The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Mulrunji Doomadgee - we deserve to know the facts > Comments

Mulrunji Doomadgee - we deserve to know the facts : Comments

By Selwyn Johnston, published 20/12/2006

If this unholy mess is not sorted out in very short order there will be a lot of disappointed if not angry people about.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 24
  8. 25
  9. 26
  10. All
This whole episode has been sad. I intend to disagree with the author, but on systemic grounds. Nothing I write is intended to diminish my respectfulness towards the grieving on Palm Island.

The distinguishing characteristic of this debate has been a lack of understanding of how the legal system operates.

This lack of understanding is exemplified by Mr Selwyn's statement that the Coroner and DPP dealt with "exactly the same evidence". They dealt with the same circumstances, but with rather different evidence. I will endeavour to explain.

The Coroner determines why a death happened. However the Coroner is not bound by rules of evidence [Coroners Act s.37] and is not able to determine criminal guilt or civil liability [Coroners Act s. 46(3)]. They are able to rely, for instance, on hearsay evidence which could not be admitted in a criminal court.

The role of the DPP, however, is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction in a criminal court. The DPP must consider all of those rules of evidence which do not bind the coroner. The DPP's guidelines state that "A prosecution should not proceed if there is no prospect of conviction before a resonable jury (or Magistrate)." In this case, taking into account ONLY the evidence which would be asmissible in a criminal court, the DPP has decided there is no reasonable prospect of a conviction.

It is important to realise the DPP has NOT made a "finding" that there was no moral or other fault attaching to the police officer. All the DPP has decided is that a conviction cannot be obtained.

The DPP and Coroner are different officers, operating under different rules of court and different rules of evidence. In this case, they seem to have both done their job.
Posted by AnthonyMarinac, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 9:22:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There will be a rally today, Wednesday December 20th, at midday in Queens Park, Brisbane City, on the corner of George and Elizabeth Sts.

The rally will insist that DPP Clare be replaced with someone who will act on the evidence in front of them, and who will bring criminal charges 'of the highest order' against S/Sgt Hurley.

More information about the rally is here:

http://letstakeover.blogspot.com/2006/12/mulrunjis-killer-will-not-be-charged.html

and here:

http://socialistalliancebrisbane.blogspot.com/2006/12/dpp-decision-re-chris-hurleyaboriginal.html

David Jackmanson
http://www.letstakeover.blogspot.com
Posted by David Jackmanson, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 9:48:29 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AnthonyMarinac does well to clarify the points that many seem to have missed completely - and it is an administrative decision of the DPP - that there is not enough evidence for a conviction and thus to warrant laying charges.

I would argue that this should not be the case here - it would be better to have this matter heard by a criminal court regardless of the lack of evidence, and resources that would be spent in the hope of something good coming from it.
Posted by Michael 06, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 10:21:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,

What do you hope to achieve?

If a new DPP did bring charges "of the highest order" against the officer, then (at least in the judgment of the current DPP) those charges would be likely to fail anway. What then? A protest against the judges demanding that they vacate their "not guilty" verdict?

Given the choice between an independent DPP who sometimes makes decisions I disagree with, and a DPP who is instructed by politicians, media and rallies who she should or should not prosecute, give me the former every day of the week.

Have Queenslanders already forgotten what happens when governments interfere with the justice system? Is Terry Lewis already such a distant memory? As I remember, indigenous people didn't do particularly well under that regime either.

Mr Beattie's comments in the past few days show that by refusing to scapegoat the DPP he is making a decision which is highly unpopular, but ethically flawless. I admire his strength.

Anthony
Posted by AnthonyMarinac, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 10:21:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry, missed out the name of this Online thesis writer, but go for it, mate. Thank God, some people have still got the guts.

To be sure the immoral aspects of the colonial days, are still well within our Australian mindset, as any expeienced sociologist can tell. Social engineering as it has long been called, has gained such a bad name because of its extensive range from child-rearing to international problems. Social scientists are not only easy targets for our more fascistic Online contributers but very much so for populists like Pauline Hanson - also not leaving out our cagey PM, who we notice has uttered hardly a murmer since this Doomadgee problem has arisen.

Unfortunately, Labor too, has remained sadly silent, Julia and Steven besides.
Posted by bushbred, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 10:29:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One can only wonder what would have happened if the shoe had been on the other foot, and Sen Sgt Hurley had died from a split spleen, and many other internal and external injuries.

Palm Island needs and deserves justice, without it one can only expect more of the same, how would you feel if it was your brother, husband or father? Not the same as Palm Islanders, I don't believe you.
Posted by SHONGA, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 11:12:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 24
  8. 25
  9. 26
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy