DISCLAIMER         

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.

All information shown on this Internet Website has been publicly released and authorised.

DISCLAIMER

Download the Official Police Report Of the IncidentAcrobat PDF Reader Required

Email us with your stories HERE

CURRENT SERVING POLICE OFFICER's EMAIL

26.11.2002

Currently serving as a Police Officer in Auckland, I do feel that Abborts has taken the wrong approach. Having experienced working within the rural sector in frontline Policing and having 24 Years as a Constable and now a Senior Officer. I felt that he did indeed used the last option first. As a Police Officer it is very hard to state my opinion, due to fear of reprisal. I however would like it noted that not all Police Officers agree with the initial Police Compliant's Authorities initial ruling.

I love my job, but feel singled out like many other front line Police Officers, and that we do stick together? when we all really have our own opinions. Unfortunately due to discretion it is not advisable to publicly speak out.

Current Ranking Senior Police Officer (Name has been omitted due to request)

East Auckland Sector.

CURRENT SERVING POLICE OFFICER's EMAIL

28/11/2002

To the Writer.

Currently employed with the Police force, serving in the 'front line' as a beat officer. I have had many debates during meal times at the station about the incident as well as the current trial. I do agree with the many people in New Zealand's society who disagreed with the initial Police Compliants Authority outcome. I too also have voiced my opinion only to get criticism by some of my colleagues. Unfortunately as a Police Officer still continuing my 2 years basic standard placement, I feel it's very hard for the 'Good Cop' to show there true feelings. I do not condon what the outcome was, however I do feel the Police Officer concerned must have had a good reason to shoot like he did. In my opinion, if I was faced with that situation - God  help me - I would have hopefully used the resources that he had available at the time but didn't use. Having a personal friend and colleague stationed around the area in [DELETED]. Who was called on scene of the incident. (I however cannot name any names.) He was also very fearful of what the public would perceive after the tragic outcome. And he still gets a lot of abuse over the last year and to the present day about this. I would just like to say to you (Our website - Editor) that we are only human and that our  many New Zealand officers, 7000 plus, are not all for the acquittal of 'Constable A'. Of course we would never publicly say that, but for the record, I can assure you, I am not. I hope this gives light to the many readers out there who believe that all the Police are bad. And that we all look after ourselves. It is not true........

Constable Simon {DELETED]

[DELETED] Sector]

Christchurch

Taken from a New Zealand Website Trade Me Notice Board

Many people believe that more shots didn't hurt!

austindpowers6 (132)     [ONLINE USER NAME]

FROM THE EDITOR

It's amazing the views all shown above. We see many of the public are against, however a proportion want the Policeman Acquitted. What people fail to forget, is that a life was taken. No matter what they did. Example as per the above message. We see the comment above. What they have stated makes it looks like that they agree, that it is alright to shoot all criminals, no matter if they broke a few windows or likewise. Once again I say to many persons about this trial, is that before stating the obvious, they should research the case file before making judgments.

What everyone forgets to remember is that Constable keith Abbott has been sent to trial as there was enough evidence to charge him with murder. If he is proven Innocent or Guilty - True Justice Will Have Been Served.

 Constable Keith Abbott - Leaving Court  

It just shows you, how corrupt society is. With this Policeman not being charged with murder you see we don't live in a democracy at all. I see having red that some jurors were stood down, often makes me suspicious what really went on behind close doors. Watching the Police Minister on Holmes. You can see how they want to make New Zealand a Police State. Special rules for Police Officers. Come on! How unfair is that. I have never been in trouble with our "Boys in Blue" in my forty two years on this earth. And hope to never be. As I do not know what they would do. A Shot here and a shot there perhaps.

Highly Disgusted

J. Gibbson

Wellington

Dear Editor

Finally justice for those great Policeman. So what he shot that bas**** in the back. One less scum of our streets. It happens all the time in the United States of America. Why be any different here. If I was that cop. I would have emptied my magazine on him. So what if he was Maori. He could have been yellow, black or blue if I cared. He did wrong, so he got what he deserved. If the Police executed more like this, hopefully our good old Tax payers money will be better spent, then those dole eating *******. I for one are happy Abbott executed his poor arse.

James Smith

Avondale

AUCKALND

Open Letter to the Tyrant of Injustice (edited)

by the late Alan Sutherland

6 December 2000

Hon Phil Goff, Minister of Justice, New Zealand.

Dear Mr. Goff,

Re: Domestic Violence Act and Human Rights abuses.

In previous correspondence I have mentioned that NZ is signatory to international conventions on Human Rights. Accordingly I have forwarded to you a copy of the UN Declaration Of Human Rights (1971), and a summary of the UN Universal Declaration Of The Rights Of the Child. It would appear that the New Zealand Government is in breach of these Declarations.

(1) UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1971).

(1 and 2). New Zealand males are accorded lesser rights than females. New Zealand’s Human Rights Act makes it an offence to discriminate on the grounds of sex, yet the NZ Government routinely discriminates against males and is exempt from the provisions of this Act. The NZ Government is New Zealand’s biggest violator of this Act. New Zealand males are also denied the rights contained in the New Zealand Bill Of Rights Act.

(3) New Zealand males are subject to arrest, and are arrested on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations where there is no evidence that any offence under NZ legislation has taken place that would render an offender liable to arrest. In effect every NZ male is a target for abuse and discrimination and has little recourse in NZ law.

(5) New Zealand males are arbitrarily arrested on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations and imprisoned in substandard conditions, denied exercise, and abused both physically and psychologically by the NZ Police.

NZ males are arbitrarily removed from their homes on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations and prohibited from returning upon pain of imprisonment. Under NZ’s Domestic Violence Act, this process of eviction occurs ex parte and the victim has no right of defence before the fact. He is in fact considered to be guilty.

NZ males are denied access to their children on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations. This process is also ex parte.

(7) NZ males have less legal protection than females. The NZ Police will arbitrarily arrest and imprison males on an unsubstantiated allegation of assault made by a female, yet should a male make a complaint of assault by a female the NZ Police are most reluctant to act, even if there is evidence of an assault and the assault was witnessed. The Judiciary will not convict a female of assaulting a male, unless the assault is serious; yet will convict a male of assault against a female on the basis of an unsubstantiated allegation and despite a lack of any evidence whatsoever.

S 194 Crimes Act 1961 - Male Assaults Female - contains penalties that are more severe than those contained in S196 - Common Assault - the offence a female would be charged with in the unlikely event she is arrested and charged by the NZ Police after assaulting a male. S194 Crimes Act - Male Assaults Female - should be immediately revoked. Bias in the enforcement and application of the law notwithstanding, S194 Crimes Act 1961 is in violation of the Human Rights Act.

(8) The NZ Police, Department for Courts, and Judiciary are biased against males.

(9) NZ males are subject to arbitrary arrest and detention under NZ’s Domestic Violence Act and Crimes Act.

(10) NZ’s Family Court, Criminal Court, Judiciary, and NZ Police are biased against males in both domestic violence and matrimonial matters, in addition to matters of assault. In general the enforcement and application of NZ law is heavily biased against males.

(11) In matters of domestic violence, males are arbitrarily arrested and imprisoned even on the basis of an unsubstantiated allegation. They are in fact considered to be guilty and have to prove themselves innocent of the criminal charges made against them. Not only do they have to prove innocence, but many males are also denied a fair hearing because they are unable to afford the considerable costs involved in proving innocence. Many males are convicted of an offence because they are unable to afford competent defence counsel, and are even convicted of an offence despite the existence of legal precedents in favour of the defendant.

UN - Declaration Of The Rights Of The Child.

Many thousands of New Zealand’s children are denied access to their father on the basis of an unsubstantiated allegation made against their father and the enforcement of an ex parte Protection Order and Interim Custody Order made under the biased and discriminatory Domestic Violence Act. Children have a right to be with their family, yet are excluded from this process. Custody of children is almost without exception given to females even if it is the female who is violent, has a history of mental instability, or who has a criminal record and is unable to adequately care for any children.

The standard of living of many children is compromised by the biased enforcement of the Domestic Violence Act and the discrimination inherent in this Act. Fathers/males are arbitrarily removed from the scene and children placed under undue stress and anxiety on the basis of an unsubstantiated allegation.

The New Zealand Government allows children to be used as weapons against the other party in domestic violence and matrimonial matters and will disregard any input made by males other than financial. The rights of males and children are disregarded with the focus being placed almost entirely on the mother/female.

In domestic violence matters the opinion of any children of a relationship is not asked for. Protection Orders and Custody Orders are made on the basis of an unsubstantiated allegation by a female and made by the Court on an ex parte basis. Children are only included in the process after the fact of removal of the father/male, and the counsel appointed by the Court, and indeed the Court itself, is frequently biased and therefore does not act in the best interests of the child, with the interests of the child being made subservient to the need to be seen to acting in a politically correct manner in accordance with biased and misandrist legislation.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

Sincerely,

Alan Sutherland

Victim of domestic violence and bias in the enforcement and application of the law

Letter : Centre for Psycho-sociological Development

Letter to Prime Minister Clark on the police shooting of an unarmed man at Waitara

The first trial of its kind, a private prosecution of murder against an Officer of the Law, Police Constable Keith Abbott. Abbott may be found guilty of murder or the lesser charge of manslaughter of Steve Wallace. In Abbott's corner he has the full support of the police force, its resources and finances, over $200,000. He also has the support of the Labour Government and Prime Minister Helen Clark.

In the Wallace corner, is Steve's whanau, supported by the local Maori community in Waitara, and many allies throughout Aotearoa, raising funds through any means and struggling against a State sponsored defence. The Wallace whanau is not eligible for equal levels of resource to put their case, they have been denied legal aid and Helen Clarke has agreed arguing it may open up the floodgates of prosecutions against the police…really?. Helen is overriding or choosing to ignore the decision by Chief Justice Sian Elias that there is sufficient evidence for a case to answer, this is no whimsical rumour on unfounded allegation. When the Chief Justice has determined sufficient evidence exists for a prosecution case to be heard then in my opinion that case should be eligible for legal aid, it would be supported if it was a police prosecution, why should the rules be reversed in this case of a serious criminal nature. Along with upholding the law, the Government has a duty to support and protect citizens from excessive force by state institutions, through investigation and trials; a double standard is glaringly obvious against the Wallace whanau.

The trial started with opening addresses for the prosecution and defence and has proceeded giving 'facts' and 'opinions' as each individual witness 'remembers' such to be. Without regurgitating all the evidence we cut to the chase, expose some issues, analyse the strategy both sides adopt and also detail what is not being said.


First: Detective Keith Borrell said he would have done exactly the same as Abbott, not used pepper spray nor waited for backup. Constable Dombroski who was present on the night said he would have fired at Steve if Abbott had not done so. In affect both are saying they would have disregarded strict police procedures.

The tactic of the police saying 'yes we would have done the same' is purely to break the physiological isolation surrounding Abbott, this is designed for impact on the jury. It also implies if Abbott is to be found guilty of murder then his fellow Officers are implicated as accessories to murder for openly supporting the actions of Abbott.

Further to this, it makes the task as a juror to come to a decision on Abbots actions, just that little bit more difficult, knowing that any conviction on Abbott would surely have implications on his fellow police officers, who claim they would have done the same thing.

We know no action will be taken against those Officers and so do they, even if Abbott is found guilty. However they make the statements boldly, as if they are unafraid of being implicated in murder, the strategy certainly is to send a loud diversion to all ears, especially in the courtroom, that 'we police officers are prepared to stand by our man', therefore 'we have principles and such principles are imbued with moral and emotional integrity'. In a tense courtroom such tactics by Police can blur and overweigh the jury of the essential fact, did he, Abbott, given all the factual evidence have good reason to kill Steve.

The opinions of other officers regarding what they would have done is irrelevant when sufficient evidence exists that other options existed without the need for gung-ho shooting. The police strategy is to close ranks around an isolated colleague; we are all in this together mentality. They play on the advantage of State institution recognition, uniforms and all paraphernalia of authority, in the courtroom the balance of credibility is weighted in favour of police.

The Wallace Prosecution do not have such advantage, they cannot rely on emotive physiological institutionalised recognition or authoritative advantage, they must produce solid hard evidence and prove the facts against Abbott beyond reasonable doubt and it is a hard call for them, why? Because generally police are seen as honest upholders of the law, not liars or fabricators of fact which they are capable of, and do produce daily. Therefore if a question of fact is in dispute between a police officer and Joe witness, the credibility of the witness is assessed against that of a Law enforcement Officer - no contest exists, very rarely is Joe citizen favoured against the Officer.

When Joe citizen commits a serious crime, the police, to their credit pursue the criminal vigorously; the same vigour is not used when a case is made against the police. The pursuit of this task is the burden of the Wallace whanau. For example if the Wallace case was a police prosecution, and Abbott was Joe citizen, porridge would have been his breakfast months ago, that is fact!

The evidence produced so far is reasonably well known, we need to look to some specifics more closely and go through each point in turn;

1) "GO BACK TO SCHOOL AND LEARN HOW TO [FUCKEN] COUNT":

Abbott fired his gun 5 times, yet he states in evidence he fired one warning and three shots at Steve. Abbott knows how to count, he is either wrong or mistaken or lying.
Autopsy evidence show Steve took 4 bullets; RowanQC (demonstrating) showed the fourth bullet to hit Steve, hit him in the back between the shoulder blades, the bullet then exited through the top of his shoulder. Witnesses say the first warning shot was fired into the air. After shooting Steve, Abbott walked off and when challenged by a witness Fletcher saying, "you didn't have to shoot the poor [barstard] 4 or 5 times",
Abbott apparently replies "go back to school and learn how to count". However, eye witness Fletcher needs to be questioned closely, interviewed some months after the shooting he claimed privately that Abbott had replied to his question,

"….GO BACK TO SCHOOL AND LEARN HOW TO 'FUCKEN' COUNT'

When questioned why he did not publicly state the word FUCKEN, Fletcher said he did not want say the word 'FUNKEN' publicly.
If such a word was used in the context of shooting a man dead, it indicates a callous character, not acceptable from an Officer in authority. Is it possible that such language was used? Another witness, Matapaepae Erwin, hearing a commotion outside her home just before the shooting claims to have heard two voices, one male voice saying "put it down you little (fucker/cunt)" the reply from another male voice saying 'get [fucked] you barstard'. And then hearing a big crack like a roller door being slammed, she did not hear a number of singular shots. The first male voice was Abbott the second was Steve. Steve's reply was corroborated by other witnesses; Abbott's expletive dialogue is consistent with that used with witness Fletcher…LEARN HOW TO FUCKEN COUNT….'

2) THREE BULLETS HIT STEVE FROM A LEFT SIDE POSITION

In the opening address for the prosecution RowanQC demonstrated how the bullets entered Steve. Three bullets came from the left hand side of Steve, entering the left arm and lodging across the body into the right arm. No bullet actually enters the front part of Steve's body and exits in the rear. If the police evidence is to be believed that Steve was advancing, rushing, approaching toward Abbott then it is feasible that at least some of the bullets would enter the front part of the body and exit toward the rear. This is certainly not the case.

Witness Fletcher and others claim that Abbott moved in a sideways shuffle down the street, gun held high trained on Steve, Dombronski was behind Steve and Abbott, moving along the gutter almost square on to the left side of Steve who was walking down the middle of the road. Witnesses, including Fletcher claim they [Abbott and Dombronski} 'stalked' Steve, Abbott moving in a sideways movement parallel to Steve, Dombroski following behind. The call from Abbott to Steve to 'stop' was claimed by witnesses to stop Steve from walking away, NOT from advancing on Abbott. Steve told him where to get off and Abbott fired the shots killing Steve.

Abbott fired the shots, those shots came from his position close to the gutter and the footpath, Steve was close to the centre of the roadway, consistent with the angle of bullet projectiles, the shots were from the left of Steve, not into his front body section. These eye witness accounts are certainly consistent with the bullet patterns in Steve's body. Questions need to be asked in depth, where was Abbott standing and why did Steve take the first three bullets from his left hand side..

3) WITNESS OBSERVES DOMBRONSKI TAMPERING WITH CRIME SCENE.

A witness claims to have seen Dombronski after the shooting bend down and pick some items up from the road. When witnesses for the prosecution talk about Steve ignoring Abbott's command and state he continued on his way down the road, no longer smashing windows or a threat to any person there would certainly be a need to 'relocate' evidence at the crime scene to a preferred position that posed a more believable threat.

Both Dombronski and Abbott mark out the crime scene.
Can crucial evidence of the crime scene be established by Officers implicated in this crime? Not likely. That is tantamount to an alleged murderer able to arrange pieces at the scene of the crime then claim this as factual evidence. There is enough evidence to indicate the reliability of Abbott and Dombronski at the crime scene as suspect. Certainly the haste in which these officers moved to chalk-mark Abbott's position raises a number of issues.

Continuing this line of thought, the streets of Waitara are wide, so is the footpath, Abbott never backed up onto the footpath, Steve never got anywhere near it either. Was there a real threat, the threat as portrayed by Abbott? Or was Abbott after a confrontation. The prosecution must prove no threat existed or in the alternative, other options existed which were ignored.

The defence have a flimsy case relying on emotional appeal, shotgun tactics and Police status; the prosecution have a straight forward case albeit with enormous legal and political disadvantages.

The prosecution cannot afford to go tippy-toes against a rabid defence. Every action must be explored and every witness grilled. Their performance is being observed with a supportive but critical eye.

An American expert on police procedure says the shooting of Steven Wallace could be labelled as execution style - and he has also accused the New Zealand Police of a cover-up in their internal investigation.

Frank Saunders who gave evidence at the preliminary hearing where Abborts faced a private prosecution for the shooting of Wallace in Waitara nearly two years ago.

He told the Court that the policy of shoot to stop and aiming at the throat sounded like execution style shooting.

Saunders said the shooting of Wallace was totally unprofessional and wrongful.

He said Constable A could easily have used pepper spray to subdue Wallace without resorting to his firearm.

Saunders also told the court the police report was an example of a tunnel investigation that provided a totally supportive view of Constable A's actions.

Saunders said the author of the report, Detective Inspector Brian Pearce, put the best possible spin on events for the police.

However under cross examination he admitted that Constable A had not done anything that was contrary to police procedure.

Police planning slated

A retired police superintendent has said planning by the officers who confronted Wallace could not have been worse.

Bryan Rowe told the court the two armed officers who confronted Wallace made a lightning quick assesment of the situation, and their actions in arming themselves were impetuous and contrary to police guidelines.

He says the officers immediately eliminated the use of lesser means of force, such as pepper spray and police batons.

Rowe said their assessment and planning could not have been worse, and it was a tragedy they did not wait for back-up.

d

Did Police Tamper With Evidence At Scene Of Wallace Shooting?

Reporter: Richard Scott

A prosecution witness in the murder trial of Senior Constable Keith Abbott claimed that another police officer, Constable Jason Dombroski, pocketed an object off the ground shortly after Steven Wallace was fatally shot by Abbott on Waitara’s main street. The prosecution evidence raises allegations that police tampered with evidence at the scene.

Waitara resident Barbara George lived at the time of the shooting in April 2000 on the main street of Waitara close to where the shooting took place. She said she came outside to see what was going on after hearing lots of commotion. On the street she saw Wallace being followed by two police officers.

Examined by Debbie Goodlet for the prosecution, Ms George told the Court how the two officers had followed Wallace with their pistols drawn. One said “We have been after you for a long time, Dave”, and Wallace was referred to again as “Dave” when the officers told him that they were armed.

Shortly after the shooting, Abbott flippantly told George’s ex-partner to, “go back to school and learn how to count”, when he was asked why he had shot Wallace 4 or 5 times. Ms George’s ex-partner is expected to give evidence shortly.

The revelations come on the second day of the prosecution evidence in the trial of Senior Constable Keith Abbott, who shot dead 23 year old Steven Wallace in Waitara on 30 April 2000. Abbott has pleaded not guilty to charges of murder and manslaughter in a private prosecution brought by Wallace’s family in connection with the killing.

Also in the witness stand today, a taxi driver, Edward Cooper, who witnessed Wallace’s shooting from a distance of some 150 metres. He described how he had seen Wallace advancing at walking pace towards Constables Wallace and Dombroski, although not directly at them, as the police officers walked backwards with pistols trained upon him. Cooper also told the Court how he had heard shouting shortly before Abbott fired the fatal volley of shots, and Wallace slumped to the ground.

Earlier today, the jury heard evidence from two police officers and watched a police training video in which two officers using pepper spray subdue an assailant wielding a baseball bat. Under cross-examination, Detective Keith Borrell told the Court that he would not have used pepper spray or a long handled baton himself to apprehend Wallace. Another police officer, Detective Blair Burnett, described Abbott as reliable, very competent, honest and loyal.

A Waitara shopkeeper, Tom Kettle, told the jury how he had followed Wallace at a distance as he smashed shop windows on McLean Street with a baseball bat and golf club. Mr. Kettle recounted how he flagged down a minibus taxi with 6 to 10 passengers approaching the scene from New Plymouth. Kettle did not witness the shooting, but heard the word “gun” uttered shortly before hearing 5 shots being fired.

In their cross-examinations of the prosecution witnesses, the defence team of Susan Hughes and Patrick Mooney again focussed on the alarm that Wallace was causing to Waitara residents, and the threat that he posed to their safety and property in his “campaign of damage”. Even though it was shortly after 4am at the time of the shooting, the defence highlighted the number of bystanders and residents who had been drawn to the scene.

Some inconsistencies also emerged in the prosecution witnesses’ evidence concerning the number and timing of the shots fired. Although all agreed that the shots had been fired rapidly, witnesses’ accounts differed when it came to describing the precise pattern of the shooting.

Abbott’s trial is expected to last for three weeks.

(continuing…)

23 November 2002 By LEA STEWART

A wild and woolly adventure for two police constables ended with one of them "handcuffing" a sheep which had just assaulted his colleague yesterday morning.

If the officers weren't feeling sheepish enough, the incident then went from baaaad to worse when they discovered the key to the handcuffs was missing and were forced to call back-up.

By this stage, one of the officers was nursing a sore leg and ripped trousers after spending an uncomfortable few moments with the ewe in a garage.

Sergeant Andrew Bardsley, of Dunedin, said the "unusual" incident began when the two South Dunedin officers, who would not be identified, were called to a sheep loose in Middleton Rd.

"They had the plan that one of them would scare the sheep in the direction of the other officer and he would grab it."

But this sheep was not letting the wool be pulled over its eyes.

"Unfortunately, it got a bit spooked and ran into a garage with one of the officers in hot pursuit," Sgt Bardsley said.

After a long "minute or so", the ewe was first to emerge, followed closely by the constable, looking a little worse for wear.

"He came out limping, with ripped trousers. We're still not sure exactly what happened in there."

The ewe then turned its attention to the second officer and "ran straight toward him".

"The officer grabbed the sheep, got it on the ground and handcuffed its front leg to its back."

Satisfied the "offender" was under control, the arresting officer sent his colleague on his way, while he waited for the stock control truck to arrive.

Unfortunately, he then discovered the key to the handcuffs was missing and another officer had to attend the scene to release the sheep.

Sgt Bardsley said the sheep was "facing charges of assaulting a police officer and unlawfully entering a building".

One question still remains - was the sheep read its rights?

"Ewe have the right to remain silent . . ."

 The following represents a general profile of the deceased:

FULL NAME: WALLACE/Steven/James

DOB: 02 October 1976

ADDRESS: [*Deleted] Broadway, Waitara (family home)

OCCUPATION: Student Benefit (ex Architecture Student Victoria University, Wellington)

DESCRIPTION: Male Maori, 23 years old, 174cm (5’8”) tall, medium/stocky build

PRN: [*Deleted]

PLACE OF BIRTH: New Plymouth Family

Aged 23 years at the time of his death, Steven James WALLACE was the oldest child of Witness 5 and [*Deleted]. Steven had one younger sister, [*Deleted], who is [*Deleted] years old. [*Deleted] is the biological daughter of Witness 5 and [*Deleted], ie a full sister to Steven.

The WALLACE’s lived together at [*Deleted] Broadway, Waitara.

Steven’s father, [*Deleted], is [*Deleted] years old. His actual name is [*Deleted] [*Deleted] but he has always been known as [*Deleted].

Details of Steven WALLACE’s early childhood schooling at Waitara have not been ascertained. It is known, however, that he was educated at his local High School, Waitara High between 1990 and 1994. Steven was a student there from Forms 3 to 7. He gained a C Bursary in 1994 in his 7th form year. Some of the witnesses confirm they attended primary and intermediate schools with Steven in Waitara.

In 1996 Steven went to Massey University, Palmerston North. He enrolled in a Maori Design Course but stayed for only half the year then pulled out of the Course and returned home. During this period Steven was involved in a relationship with [*Deleted] [*Deleted] and they initially attended Massey together. It appears difficulties between the two led to Steven’s return. Attempts have been made to interview [*Deleted] [*Deleted] but she has resisted talking to Police about their relationship.

In 1997 Steven enrolled at Victoria University, his Major being Architectural Design. Of the nine Papers in which Steven enrolled, he obtained five pass Grades (ranging from C to B+), was declined access to one Paper, he cancelled one Paper and failed to complete Course requirements for the two others.

One of the papers in which Steven failed to meet requirements was his Major subject, Architectural Design.

In 1998 Steven re-enrolled at Victoria University in three papers, including Architectural Design once again. He withdrew however and cancelled his registration before attending any classes.

In 1999 Steven again re-enrolled at Victoria in three Papers. At the completion of the academic year he had obtained passes in two of the Papers but again failed to meet requirements in his Major Architectural Design Paper.

There is no record of Steven being enrolled for any Course in the 2000 academic year

Steven associated closely with his family, including his half-brothers and sisters, the [*Deleted]. His family appear to have immediately got behind him and been very vocal in their support, particularly when he has got into trouble with Police. On occasions, the blame has been put onto others for Steven’s sometimes violent actions by his immediate family.

It appears Steven’s friends or associates often revolved around sports teams he was involved with, which include rugby, rugby league and softball.

Little is known about Steven’s female partners, other than the 1995- 1996 relationship with [*Deleted]. [*Deleted] eventually decided to end the relationship which resulted in Steven becoming violent, driving his mother’s car through an associate of [*Deleted] fence. Later [*Deleted] suffered verbal abuse from [*Deleted] and was blamed for causing Steven to ‘lose it’ on this occasion.

Other friends include [*Deleted] and [*Deleted]. [*Deleted], New Plymouth where Steven was a regular visitor. Steven was known to a number of the staff at this establishment.

No amount of medical help would have saved Waitara man Steven Wallace the night he was fatally shot by Constable Keith Abbot, a court heard yesterday.

Pathologist James Hunt told the New Plymouth District Court that the 23-year-old received "extensive lacerations" to the liver when Abbott shot him in the abdomen, causing his death shortly afterwards.

He said Mr Wallace, who was shot four times following a window-smashing spree in Waitara on April 30, 2000, would have survived without the abdomen wound, as the remaining three gunshots were not life-threatening.

Dr Hunt, who carried out an autopsy on Mr Wallace the day of his death, was giving evidence on the eighth day of a preliminary depositions hearing for the private murder prosecution against Abbott.

The case, filed by the Wallace family, is the first of its kind against a New Zealand police officer.

Dr Hunt said Mr Wallace received nine bullet wounds the night of the shooting, caused by two gunshots entering his left arm, one to his abdomen and one to his back.

Dr Peter Wilson, a forensic scientist with the Institute of Environmental Science and Research, told the court Mr Wallace had his back turned on Abbott when he was shot between the shoulder blades.

Dr Wilson said Mr Wallace was likely to have been "turning and bending to the right", after at least one gunshot wound to the arm, when Abbott shot him in the middle of the back. The bullet made a shallow wound and exited at the nape of his neck.

"Mr Wallace may have been turning and dropping towards the ground and exposing his back," said Dr Wilson.

Asked by defence lawyer Susan Hughes if there was any forensic evidence to show Mr Wallace had been deliberately shot in the back, the scientist said no.

Dr Wilson also examined the scene following Mr Wallace's death, but could not explain the position of an intact bullet, found lying some distance away from the shooting. The bullet had passed through Mr Wallace's body and "could only" have caused the gunshot wound to his back.

"I still scratch my head about how it got there."

The position of other bullet fragments and cartridge cases also showed Abbott would have been standing closer to Mr Wallace when he fired his gun than the spot marked by police at the scene.

Dr Wilson guessed the constable would have been standing about 3m from Mr Wallace.

Yesterday, the court heard evidence from Detective Senior Sergeant Peter Coward, a long-time friend of Abbott and the initial head of the police investigation into the shooting.

Detective Senior Sergeant Coward, who attended police training college with Abbott, told prosecutor John Rowan, QC, that the officer was a first-class shot.

The constable frequently achieved perfect scores on training days with the armed offenders squad, of which he was a member.

Detective Senior Sergeant Coward, the officer in charge of the New Plymouth CIB, said he and Abbott were involved in preventing a gang-related robbery in 1991.

After a tip-off from a member of the public, they were inside a New Plymouth bank with two other police officers when gang members tried to rob it.

Abbott, who is a member of the New Plymouth Big Bore Rifle Club, fired four shots during the robbery, although he did not injure anyone.

A police report was circulated to the country's armed offender squads about the robbery, although Detective Senior Sergeant Coward told the court he could not find it.

The case, being heard before justices of the peace John More and Bob Moffat, will determine if Abbott must stand trial for murder.

Steven Wallace, armed with a softball bat, could not have hit Constable Keith Abbott with any great force after being shot twice in the arm, a court heard.

Dr Kenneth Thomson, a forensic consultant specialising in pathology, told the New Plymouth District Court yesterday that the 23-year-old Waitara man could have retained his grip on the bat after being shot in the arm, but could not have used it in an offensive way.

Abbott killed Mr Wallace after shooting him four times: twice in the arm, then in the stomach and back.

Dr Thomson was giving evidence on the ninth day of a preliminary depositions hearing for a private murder prosecution against Abbott.

The case, taken by the Wallace family, is the first of its kind against a New Zealand police officer.

Dr Thomson said the first two shots were likely to have caused Mr Wallace to drop his arms and hands from his right shoulder, where he was holding the bat.

The fourth shot probably hit his back as he was falling to the ground.

"His hands must have been down ... I think he was on the way [down] at that stage when the fourth shot was fired," said Dr Thomson, who was invited to give evidence by the prosecutor, John Rowan, QC.

Under cross-examination from defence lawyer Susan Hughes, Dr Thomson agreed it was possible for people to continue moving forward in an aggressive manner, despite being seriously hurt.

The doctor said Mr Wallace would have survived without the gunshot wound to the stomach, which caused fatal damage to his liver.

Abbott fired at Mr Wallace after he went on a window-smashing spree in central Waitara in the early hours of April 30, 2000.

The court has already heard evidence that Mr Wallace attacked a police patrol car before making a beeline for Abbott. The police officer was about 3m away from Mr Wallace when the last shots were fired.

Justices of the Peace Bob Moffat and John More made an interim suppression order on a large piece of the evidence given yesterday, pending an appeal from Mr Rowan against the information being made public.

The evidence related to Mr Wallace's family and what happened shortly before he went on his rampage.

Detective Senior Sergeant Grant Coward, the head of the New Plymouth CIB and who initially led the police investigation, said a small white car had been seen by members of the public shortly before the shooting, parked near a pharmacy in the town's centre.

One witness, Waitara man Tom Kettle, said last week that he thought the man in the car had been Steven Wallace's father.

Detective Senior Sergeant Coward said Mr Wallace's mother, Raewyn, had owned a small light-coloured car fitting a witness' description.

However, police appeals to the public for the driver or owner to come forward produced no results.

Mrs Wallace stormed out of the courtroom yesterday during the questioning of Detective Senior Sergeant Coward, who is a long-time friend of Abbott's.

Detective Senior Sergeant Coward described Abbott as a "dedicated, motivated and hard-working police officer, mild-mannered and always professional".

He also admitted discussing aspects of the case with Ms Hughes about eight to 10 weeks ago, when he knew he was to be a witness at the hearing.

The constable who shot dead Waitara man Steven Wallace thought the offender advancing towards him was someone else and repeatedly used an incorrect name when he warned Wallace to put down his weapons, a court heard today.

Detective Constable Jason Dombroski, one of the two officers who confronted Wallace the morning he went on a window-smashing spree, today gave evidence in the fifth day of a preliminary depositions hearing for the private murder prosecution against Constable Keith Abbott.

Wallace was fatally shot by police in the early hours of April 30, 2000.

Detective Constable Dombroski told the New Plymouth District Court that Constable Keith Abbott called, "David what are you doing? It's me, Constable Abbott", as he attempted to calm Wallace shortly before he shot him.

Wallace took no notice of the warnings and continued to advance toward the constable, threatening to kill him.

Detective Constable Dombroski had been called into Waitara from New Plymouth. Shortly after arriving in the town with another constable, his patrol car was attacked by a golf club-wielding Wallace.

The manner of the attack and the demeanour of Wallace made Detective Constable Dombroski decide to get a gun, he said.

Asked by the prosecution's John Rowan, QC, if he considered using pepper spray or a baton, or collecting body armour or a helmet, he said: "I made all those assessments basically as soon as the offender was putting the golf club through our window and we were shooting backwards (in the car)."

Detective Constable Dombroski met Constable Abbott at the Waitara Police Station where they collected Glock pistols. The alarm was sounding at the station as they did so.

Constable Abbott forgot his belt, and had to return to get it.

After a quick discussion about "what a nutcase he appeared to be", the constables drove toward Wallace and got out of their car. They had no other tactical discussion.

Their intention, Detective Constable Dombroski said, was to get to Wallace and talk to him before he hurt somebody. Detective Constable Dombroski drew his pistol and trained it on Wallace, shouting "armed police, put your weapons down". He had to twice move position when bystanders got into his line of fire.

Wallace made a beeline for Constable Abbott, who talked to him while moving backwards. After Wallace threw a golf club in his direction, Constable Abbott fired a warning shot above his head.

The court heard that Wallace, who was shouting threats, then became more purposeful.

"He didn't run at Constable Abbott, but it was a quite determined walk to get to him and kill him," Detective Constable Dombroski said.

Constable Abbott fired twice at Wallace when he was 3m away, then twice again. Wallace fell to the ground and the baseball bat he had been carrying rolled down the road.

Under cross examination from defence lawyer Susan Hughes, Detective Constable Dombroski said he had no doubt Wallace had murderous intent.

As an officer he had used pepper spray four times, and twice it had not worked. He was aware it did not work on highly motivated offenders, and considered Wallace to fit that description.

He said that even though the officers knew a dog handler was on his way, it did not justify them sitting at the police station waiting. Instead they had to get out and stop Wallace from hurting somebody.

The officers knew what they intended to do and had eliminated other options when assessing the situation.

He said riot helmets fractured when hit with a baseball bat, and body armour was cumbersome - weighing 30kg - 40kg.

He would have shot Wallace had he been in Constable Abbott's position, he said.

Two Justices of the Peace temporarily suppressed a chunk of the evidence presented yesterday at a depositions hearing into the fatal police shooting of Steven Wallace.

The suppressed evidence relates to about 40 minutes between when Mr Wallace left New Plymouth's The Mill nightclub and when residents reported him smashing windows in the Taranaki town of Waitara.

A depositions hearing is being held to decide whether a private prosecution against Keith Abbott, a police constable, for murder should go to trial.

JPs Bob Moffat and John More had originally refused to suppress the evidence after a request from prosecutor John Rowan, QC.

"It is in the public interest that the evidence recorded is admissible, because it does not have any detrimental affect on either party...," the pair said after considering the application over the lunch break.

The evidence was given by witness Detective Senior Sergeant Grant Coward under cross-examination from defence lawyer Susan Hughes.

Mr Rowan told the JPs he would be appealing their decision in the High Court and requested an interim suppression order to allow him to pursue the matter.

They agreed to temporarily suppress the evidence, as well as the arguments for and against it by Mr Rowan and Ms Hughes.

The private prosecution has been brought by Mr Wallace's father, Jim Wallace. It is the first of its kind ever laid against a New Zealand police officer.

Mr Wallace, 23, who was carrying a baseball bat, was shot as he was allegedly advancing on Abbott in the main street of Waitara in the early hours of April 30, 2000.

A subsequent police investigation, reviewed by the solicitor-general, found the constable acted in self-defence. However, Mr Wallace's family have never accepted those findings.

Earlier yesterday, Ms Hughes told Mr Coward that a previous prosecution witness, Tom Kettle, had seen someone in a small, light coloured vehicle watching Peter Budden's chemist shop in McLean St shortly before the shooting.

Mr Kettle thought the person inside was Mr Wallace's father, Jim Wallace, she said.

That line of questioning saw Steven Wallace's mother, Raewyn Wallace, storm out of the court yelling what sounded like "What a joke" or "You're a joke."

Ms Hughes continued her questioning of Mr Coward saying that another previous witness Barbara George saw a small, white car parked by Bin Inn, also on McLean St, and the defence would be calling evidence of another witness who also saw a similar car in the same area.

Mr Coward said police inquiries had confirmed Mrs Wallace had owned a car that fitted that general description.

He agreed police spent some time investigating the existence of such a car and trying to track down the owner, but no one had come forward.

In earlier evidence, Mr Coward agreed with Mr Rowan that it was standard procedure in a homicide investigation to take a blood sample from those involved.

However, in this case it was not done, he said.

To Ms Hughes' questions, Mr Coward agreed he had checked "each and every one" of Abbott's movements that night. He had been working and had not taken alcohol.

He agreed he did not smell any alcohol on the constable and, as a non-drinker, he was particularly aware of the smell of alcohol.

However, to Mr Rowan he accepted he could not smell all types of alcohol and that such a test was an important matter, even for the person being investigated.

Mr Coward also confirmed to Mr Rowan that neither Abbott nor Detective Constable Jason Dombroski, who was on McLean St at the time of the shooting, had had firearms residue tests done on their hands.

In hindsight, the tests would have been appropriate, he said. "However, having known (Abbott) for the years that I have, I accepted that he did use his firearm and that he did fire shots from it."

Mr Rowan asked if his friendship and knowledge of Abbott had over-ridden normal matters of policy in a homicide investigation.

He said at that time it was not a homicide investigation, although he agreed Abbott had told him the person he had shot could die.

Meanwhile, Ms Hughes asked Mr Coward to confirm to the court that they had met and had talked about the case.

She said they had discussed the issue of the number of people in and about the area at the shooting - of which there was 31.

To Mr Rowan's questions, Mr Coward said he was aware at the time he met Ms Hughes, about eight to 10 weeks ago, that he was to be called as a prosecution witness.

The meeting, which she requested, lasted 20 minutes and was held in Ms Hughes' office, and he did not believe anyone else was there.

He said they had also discussed the personal qualities of Abbott. "Nothing else, on oath, the truth?," Mr Rowan asked.

"It's the truth, yes," he replied.

The depositions hearing, which began on January 21 is expected to take three weeks.

The constables who confronted Waitara man Steven Wallace decided what they were going to do in "lightning-quick time" and their assessment and planning could not have been worse, the New Plymouth District Court was told yesterday.

"That assessment and plan was the beginning of the end of the life of Steven Wallace," former top-ranking Auckland police officer Bryan Rowe told a depositions hearing.

Mr Rowe, who retired from the police in 1996 after 33 years, was the prosecution's final witness.

Mr Wallace's father has laid a private prosecution for murder against Constable Keith Abbott over the fatal shooting of Mr Wallace in Waitara on April 30, 2000.

Before retiring, Mr Rowe, now a private investigator, was superintendent of Auckland's services district, to which all specialist units, such as the armed offenders squad, reported.

Mr Rowe said Detective Constable Jason Dombroski, who had four years' police experience, had decided immediate action was necessary. He decided to get a gun, approach the offender and try to talk to him.

That plan was adopted by Abbott, who was the senior member at the scene and therefore in charge.

It was impetuous action at its worst. "It's the very thing the police instructions tell you to avoid.

"There was no need to immediately approach Wallace. The three constables had not seen anybody out on the street when that initial assessment was made.

"The lightning-flash decision eliminated immediately the use of pepper spray and batons.

"It went from considering lesser amounts of force that could have been used straight to the maximum."

Mr Rowe told the court that instead of radioing through asking that Abbott be told to arm himself, Detective Constable Dombroski should have given a report on the situation, asked for guidance, other staff and the authority to get a firearm.

Mr Rowe thought Detective Constable Dombroski "lost the plot" when the police car he and Constable Gillian Herbert were in was attacked and had its windows smashed by Mr Wallace.

"He could have, in a quick situation report, set in motion assistance to travel from New Plymouth to Waitara at 3.58 am ... if only he had done it."

Abbott, who was in less stressed state than Detective Constable Dombroski, not having been in the attacked police car, could have also given a situation report.

"It's an absolutely tragedy he did not do that."

Mr Rowe said it was 14km from New Plymouth to Waitara, about seven minutes' driving time, so help could have arrived by 4.05 am.

Earlier yesterday, a former United States police officer was questioned over his claim there was a cover-up in the police investigation into the shooting.

Frank Saunders, now a consultant in law enforcement, security and private investigation, confirmed to defence counsel Susan Hughes that in May last year he wrote a report on the shooting after he was contacted by television documentary programme 60 Minutes.

His report described the police report into the shooting as a "tunnel investigation" and "creative report writing".

To Ms Hughes' questions, he said he accepted that he no longer believed the softball bat was planted at the scene by police, as he had suggested in his report.

Mr Saunders said that when the report was written he did not have all of the information and he had stated that in that report. He was paid $US1400 ($3403) by 60 Minutes for the report and an interview.

Constable Keith Abbott's lawyer yesterday threatened to call 100-odd people who attended an Armed Offenders Squad function the night of the Steven Wallace shooting - to prove the constable wasn't there.

In New Plymouth District Court, Susan Hughes said the prosecution continually suggested the constable was at the April 29, 2000 function.

Mr Wallace was shot on Waitara's McLean St just after 4am the following morning.

She said she had spoken to almost everyone at the New Plymouth police station function and they all said he had not been there.

The court is currently holding a depositions hearing into the fatal shooting of Mr Wallace by Abbott.

The constable was found to be acting in self-defence in an earlier police investigation, reviewed by the Solicitor-General. However, Mr Wallace's family have never accepted those findings, and the private murder prosecution, laid by Mr Wallace's father Jim, is the first against a New Zealand police officer.

Ms Hughes said yesterday that unless prosecutor John Rowan, QC, withdrew his line of questioning she would produce everyone at the function as witnesses. Three senior officers had already testified they did not see him there.

Ms Hughes suggested later that Mr Rowan might instead produce one person who saw Abbott there.

The JPs hearing the depositions said it was a matter to be considered in chambers if necessary.

Earlier, defence witness New Plymouth police area commander Anne Knox had said she was at the function for about three hours and she did not see Abbott.

In cross-examination, Mr Rowan asked if all squad members were at the function and if the ones attending were drinking.

Mrs Knox, who was not drinking, replied that not all members were present, naming one who was not, and she said could not say if others were drinking or not.

The prosecution finished its case on Monday after three weeks of evidence and the defence is now presenting its case.

Earlier this week, Ms Hughes said that at the end of depositions she would ask that the case be sent to the High Court, where she would make applications to prevent an indictment being presented and seek an acquittal.

If the case was discharged in the district court, charges could be relaid at any time by anybody, she said.

"Do not interpret this request as an acknowledgment that the defence accepts that there is a prima facie case, because we do not. The prosecution is a travesty."

Meanwhile, defence witness Sergeant Kevin Gatfield, the staff safety tactical training supervisor for the police central training service centre, said Abbott followed police policy and training and did his duty the morning of the shooting.

If officers believed they knew an offender and had a rapport he would expect them to try to communicate and negotiate. The constable's actions indicated negotiation was attempted, he said.

Mr Gatfield, who had been a police officer for 22 years, said he had no criticism of the number of shots fired.

"I believe the number of shots fired was a reflexive response to a very real threat to his life at extremely close quarters. I believe it reflected what is in our training policy."

Ms Hughes told him prosecution witnesses had criticised Abbott for not aiming at Mr Wallace's limbs.

Mr Gatfield said that was unrealistic. It was difficult to aim for limbs under stress and unrealistic to expect an officer to do that when fearing for his life.

Aiming for limbs was not New Zealand police policy and was not a policy he would advocate as there was the danger the person shooting could miss and hit someone else.

Police were trained to shoot for the centre body mass to ensure a hit "because at that instance when life is at threat, it (the threat) must be stopped in an instant".

He would not advocate a shoot-to-wound policy, which he believed would place officers and members of the public at risk.

Mr Gatfield said research had shown some offenders continued to advance even after being mortally wounded.

Ms Hughes also told him there had been criticism that Abbott and the other officer on McLean St that night, Detective Constable Jason Dombroski, could have waited at the station for dogs to arrive.

Mr Gatfield said he believed the constable had a duty to contain Mr Wallace in the area, as the possibility of people entering or being in the area was extremely high.

In cross-examination by Mr Rowan, the witness agreed that the provisions of New Zealand criminal law were paramount and that law took precedence over police policy and training instructions.

Mr Rowan said that, in terms of his evidence relating to reflexive reactions, Mr Gatfield wasn't an expert in medical matters.

Mr Gatfield replied that he had knowledge from research and reading, and had an interest in studying stress responses.

The policeman who shot dead Steven Wallace was a crack shot, New Plymouth District Court was told yesterday. Keith Abbott, a police constable, faces a depositions hearing for allegedly murdering Mr Wallace, 23, in the Taranaki town of Waitara on April 30, 2000.

It is the first private murder prosecution against a police officer in New Zealand. Detective Senior Sergeant Grant Coward, head of New Plymouth CIB, told prosecuting counsel John Rowan, QC, that he had known Abbott for more than 15 years.

They were good friends and had joined the police together, he said.

Just before the shooting, Abbott had passed physical competency and running tests with the highest possible grades.

He had also obtained perfect shooting scores during an armed offenders squad regional camp just two days before the Waitara shooting.

He was a specialist police sniper.

Mr Coward told the court Abbott called him at home shortly after 4.00am on April 30 following the shooting.

"He said he had just shot someone."

Abbott told him the person was David Toa.

"I said, 'Is he dead?' He said, 'No, but he could die'," Mr Coward said.

Mr Coward said he assumed the role of officer in charge of the investigation.

Mr Coward spoke to city area commander, Inspector Anne Knox, suggesting she dealt with the media.

"Was Inspector Knox aware of your long friendship with Mr Abbott?" Mr Rowan asked.

"I'm not sure," Mr Coward replied.

Abbott was trained to deal with different situations "and chose what I believe was the best option", Mr Coward said.

If there had been no immediate threat, the best course of action would have been to cordon the area and wait for assistance, he added.

He told the court he recalled shaking Abbott's hand when he arrived at the Waitara community police station and asking him if he was alright.

"He was concerned but other than that he was OK."

Arrangements were made for Abbott and the other officers involved in the shooting to be interviewed at the New Plymouth station.

Mr Coward said he did not ask for a photo of the constable or clothing to be retained which, he agreed, was carried out in a homicide case.

Later that morning the victim was identified as Steven Wallace.

Mr Coward remained in charge of the inquiry, Operation McLean, until May 2 when Detective Inspector Brian Pearce from Christchurch, took over.

Mr Coward told the court he and Abbott had been involved in an armed offenders squad stakeout at a bank in New Plymouth, on December 30, 1991.

The AOS had staked out the bank after a tipoff a local gang would rob it. Shots were exchanged, Abbott was fired on and returned four shots. One offender was shot in the stomach but not by Abbott.

Earlier, pathologist James Hunt told the court one of the four bullets that hit Mr Wallace caused fatal liver injuries.

Susan Hughes, representing Abbott, asked Dr Hunt if two bullet wounds on Mr Wallace's upper back could have been caused if Mr Wallace had his arms raised and was turning while holding a baseball bat.

"That is a possible scenario," Dr Hunt agreed.

Dr Hunt agreed a number of other factors could affect the scenario.

Forensic scientist Peter Wilson said test firings of police pistols determined that the position on the road where Abbott was said to have shot Mr Wallace was not correct because of the position of the cartridges in the street.

Dr Wilson said that meant Abbott was closer to Mr Wallace than the spot marked. He estimated the distance between Abbott and Mr Wallace was just three metres when he was shot.

A former policeman told the New Plymouth District Court this morning that Constable Keith Abbott should not have confronted Steven Wallace.

Former police sergeant Dennis Pennefather was giving evidence in the depositions hearing against Abbott who faces a private prosecution for murder after the fatal shooting of Wallace at Waitara on April 30, 2000.

Mr Pennefather said Abbott should have cordoned and controlled the scene and made sure specialist staff were on the way.

He said approaching Steven Wallace without a definite plan was reckless. It was also reckless not to advise Constable Gillian Herbert, who was sitting in a parked patrol car at the scene, what might occur and what she might be called upon to do.

Sludge Report #84 – Shoot, Don’t Shoot

In This Edition: Shoot, Don’t Shoot - A Reader Responds To Police Feedback

 

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.

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?

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.

“Police Murder” is the allegation. Pure and simple. Up and down the country. On Marae, in pubs, in clubs, on campuses, in lawyer’s common rooms.

Steven Wallace was not a menacing mad-dog on a rampage, shot by a police officer roused late at night from his bed, people are saying.

According to Sludge’s sources, Constable Keith Abbott – yes that is his name - the police officer who shot Steven Wallace, had in fact not even gone to bed that night. Rather he had been up all night at a party at the Waitara Volunteer Fire Brigade, during which he had had an altercation with Wallace, who had wanted to join his force.

None of the several official records of the incident mention that Mr Abbott was quite possibly intoxicated at the time he gunned Steven Wallace down across the street in the early hours of April the 30th in the business district of Waitara.

And witnesses at the party that night have told all this to a numerous journalists, yet it hasn’t been reported. The possibility that Keith Abbott had been drinking that night hasn’t even been mentioned in fact, except in Maori media. Maori media have also reported that he hadn’t been to bed by the time the shooting took place at 3am in the morning. But these two observations have been excised from mainstream media coverage of the incident.

Sludge understands that a TV news crew filmed Tame Iti discussing these issues on his radio show, and intended to use it, but it was excised at the last minute.

We have here what appears to be a grand conspiracy of silence, in the police, in the media, in Parliament, and in the Judiciary (the Police Complaints Authority).

Why? Perhaps because the truth is too hard to bare?

Certainly the media is probably scared they will be sued by Abbott and his fellow officers for defamation. But Sludge suspects the real reason is that they fear exposing the truth will be too painful, and noone wants to take responsibility for putting this particular load of washing on the line.

And so in public, in the Media – while many reporters know something of the real circumstances - all choose to look the other way. The public face of the Steven Wallace debate is not over whether the matter should be further investigated, but simply over whether it is ethical for Abbott to be named in the media.

According to due legal process the correct outlet for this story is the Coroner’s Inquest. However this now appears no closer to going ahead, than it was at the beginning of the year. In the latest development a hearing is to be held on May 21st, more than a year after the shooting, on an application from the police to prevent the Inquest going ahead at all, on the grounds that a private prosecution is still being considered by the family.

The family of Steven Wallace have been waiting to tell their story on the witness stand for months and months, and are being denied even that.

Sludge now firmly believes that in the circumstances, Keith Abbott should not only be named, but a special independent investigator should be appointed immediately to inquire not only into what really happened that night, but into the police investigation and reports that followed.

In Sludge’s view the best possible interpretation that can be made of events, is that the officers who were in Waitara on the night of the killing failed in their duty to investigate adequately their fellow officer’s actions. Many in Waitara would quite probably go further and allege they conspired to pervert the course of justice.

The real story behind the shooting of Wellington student Steven Wallace by a Police Officer on April 30th 2000 in the town of Waitara.

Sludge first heard about these allegations just weeks after the shooting. Over the last year, more and more people involved in social justice activism in New Zealand, and in the media, have retold aspects of the story to Sludge.

Now Sludge has spoken to an individual close to the Spiderweb Productions and TKM Productions crew who worked on a documentary, broadcast in Maori, on the Waitara incident earlier this year.

Some footage shot by this team was later used by a 60 Minutes team who produced a documentary presented by Kim Webby recently on the top rating Sunday Night TV show.

The following is Sludge’s source’s raw account of what really happened on the night of April 29th and morning of April 30th 2000.

“Steven went to the fire brigade where a function was being held. He got into a confrontation with the head of the Waitara volunteer force, constable Keith Abbott. The confrontation was over Steven’s desire to become a volunteer member of the fire service.

“According to witnesses who spoke to the documentary crew the party at the Brigade had been going for several hours. People at the party were drinking. Steven got really angry as a result of the argument, and as he left the brigade he smashed the windows. He then went to Woolworths Supermarket and smashed their windows. He went on to smash windows at the Pharmacy and then the sports shop. He then swapped the baseball bat for the golf club.

“He smashed the window of the police car, and according to the police later threw away the golf club leaving himself unarmed.

“According to what I was told, Constable Keith Abbott was not called at home at 3am as he claimed. He had in fact followed Steven from the Fire Brigade, which if you think about it makes sense given that Steven had smashed the windows after having a fight with him.

“Abbott saw the police car window get smashed and went around the corner to the police station, from where he radioed the constable in the car and told her to come to the station to arm herself.

“He then went back out into the street with two other officers and shot Steven.

“Consider this. According to the police witnesses of the shooting. Steven Wallace was armed with a baseball bat. Other witnesses say he was unarmed.

“The baseball bat was found 30 meters from Wallace’s body, making it pretty nigh impossible that he was carrying it at the time he was shot.

“Throwing a baseball bat 30 metres is pretty hard at any time, to do so as five bullets are ripping through your body would be an amazing feat of strength.

“And Steven was then left laying in the road for several minutes before an ambulance was called.”

Sludge cannot be certain of this source’s testimony. It is admittedly all hearsay, but there were witnesses there who know what really happened. And it is supported by similar statements from other independent sources.

And certainly it can be said that this account differs markedly from those told in all of the official accounts of the incident.

It is trite to say that Justice needs not only to be done, it needs to be seen to be done. It is also true. Otherwise unsubstantiated rumour can circulate and destroy relationships and the very fabric of society. Sludge believes that is what is now happening, and it is because of this that Sludge has decided public interest now dictates this story be told.

If this is all lies then Keith Abbott too is entitled to justice. To have his name cleared.

In Waitara there are clearly countless variations of the story above circulating, some with more detail some with less.

And think about it, this community is still really hurting nearly 13 months after the shooting. Perhaps the reason the local priest in Waitara is pictured on TV saying that Justice has not been done, and calling for it to be done, is because he thinks he knows something you, the general public don’t.

The people of Waitara, and indeed the people of this country are entitled to know what really happened on April 30th in Waitara. There are already scars that are not healing. The longer this goes on the more this sore will fester.

Until this evidence is examined in open court and another independent inquiry is held, there will be no justice.

Instead what we have is a policeman who has killed a citizen of this country in the street, being protected behind an official, and semi-official veil of secrecy. He has been investigated by his colleagues and cleared. He has been investigated by the media and they have decided not to tell what they found out. He is still working.

The media are protecting even his identity, and just last Sunday the Sunday Star Times launched a vicious attack on those who have dared to publicise it, Dermott Nottingham and his Advantage Advocacy group.

We have a system that is doing its best to keep the truth from us all.

It is now time to kill the silence. Bang.

Depending on whether you follow the Police version of events, or those of other eye-witnesses to the shooting of Waitara youth Steven Wallace on April 30th 2000, there are variant versions of just what Steven Wallace’s final words were.

C.D. Sludge prefers the testimony of the independent witnesses to the incident.

They said Wallace’s last words to Keith Abbott, the Police Officer who shot him were, “Why are you are persecuting me! Why are you persecuting me!”

An article published in Scoop, under the byline “Sludge”, purported to be “the real story behind the shooting of Wellington student Steven Wallace”. Unfortunately the story had little or no basis of fact to provide any further informed debate on what was a tragic event.

Taking into account “Scoop’s” aim of providing a forum for unbridled free expression of opinion, I would like to provide some facts to balance the “hearsay” (your word) comments and give your readers the opportunity to make reasoned judgements.

There is no doubt the whole tragic incident will engender considerable debate as to the reasons why and how Steven Wallace was shot. 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.

FACT: The Deputy Solicitor General found that Constable A had acted lawfully.

“Sludge” states; “according to Sludges sources” (which Sludge “cannot be certain of”) that Constable A “had in fact not even gone to bed that night. Rather he had been up all night at a party at the Waitara Volunteer Fire Brigade, during which he had had an altercation with Wallace.” Sludge also suggests that Constable A was “quite possibly intoxicated” at the time of the shooting of Steven Wallace.

FACT: The rumour that Constable A and Steven Wallace attended a Fire Service social function was investigated at the time and found to have no substance whatsoever.

FACT: There is no evidence that Constable A had consumed any alcohol in the evening or the morning prior to the time of the Waitara callout.

FACT: Constable A had been on duty between 3 pm and 11 pm on 29 April 2000 and had been at home and in bed before he was called out shortly after 3 am on 30 April 2000.

Had Constable A attended the function as “Sludge” suggested, people who had attended that function would have come forward by now to substantiate the issue about Constable A and Steven Wallace being seen at the function and having an “altercation”.

FACT: No one, including the media, has provided any evidence to support that story.

“Sludge’s” strong criticism of the media for not publishing this “story” would suggest that perhaps the media had found out for themselves there was no foundation and therefore no reason or basis on which to publish such a story.

As “Sludge” points out, there is a Coroner’s Inquest, a Police Complaints Authority review yet to come and possibly a private prosecution and/or a civil suit. These are the appropriate fora for the issues to be objectively dealt with.

Police will certainly front up to any private prosecution that may be brought. We simply ask that those who might try to institute such proceedings do so now so that due process in the form of the Coroners’ Inquest and the Police Complaints Authority review might also proceed. We are certainly as frustrated as anyone in the lack of progress in bringing matters to a conclusion and are not part of what Sludge referred to as “what appears to be a grand conspiracy of silence”.

The media, in whatever form, should provide factual evidence to support any comment or opinion about what actually happened at Waitara in the early hours of Sunday, 30 April 200. Anything less is a disservice rather than a service to its readers.

In accordance with your stated mission I would ask that you publish this letter on your website to help restore some semblance of balance on the issue.