement he had taken from Abbott shortly after the shooting.

Abbott, speaking at 8.50am and in the presence of his lawyer, Susan Hughes, said he had been woken by a phone call at 3.50am on April 30.

He was asked to help other officers apprehend someone who was smashing windows.

He dressed in trackpants and sneakers and went to the police station.

Abbott saw a man smash store windows and then attack a police vehicle.

The man then opened his car boot, and Abbott feared there may be a gun inside.

He and another officer then armed themselves with pistols from the nearby police station.

They did not discuss what they were going to do.

"We were in a hurry and were only in the station for a short time."

Abbott said he did not realise a third police officer was also at the scene.

When the two armed officers approached the man, he advanced on them and yelled expletives.

He threw a golf club at Abbott.

The policeman said he repeatedly warned the man, who he thought was someone else, that he was armed.

Abbott retreated as the man continued to advance quickly, and felt his escape was being cut off.

"I believed if he got to me he would do me serious harm," he said. "I genuinely feared for my life."

Abbott said he fired three shots instinctively at the man's body. He felt he had no alternative.

Prosecution evidence shows Mr Wallace was shot four times.

Forensic scientist Dr Peter Wilson told the court that tests had been carried out on the pistol Abbott had used.

The tests monitored the ejection pattern of cartridges from the gun.

When the results were compared with where the actual cartridges were found at the scene of the shooting, it appeared that Abbott could not have been standing in the position that had been marked as his.

The court also heard yesterday that Abbott had been shot at during an Armed Offenders Squad incident in 1991.

Detective Senior Sergeant Grant Coward told the court that a man with a shotgun had fired at Abbott during an attempted bank robbery.

The shot was from close range.

He said Abbott fired four shots in response but did not hit anyone.

Under cross-examination, Mr Coward told Ms Hughes that Abbott had not deviated from his duty when he was fired at, and had shown courage.

He also said that Abbott had been involved in another Armed Offenders Squad incident where a man used a softball bat to beat off two police dogs.

Abbott had been involved in an Armed Offenders Squad training camp three days before the shooting.

The camp included scenarios on how to approach armed people.

In a police training video shown to the court, an officer used a baton to disarm a man who attacked him with a softball bat.

Under cross-examination, Mr Coward said he would not have used a baton on someone who was intent on hitting him with a softball bat.

22 November 2002
Trial of Constable Keith Abbott charged with murder and manslaughter over shooting of Wallace resumes on Monday A rest today for the jury hearing the private prosecution against Constable Keith Abbott.

The officer faces charges of murder and manslaughter over the shooting of Steven Wallace at Waitara in April 2000.

Yesterday the jury heard from Sergeant Robert Nelson O'Keefe who was in charge at Waitara and arrived minutes after the shooting.

He said Abbott told him a man had gone crazy and was smashing up the town.

He said the man kept on coming after the constable fired a warning shot.

Sergeant O'Keefe later told defence counsel Susan Hughes the constable was a very good officer and he would have him back if the opportunity arose.

The trial resumes on Monday.

22 November 2002

Sergeant Robert O'Keefe, in charge of Waitara station at the time of the shooting, said Abbott thought he had shot David Toa, who had been smashing up the town and kept coming for him even after a warning shot was fired.

Mr O'Keefe said a car at the scene was registered to Steven Wallace, and when his photograph was obtained he was confirmed as the man shot.

Abbott has pleaded not guilty to alternative charges of the murder or manslaughter of Mr Wallace, 23, in the main street of the Taranaki town about 4am on April 30, 2000.

The prosecution's case is that Abbott did not need to shoot Mr Wallace and other options should have been tried.

Abbott has said through his lawyers, Susan Hughes and Patrick Mooney, that the shooting was in self-defence after Mr Wallace threatened him with a softball bat.

Sergeant Fiona Prestidge, who gave evidence yesterday, was in charge of policing the New Plymouth area, which included Waitara, the morning Mr Wallace was shot.

She went to Waitara after it was reported before 4am that windows at the police station and other buildings had been smashed.

An occupied police car had also been attacked by a golf club-wielding man.

Earlier Abbott had been called from his Waitara home to help a two-person patrol sent from New Plymouth.

Ms Prestidge told the court a man was lying on his back on the main street of Waitara when she arrived. He was rolling from side to side and yelling incoherently.

Some blood was visible. As the minutes passed he moved less and made less noise.

She said she went to him after "quite a few minutes" and lifted some of his clothing. She said he was no longer conscious. She folded a sling and put it under his bleeding shoulder, and left him on his back.

Ms Prestidge said people watching from their front gate challenged her as to why first aid care was not being given. They gave her a blanket to put over him. Ms Prestidge said the blanket was placed over the lower part of the man's body.

Under cross-examination she said she trusted the judgement of Abbott and the other officer in their decision to arm themselves to deal with the incident.

She agreed that even in hindsight, she would not change any decisions she made during the incident.

The trial, before Justice Chambers, resumes on Monday.

21 November 2002 Police sergeant gives evidence in trial of Constable Abbott - says wouldn't change any of her decisions made on night A police sergeant says even with the benefit of hindsight, she would not change any of her decisions made on the night Steven Wallace was shot.

Constable Keith Abbott is on trial in the High Court in Wellington accused of the murder or manslaughter of Mr Wallace at Waitara in April 2000.

Sergeant Fiona Prestidge told the jury she was in charge at the New Plymouth police station on the night of the shooting.

She directed Constable Jason Dombroski to Waitara and the calling-out of Constable Abbott.

She knew they were drawing weapons at the Waitara police station and saw no reason to intervene, trusting their judgement.

Sergeant Prestidge said when she arrived at the scene, she questioned Constable Dombroski on what had happened.

She said Constable Abbott was still standing in the street waiting for his position to be marked.

She said he heard what Constable Dombroski told her, and acknowledged he had shot the man.

Sergeant Prestidge also told the High Court of the first aid she gave to Steven Wallace at the scene.

She said when she first saw Steven Wallace he was lying on his back on the road and she saw a wound on his shoulder.

She said it was bloodied, and didn't appear to need a compression bandage but she did it anyway.

22.11.2002

The policeman accused of murdering Steven Wallace was quite shaken in the minutes after the shooting, a court heard yesterday.

He later told his senior officer he thought he had shot a different man.

Constable Keith Abbott shot Mr Wallace, 23, in the early hours of April 30, 2000, after approaching him during a window-smashing spree in the Taranaki town of Waitara.

A historic private prosecution for murder with an alternative charge of manslaughter taken by the Wallace family entered its fourth day yesterday before a jury in the High Court at Wellington. Abbott has pleaded not guilty.

The most senior officer in the Waitara police station at the time of the shooting, Sergeant Robert O'Keefe, told the court he arrived at the scene about 4am to find a shaken Abbott.

Mr O'Keefe said he could see a man lying on the road. After putting emergency tape around the area, he put Abbott into his car and asked him if he knew who had been shot.

Abbott gave a name, but it was not that of Steven Wallace. It was another local man.

The court heard that Abbott then said: "He's just gone crazy and smashed up the town. He kept coming at me. I fired a warning shot but he just kept coming at me."

It was not until later, when the registration number of Mr Wallace's car was checked, that the identity of the shot man was revealed.

Under cross-examination, Mr O'Keefe was asked by Susan Hughes if an officer should run away from a confrontation.

He replied "no". He agreed that the police had a duty to protect the public.

Under re-examination by Mike Behrens, QC, he agreed that a move known as a tactical withdrawal could apply to a situation where there were two police officers and one angry offender.

He said he would not call that running away.

Earlier in the day, the court heard from Sergeant Fiona Prestidge, the senior officer on duty in New Plymouth on the night of the shooting.

She said the radio calls coming in from officers indicated that the incident in Waitara was serious.

She was very confident that the officers could respond appropriately to the situation.

Ms Prestidge arrived after the shooting and watched as Constable Jason Dombroski put marking tape around Abbott's position.

Nothing else at the scene was marked at the time.

Asked by John Rowan, QC, what she could see of Mr Wallace, she said he was on his back on the road.

"He was moving about, rolling about from side to side.

"He was yelling when I first arrived, quite loud but incoherent. As the minutes passed, he moved less and made less verbal sounds."

She later went closer to him and observed gunshot wounds, but no spurting blood.

After prompting from a neighbouring couple, she said a blanket was put on Mr Wallace's lower body.

Ms Prestidge said the scene was under police control. She and other officers told members of the public to stay away.

Under cross-examination, she said she had no difficulty with the officers' decision to draw guns.

If she had, she would have told them.

20.11.2002

Witnesses to the April 2000 killing of Steven Wallace yesterday described to the High Court at Wellington how he was shot several times as he advanced on police.

Mr Wallace's father, Jim, has taken a groundbreaking private prosecution charging murder and an alternative of manslaughter against Senior Constable Keith Abbott, 48. Abbott has pleaded not guilty.

Witness Barbara George said she heard her former partner say to Abbott after the shooting, "You didn't have to shoot the poor ... four or five times."

Ms George said Abbott replied: "You want to go back to school and count, learn how to count."

A jury of eight men and four women have been told that Mr Wallace, 23, had been drinking and smashed windows of shops and vehicles - including an occupied police car - about 4am on April 30, 2000, in Waitara, Taranaki.

A prosecution team alleges the shooting was unnecessary and less violent means should have been tried first.

The defence says Abbott fired in self-defence. Mr Wallace was armed with a softball bat.

Former taxi driver Edward Cooper said he saw two police officers walking backwards in Waitara's main street, one of them pointing at a third person. The third person was getting closer to the retreating police.

Mr Cooper said he heard a shot, and then four more.

Cross-examined, Mr Cooper said the distance between the police and the third person was more than halved during the 30 seconds he watched.

But he did not agree that the third man was closing off the line of retreat of one of the officers. He agreed the third man gave no indication of stopping his advance.

Waitara shopkeeper Tom Kettle, who knew Mr Wallace and his family, as well as Abbott, went to investigate the burglar alarm activated when windows were broken nearby.

He followed a man in a car and saw the man smashing windows. He did not recognise Mr Wallace.

Mr Kettle said two police officers were on the scene. He heard something including the word "gun", and then shots immediately after.

He said there was a shot, a pause, two shots, another pause and then another two shots.

The jury also saw a police training video on the use of pepper spray to subdue violent offenders. The video noted that the spray had little or no effect on some people.

Detective Keith Borrell, who helped investigate the shooting for police and had previously worked with Abbott, said he would not have used pepper spray against Mr Wallace, or waited for backup.

He said Mr Wallace had to be approached to prevent further damage to persons or property.

The trial is expected to take three weeks.

19.11.2002

A former colleague of Waitara Senior Constable Keith Abbott told a jury today he would have acted in the same manner as Abbott did when he shot Steven Wallace.

Constable Abbott is standing trial in the High Court at Wellington for the murder of Wallace.The private prosecution case taken by the Wallace family is the first of its type in the country.

Prosecution witness Detective Keith Borrell, under cross-examination from defence counsel Susan Hughes, said Abbott had acted appropriately in the circumstances.

"I wouldn’t have probably done it any other way than the way it was done.

"In the circumstances he acted appropriately at the time to prevent further damage to persons or property."

In a private prosecution taken by Mr Wallace’s family, Abbott, 48, has pleaded not guilty to alternative charges of murder and manslaughter of Mr Wallace, 23.

Abbott has claimed he was acting in self-defence when he shot dead Mr Wallace in Waitara on April 30, 2000 after the young man was found smashing windows along McLean St using a golf club and baseball bat.

Today, the jury was shown a video of police procedures on how to use pepper spray on an offender.

In the video it was discussed how the spray was effective up to only 3.5m and how it was not always effective on every person.

Ms Hughes said the defence case was that Mr Wallace was shot at between 4m to 5m from Abbott.

"The defence also says that an offender can cover five metres in 0.5 seconds and that it could take 0.5 seconds to pull the trigger... therefore at 5 metres there is 1 second to respond to the threat," she said.

She asked Mr Borrell whether he agreed to those figures from his experience, and he did.

Mr Borrell had worked with Abbott both in New Plymouth and Waitara and regarded him as "a very good police officer".

18.11.2002

Former Waitara police officer Keith Abbott was reckless when he shot Steven Wallace four times whether death had followed or not, a court heard this morning.

Constable Abbott is standing trial for murder in the High Court at Wellington. The private prosecution case taken by the Wallace family is the first of its type in the country.

Abbott fatally shot Mr Wallace in the Taranaki township of Waitara two and a half years ago after approaching him during an early morning window-smashing spree.

Abbott this morning pleaded not guilty before Justice Robert Chambers and a jury of eight men and four women.

Several senior ranking police and supporters of the Wallace family packed the public gallery.

The court heard Wallace family lawyer John Rowan, QC, say that the last, ultimate and lethal option was the only one taken by Abbott the night he shot Mr Wallace.

He told the jury how Mr Wallace had been smashing store windows in Waitara's main street when he was approached by two police officers who had driven from New Plymouth.

Mr Wallace attacked their car and they reversed away.

One of the officers then picked up a Glock pistol from the local police station, and was met by Abbott who had come from his home.

Abbott also picked up a pistol and the two men went toward Mr Wallace.

A dog unit had been despatched and was ten minutes away, the court heard.

Mr Rowan said the officers held only the briefest of discussions before approaching Mr Wallace, when they labelled the window-smasher a "nutcase".

"There was no plan. There was no direction. There was no time. There was no control."

Mr Rowan said the pistols were taken in haste.

He then explained how evidence would show that Mr Wallace was shot four times, the last shot going into his back.

There was no justification for the number of shots when Mr Wallace had only a baseball bat that was not a distance weapon, he said.

The first two shots injured Mr Wallace's arms and incapacitated him. Abbott had gone too far in firing more, Mr Rowan said.

"If he had stopped and assessed after the first or second shot Steven Wallace would still be alive today."

He said Mr Wallace lay on the road for 17 minutes without medical attention.

"It was a long time before he began the journey to Taranaki Base Hospital where unsuccessful attempts were made to save his life. He died at the hospital at 9.15am."

Abbott sat at a table in the court for the prosecution's opening address.

Justice Chambers earlier told jurors that they would probably recognise the names of Abbott and Steven Wallace, and if they felt they could not fairly and unemotionally judge the evidence they should let him know.

The trial is expected to take three weeks. The prosecution will call 47 witnesses over the next two weeks.

05.02.2002

Waitara police officer Keith Abbott did not need to shoot Steven Wallace four times, a former police officer told a New Plymouth District Court depositions hearing yesterday.

Dennis Pennefather said Abbot could have backed off after he had fired two shots.

Abbott shot Mr Wallace, aged 23, as he advanced on him with a baseball bat in McLean St, Waitara, just after 4 am on April 30, 2000.

A police investigation, reviewed by the Solicitor-General, found that the constable was acting in self-defence.

But Mr Wallace's family have never accepted those findings and the private murder prosecution, laid by Mr Wallace's father, is the first against a New Zealand police officer.

Mr Pennefather is the second former police sergeant called by the prosecution to criticise the officer's actions.

Mr Pennefather, 55, left the police in 1992 after 25 years. He said Abbott was an expert marksman who would have known the first two shots he fired had hit Mr Wallace.

A softball bat was a danger only at close proximity, and the constable should have withdrawn to observe the effects of those shots, Mr Pennefather said.

Instead, Abbott fired another two shots, and that could not constitute anything but excessive force.

Although there was dispute about exactly where Abbott was standing, he had about 7m behind him in which to manoeuvre - 2.68m to the gutter and behind that 3.8m of footpath, said Mr Pennefather in reply to questions from prosecutor John Rowan, QC.

"He had plenty of room to move out at an angle, albeit ... quite swiftly ... He was not trapped."

Mr Pennefather said Abbott had other alternatives to shooting in the first place and "I don't believe the right decision at that time was to shoot Mr Wallace".

The witness, who had visited the scene and read statements from key witnesses, also said Abbott and Detective Constable Jason Dombroski's approach to Mr Wallace was "anything but delicate".

After getting out of their police car, Mr Dombroski almost immediately drew his gun, announced they were armed and demanded Mr Wallace put down his weapons.

"Now that in no way could be called conciliatory," Mr Pennefather said.

An old police maxim held that suspects should be approached using the softly, softly technique. A harder approach could then be taken, because the reverse was difficult to do, said Mr Pennefather.

The officers should not have confronted Mr Wallace. It was a situation of contain and control and making sure the necessary specialist staff were on the way.

He said the officers were reckless in approaching Mr Wallace and in not advising Constable Gillian Herbert, who was stationed in a police car in McLean St, of what might occur and of what she might be called on to do.

Mr Pennefather's evidence took up the entire day, and at many stages he was directed by justices of the peace Bob Moffat and John More to keep his answers to the point.

In cross-examination by Abbott's lawyer, Susan Hughes, he said the evidence was perfectly plain that the constable shot Mr Wallace in self-defence.

"Yes, it is plain, but it does not take in the validity of the fear" nor that of the police officer's confrontational approach, Mr Pennefather said.

He agreed that at the time the constable fired his gun, Mr Wallace was intent on injuring him had he remained where he was.

Ms Hughes asked what evidence there was to prove that Mr Wallace was about to give up his advance on Abbott.

Mr Pennefather said it was a possibility.

Ms Hughes said that by continuing to advance after the firing of a warning shot, Mr Wallace showed a hardened resolve and was in control of his own destiny in choosing to continue to advance.

Mr Pennefather replied that Mr Wallace was only in control of 50 per cent of the circumstances. The rest were in the control of police.

When Ms Hughes put it to him that there was no evidence Mr Wallace was unable hear what was being said to him by police, he replied there was a difference between hearing and understanding. Ms Hughes said the constable could not have made his intentions clearer.

Mr Pennefather replied that Abbott could have tried a more conciliatory voice approach or withdrawn.

Ms Hughes questioned Mr Pennefather about his 17-year campaign against a police decision to release to a man a report he had written about him.

He said the decision to release the report put himself, his family and police staff in general in danger.

He agreed the complaint had been dismissed by the Commissioner of Police, the Minister of Police, the Police Complaints Authority and the Privacy Commissioner and that he had recently asked for compensation.

He said it was a matter of principle and an unresolved issue.