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.

Here is the High Court Excerpt from R v Lavender (http://www.hcourt.gov.au/media/R_v_Lavender.pdf), in which the HCA held that the Code (Crimes Act) did not intend to alter the common law of manslaughter so as to remove negligence or require MALICE:

The Court unanimously allowed the appeal and overturned the Court of Criminal Appeal’s decision. At common law, murder was the form of unlawful homicide accompanied by malice aforethought, while manslaughter was unlawful homicide not involving malice aforethought. That distinction was reflected in section 376 of the Crimes Act which provided that in an indictment for murder the accused would be charged with feloniously and maliciously murdering the deceased and in an indictment for manslaughter with feloniously slaying the deceased. Section 18 defines the crime of murder, and goes on to provide that every other punishable homicide shall be taken to be manslaughter. It also states: “No act or omission which was not malicious … shall be within this section”. The Court held that section 18, understood in context, did not alter the common law of unlawful homicide by involuntary manslaughter. The words “within this section” refer to the work done by the section in defining the crime of murder.

That is the COMPLETE opposite of the Prosecutor & Judges instructions to the Jury, as to the law of Manslaughter. They should both be tried. The fact they haven't and those who led the demonstration on Palm have is going to lead to something VERY VERY BAD

Oliver,

Generally amnesties are only used if it will further progress the exposure of the issue that is the subject of the Royal Commission. So in that sense I would agree with the principle.

But there are two factors that particularly concern me.

Firstly, the human perspective. Sit for a moment in the shoes of someone who has been harmed by the actions of the person who gets the amnesty.

Secondly, who decides who gets one and who doesn't. And this is linked with your question about non-police investigators.

Despite what some may think, corrupt police are some of the most difficult people to investigate. It is important to remember here that most of us only know about the ones that get caught.

Corrupt police know the system that hunts them intimately. They understand very well the power of information. They are at home both in the court room and on the streets. They can be at least the intellectual equal of those trying to investigate or prosecute them. And some have a willingness to do what those who investigate will not - they are ok with breaking a leg, giving a hot shot or putting a bullet in someone's head.

It's all very interesting, dramatic and distant on the tele. But it can be all too real and incredibly powerful in policingland. Which is sometimes not understood by those professions that tend to dominate royal commissions and oversight bodies

Oversight bodies and royal commissions try to address this problem by using teams of investigators from a variety of areas of expertise. But because of cost this inevitably means that only the more serious cases can be taken on. Meanwhile, the breeding ground is left to the an internal police investigation with inevitable results depending on the State and the particular case.

I believe there is a structural answer to that conundrum but that will be the brave subject of another article.

Sorry, no space for the last part. But for an interesting perpsective look at:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil.html

Nigel

Hi (again) to all Contributors herein...

In essence I agree with you C.J.M. - Though I do get a little weary when some seek to challenge the profound integrity that most police possess in the execution of their office.

There are more auditory processes, observing and scrutinizing members at work, than any other public official similarly engaged in serving the community.

And yet we have a former police member in Nigel, joining the ever increasing parade of those who wish to berate, criticize and admonish police, in toto.

And do you know what, though I've been retired for some years now, gee I get sick and tired of it, I really do. I did 'round twenty eight years in the job, and I wasn't corrupt, not at all !

There's corruption in ALL vocations, including amongst our political leaders.

Police try to do their job, often under difficult and onerous conditions, so cut 'em a bit of slack, now and then. Support them. Instead of pillorying and denouncing their best efforts in doing their duty.

Good night to you all...Sung Wu.

O Sung Woo seems to be entirely missing the point the author is making. He is not saying all police are corrupt or act illegally. He is saying that when they fail to properly investigate their own they bring all police into disrepute, and this will inevitably result in an independent body being established to investigate alleged criminal conduct amongst police. Sung Woo would seem to take the line that as most police are honest then we need to ignore the misconduct and criminal behaviour of the few when it does arise.
Due to attitudes like his I think it is necessary that to have an external body investigating police. Police have enormous powers that have the potential to impact adversely on ordinary citizens. To simply trot out the line that police do a difficult job under difficult circumstances to justify all manner of criminal behaviour and corruption is not good enough in my view at least.

Good evening all & Rhys...

I fully appreciate what point Nigel makes, absolutely ! I know there are corrupt police acting badly. Save for matters of a purely disciplinary nature, ALL allegations of police acting unlawfully, SHOULD be investigated by an independent body or commission with wide coercive powers.

In disciplinary matters (eg. being rude to public, absent from place of duty, unlawful use of a police vehicle, etc etc) should be determined by force command - (internally).

In ALL criminal matters - they should be investigated by an independent body/commission, as I've already articulated herein.

In my career, I've never known any copper, either uniform or 'jacks'
who would knowingly wish to work with anyone who was thought/known to be corrupt. And why would you ?

You'd lose everything; your good name and character, Super, friends, and worst, your family.

O Sung Wu,
Chris Hurley still has his family. He seems to have lots of mates that stuck thier necks out. He still has a job.

Poor Mulrunji. What penalty did he get for singing "who let the dogs out"? Obviously bad singing can be fatal in Qld

I think the police force has a lot of work to do before they can expect community trust.

Chris Hurley and his mates have demonstrated that dishonesty does pay for police officers.

Good evening to you Aka...

Sadly, I believe you're correct. Personally, I don't think the community will ever (fully) trust police. Why, I don't really know ?

I've tried to adopt the role as the 'Devil's Advocate'. Asking, why aren't we trusted ? I reckon we don't even trust each other ?
They say you should wear your body armour backwards ? Why, to protect your back, from both your peers and your superiors.

People say policing is a very stressful occupation ? Many police marriages end in divorce. If not, then many disfunctional families result, at the very least. This stress doesn't occur from ugly confrontations with crooks, no ! It comes from the many knives hanging out of your back, having been carefully planted therein, by your so called mates and colleagues at work ? You can believe that, Aka, absolutely.

If we can't even trust each other, how then, can we expect the public to trust us ? Beats me ?

Sung wu.

Hi Nigel
I wish to send you some sensitive material regarding police and judicial corruption, how can I do this off forum?

Cheers
Rivet

rivet

my email address is avcr@bigpond.com

regards

Nigel