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.