Hi there Nigel...

I've not seen any of your material previously. Probably just as well.

I find it quite tedious in the extreme to see yet another former policeman attempt to moralise and lecture his former work colleagues on issues of individual probity, by adopting the moral high ground in matters of topical sensitivity.

I would imagine you'd be a barrel of laughs when working a car together ? And space at a table in the muster room would never be a problem for you either, Nigel.

It's funny really, how there seems to be an abundance of former police from the UK, who come over to this colonial outpost and try to tell Aussie Police about occupational ethics, integrity and rectitude ?

Mr Peter Ryan, a lovely guy from what I heard didn't manage to teach the NSW folk a great deal ?

My advice to you my friend, rather than admonishing your former colleagues on such personal issues, attend to your own back yard MATE ?

Cheers...Sung Wu

Nigel,

In the NSW Royal Commission some years ago, the bad eggs were given an amnasty. Do you believe that it was the correct approach? Or, should non-police investigators be involved?

What is also a concern is that like the Church (paedophiles) and the Miltary (atrocities), there is a "brotherhood" who are also guilty after-the-fact, because they wont blow the whistle. They are guilty of cover-ups, I suspect. Have you seen this?

O sung wu,
can't you handle the truth?

I guess the investigation isn't going to well for you then?

The biggest problem the police force faces is that those who do the right thing, are fair and honest, are often intimidated and forced into submission or resigning.

The bully boys allowed no space in the discussion over the death of Mulrunji for police who did not support the union stance on Chris Hurley.

I believe that if police officers do not tow the line, they can face extreme retaliation from thier colleagues. Mates indeed.

May god keep the honest cops safe and honest, because they are an endangered species.

What disturbed me the most about this investigation, was not the Police investigation, the Coroner's Report or anything of the sort.

Sgt. Hurley was acquitted due to DELIBERATE PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, coupled with DELIBERATE JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT. The Judge deliberately failed to inform the Jury of the LAW AS IT STANDS, that a finding of Manslaughter was required if they were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that:

(a) found that Sgt Hurley was solely responsible for the Welfare of Mr Doomadgee (ie. He had him in Custody);

(b) Sgt Hurley was aware that Mr Doomadgee was injured, having been involved in a serious physical altercation with him (during which he fell heavily upon Mr Doomadgee), and that he may have needed medical aid as a result; and

(c) Sgt Hurley, for one reason or another, failed to provide medical attention, leading DIRECTLY to Mr Doomadgee's death.

Instead the Prosecutor, with the Judges acquiescence, informed the Jury that the "LAW" was that they needed to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, that Sgt Hurley INTENDED TO KILL MR DOOMADGEE. That is not the law, never has been, and is not the law applied in any other manslaughter case in the HISTORY OF QUEENSLAND.

Given that Manslaughter has been proven in similar cases of criminal negligence in Queensland, given that there can be no doubt that that is what occurred here, I am amazed that anyone would have the effrontery to suggest that the "problem" with this case was Police investigating Police.

The deliberate Prosecutorial & Judicial Misconduct in this case are beyond belief, they outweigh the "issues" in the Police investigation inestimably. That they have not been investigated or even seriously discussed is an Indictment on the State of Queensland.

Manslaughter: Code s.303(http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/Benchbook/SD-146-UnlawfulKilling-Manslaughter-s-303.pdf):

In order for the prosecution to prove the charge of manslaughter, it must establish that the defendant killed the deceased and that he did so unlawfully. Unlawful simply means not authorised, justified or excused by law.

Significantly, it is not an element of the offence that the defendant intended to kill the deceased or to do the deceased any particular harm. So it is sufficient if the prosecution proves that the accused unlawfully killed the deceased.

Shows that intent forms no part of the charge of Manslaughter, while the following quote:

"In order to establish manslaughter by criminal negligence, it is sufficient if the prosecution shows that the act which caused the death was done by the accused consciously and voluntarily, without any intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm but in circumstances which involved such a great falling short of the standard of care which a reasonable man would have exercised and which involved such a high risk that death or grievous bodily harm would follow that doing of the act merited criminal punishment."
This test was approved by the High Court in The Queen v Lavender (2005) 222 CLR 67.

The NSW Benchbook(http://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/criminal/manslaughter.html#p5-1000) has this:

1. That the accused had a duty of care to the deceased;

2.That the accused was negligent in that by the accused’s act, the accused was in breach of that duty of care in that the accused … [insert the act of the accused upon which the Crown relies];

3. That such act of the accused [caused/accelerated] the death of the deceased; and

4. That such act merited criminal punishment because:

(i) it fell so far short of the standard of care which a reasonable person would have exercised in the circumstances; and

(ii) involved such a high risk that death or really serious bodily harm would follow; and

(iii) the degree of negligence involved in the conduct is so serious that it should be treated as criminal conduct.

Why this alternative was deliberately kept from the jury needs investigation.

o sung wu,

The Hurley investigation and prosecution have had more than a whiff about them of a cover up, which reflects poorly and unfairly on all police. Surely it's in the interests of all police for investigations into them to be seen by the public to be without fear or favour?

I suggest that there is currently a widespread impression that they are not, and not just in Queensland.

Nigel Powell is suggesting that when police are investigating other police they need to lift their game, otherwise an independent body will be imposed upon them. I think he's being optimistic. My feeling is that any investigation into potentially illegal behaviour by police should probably be conducted by independent, external investigators.