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. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 24
  7. 25
  8. 26
  9. 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
None of us were there and i will assume none of us have been privy to the facts/evidence that the DPP has had.

Whilst on the surface it seems like this is a poor judgement, i dont think the DPP did anything other than their job, and made the only decision they could baesd on evidence.

When a situation erupts and an environment of violence follows, it can be an intense and at times fearful situation. The heavy handedness of the police in response to Mr Doomadgee on that day resulted in his death, but these police as with most police in violent situations did not attempt to kill anyone, it was an unfortunate accident.

Whats wrong with the whole situation is that the Police could not integrate with the community on palm island and lived seperate lives adjacent to a population they are meant to protect and serve. With this fact and the fact that the police had lost respect for many in the population due to frequent incidents and segregation, meant the police dehumaned many of these people and the lack of empathy and respect meant they became more force assertive than they should with past history and fear in the back of their minds.

I think the mental state of the police in that remote community was not right to begin with, and the environment they are subjected to combined with an intense situation means bad decisions and actions where taken.

I am glad im not sorting it out, i feel sorry for Palm Island. If it where my family id be just as angry.
Posted by Realist, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 11:51:07 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
Our laws and our opinions all seem to echoing the English rule of law which the Aboriginal people have been coping for 250 years. Beatie telling them on Palm Island that "we'll have a new start" doesn't even come close to mending the chasm that divides our nation. Until we meet Aboriginal where they are at, we will never be a united nation. There are to many scares from the past that have never been properly dealt with, and Mulrunji Doomadgee death is just another cut in their flesh from an unjust legal system.
Posted by Pidgeon, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 12:27:49 PM
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
The injuries suffered did not result from a fall. How were they sustained is the question. Claire didn't answer that. The Coroner did. The bulling b.....d is as guilty as sin.

A court would also find an answer to that question.

I think a court should decide ... not a bungling bureaucrat who is open to influence and bullying unlike our independant apointed and traditional Judiciary.

I'm outraged and I'm not aboriginal.

I reckon the Police Union, the Government and Claire have cut a deal.
Posted by keith, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 1:30:49 PM
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
I want to add My voice to those who make the point that the coroner and the DPP work to different standards of proof,the former only has to make a case "on the ballance of probabilities " where as the later has to work on the much higher standard of "Beyond reasonable doubt.' a much higher hurdle to cross.
So as I see it this case will cause outrage from the usual suspects now or later after the aquital that would have to follow a case based on such flimsy ADMISSABLE evidence.
I wote about this topic at my own blog here http://boltwatch-watch.blogspot.com/2006/12/beyond-reasonable-doubt.html
Posted by IAIN HALL, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 2:28:15 PM
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
One of the basic tenants of a democracy is that our system of government functions fairly and justly for the benefit of all, and is not open to pressure or manipulation for the benefit of an individual, an organization or even the government itself.

In a democracy, justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done, and in the recent desision regarding Mulrunjie Doomadgee justice has certainly not been seen to be done.

I have always been one of the so called silent majority and have never written to a newspaper or participated in a forum such as this, but I am so disgusted with what I see as a racist decision designed to appease some behind the scenes powerbroker that I am adding my voice to the protest.

It is my perception that we now have a government in queensland that is so confident in its ability to run ove the top af a woeful opposition that it does not even make any pretence to hide its arrogance, and the Doomadgee decision may be just the tip of the iceberg.

I believe that the only way now to bring some credibility into this farce is for an open and independant review of all aspects of the recent decision, and justice must be seen to be done.
Posted by Peter28, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 3:39:30 PM
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
AnthonyMarinac and Others,

I think many posters who are against an independent review of the DPP's decision miss the relevant procedures of law altogether.

An independent review would not just examine the DPP's examination of the case but would also examine all the evidence collected and legal opinions put forward including that submitted by Clements, the Deputy State Coroner.

But despite calls for this review the Beattie government has indicated a reluctance to interfere with the "independence" of the DPP.

This reluctance is not based on any legal reasoning as independent reviews have already been conducted in two other very public cases.

These legal cases involved

• Pauline Hanson
• Di Fingleton and the
• Volkers prosecutions.

If you admire Beattie for being somehow ‘ethical’ and accepting the ‘umpire’s decision’ then surely you would have absolutely no cause for concern if the DPP’s ruling was reviewed. Why would you?

If the DPP’s ruling is water tight it should of its own volition survive any external and independent review.

Or do you really believe justice has been served thus far to all concerned?
Posted by Rainier, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 4:48:49 PM
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
I am quite disturbed about some of the outbursts in this case. Does a lot of this boil down to charge the police officer regardless of whether there is any evidence. How evil would that be?
Posted by baldpaul, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 5:36:31 PM
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
AnthonyMarinac makes a reasonable, detached argument but misses a couple of crucial issues. First, a man held in custody for a low-level misdemeanour is dead and we should all extend our sympathies to his family and his community. I feel diminished by Mulrunji's death and I know many others do too. This is a time for compassion, not for mere competitive argumentation. Logical legal argument does not change the fact that there will be no justice in this case using current approaches.

Second, as Tom Calma, the ATSISJ Commissioner, points out, in claiming that Mulrunji’s death was an accident, the Director of Public Prosecutions went beyond her role and duties. Her role was to determine whether the available evidence supported a prosecution. It did not require her to decide whether the death was accidental or not. She did not have the evidence or capacity to support that finding. Why did she make that claim?

There are other matters to resolve. The Deputy State Coroner found that the police investigation into Mulrunji’s death did not meet the standard required for a death in custody. What action, then, has the Police Commissioner taken to remedy that failure?

Moreover, this is another death in custody - fifteen years after governments around Australia resolved to reform the system. Something continues to go wrong. Why?
Posted by FrankGol, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 5:41:32 PM
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
It would seem to me essential that the Director of Public Prosecutions should be free to make their best judgement based on the evidence available. It is dangerously wrong for a politician to instruct the DPP one way or the other. But surely a DPP sensitive to the public outcry could autonomously initiate a double check of their decision, perhaps by asking some independent authority to nominate an impartial judge of the evidence. I very much suspect that the evidence for a successful prosecution will be lacking, but that is the next question to be asked. Was the evidence gathering adequately?
It is very very sad that someone die in those circumstances, but it would be even sadder if that misfortune were compounded by further injustice, whether it be to try an officer or not to try him. Let the available facts speak.
Posted by Fencepost, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 6:28:49 PM
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
Good on you Realist. Shonga's attack on you was out of order.

As in South Africa, it will take some time before justice and reconciliation win through here. It will happen, eventually, but it will be too late for Mulrunji Doomadgee.

Poor fella my country, indeed.
Posted by Mercurius, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 6:32:43 PM
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
• baldpaul wrote: "I am quite disturbed about some of the outbursts in this case. Does a lot of this boil down to charge the police officer regardless of whether there is any evidence. How evil would that be? "

BaldPaul, Very evil, just as evil as to believe an Aboriginal man died in custody of injuries that no-one inflicted on him.

The evidence is substantial and comprehensive in my view, bfut perhaps you think the Coroners report was full of lies?

When 3 bouncers were charged in May for the death of a patron at the Royal Exchange pub in May this year no one said a thing.

When an Aboriginal man arrested for swearing was thrown into a paddy wagon, then allegedly died from injuries that medical experts say could only have been inflicted with great force - should we all presume the policeman was innocent?

I know it might seem 'natural', even inevitable, that Aboriginal or other people continue to die in custody, but it’s not natural, its not right and it should be questioned.

Thanks to those posters here who asked ‘what if it were your family’ because that’s exactly what its all about. Because it could be someone in your family next.
Posted by Rainier, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 7:01:08 PM
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
We deserve to know the facts ?

I'll go one better.. if there is a genuine issue of police brutality here and justice is not done nor seen to be done, then we are one step (and understandably so) further down the track of aboriginal violent radicalism and retribution.

Here is the classic weakness of 'Multi-culturalism'. When you have racially and culturally divided communities and ANY issue like this arises, the sneaking suspicions that normally just simmer, rage to the boil in a milisecond.

Be it a
-Shortage (lets be sure 'our mob' get our fair share)
-Death in Custody (aah..this was CERTainly racially motivated)
-Abundance (I'll BET that mob are going to do better because they are well connected to the people up top)

In short ANY major social disturbance will reveal the flaws of many cultures and will immediately nullify the idea of 'strength' in diversity.

The Qld government is probably the worst and most racist of all state governments from what I've read. (historically I mean)
The saying "God is not mocked, a man will reap what he sows" also applies to this incident.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 7:30:24 PM
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
Ranier lets put the boot on the other foot; what if it was a member of your family who was being sent to trial for a serious matter involving the death of another man but the forensic evidence was ambiguous and or just circumstantial and the only witness was an unreliable drunk with an axe to grind.
The last time I checked we have a presumption of innocence in our legal system and all of those who are baying for Hurley's blood in this matter seem to think that evidence substantial enough to convict him is going to magically appear. In the absence of a confession from Hurley he would be acquitted.
Posted by IAIN HALL, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 7:41:01 PM
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
A few years ago I saw a Federal Minister in relation to a matter of misconduct and abuse of power and he said to me that he used to be a criminal lawyer and that it didn't matter what evidence I had, that it wouldn't be enough.

I definately think that there is something that we are not being told in relation to the processing of dealing with issues in relation to moral misconduct and abuse of power.

In NSW you really cannot have an Ombudsman decision reviewed independantly and you cannot request the Ombudsmans documents under FOI. They are beyond scruitiny.

When I alleged a cover up of a serious matter I was told by the Office of the Ombudsman and Police Integrity Commission that under the Ombudsman Act Section 31(B) 2 they were prohibited from investigating particular conduct. Particular conduct was not defined in the Act but on further questioning it appeared that particular conduct referred to abuse of power and/or conspiracies to cover up misconduct. It seems that bureacrats are protected from being asked questions about their conduct.

Bureaucrats are above the Law and Policies and Code of Conducts are not enforcable and are not worth the paper they are written on.

Why these people are allowed to get away with this is beyond me.
Posted by Jolanda, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 9:32:04 PM
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
Ian Hall.

You are right a person is assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court. The last time I checked the DPP wasn't a court. The Coroners inquest was conducted in a Coroners Court, and to date that court accuses him of inflicting injuries which resulted in death of a man in his custody.

And you must also realise in our traditional courts all the admissable evidence would be tested including the evidence of all the policemen present. If I was Hurley that's what I'd be afraid off mostly. And of course Hurley's change of story would also be tested. As would Hurley if he testified.

His guilt or innocence wouldn't be determined by a bureaucrat or fellow police it would be tested openly in our independant courts by an independant Judiciary.

Why can't that be done?

Naaaah something stinks.
Posted by keith, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 11:14:04 PM
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
Rainier,

You make a good argument. At one level I have no problem with a review of the DPP's actions because, as you suggest, if she has done her job well she has nothing to fear, and if she has done her job poorly then it should be corrected. However I am a bit hesitant too. In the other cases you cite, there were fairly apparent contentions about whether the law had been properly applied, and that was the basis for review. In this case, the concern seems less about issues of legal principle, and more about whether the victim's family have received justice. (I understand it is respectful not to use his name? Sorry if I've got that courtesy wrong). I would be reluctant to institutionalise a system of second guessing the DPP.

If it really is about the victim's family, then I think the answer lies in the political rather than the judicial realm. The best legacy these incidents could leave is a renewed effort to see the aspirations of the people of Palm Island met, and a renewed effort to look at the way Queensland Police interact with indigenous people.

FrankGol,

I'm pretty sure I did extend my sympathy and respect mate. Read my first line.

However you do make two excellent points – one about the DPP going beyond her brief, and one about continuing deaths in custody. I agree that both of those should be considered, and appropriate action taken. But again these are *policy* issues which do not relate to the question of whether this particular police officer should be charged. If he is charged, tried, and acquitted, how are either of those issues advanced?
Posted by AnthonyMarinac, Thursday, 21 December 2006 9:34:59 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
Unless there is an independant inquiry I will continue to believe there was political interference in the DDPs assesment of this case.

Rainier reminds us of the Hanson case and of Di Fingleton and the Volkers prosecution. I had forgotten the later two. They all point to political meddling.

If Beatie has any brains he will order an independant inquiry. Sadly a person has lost his life and the whole episode leaves a bad taste in ones mouth.
Posted by Banjo, Thursday, 21 December 2006 9:38:08 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 of the difficulties of having an 'inependent review' of the DPP's decision not to prosecute is that there can be, in this situation, no 'independence' of review, as the DPP, being an independent body, cannot have its independence challenged by a review, without it losing its independence.

Any government appointed review would be, in effect, aying that the government (being the legislative and policy arm of 'government') doesn't like the decision of the DPP, in effect making a political decision.

The alternative possible course would be for the Aboriginal Legal Service to institute a Supreme Court action for civil damages against both the officer concerned, the Qld Police Force and the Qld Government, that whilst still not operating at the 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard required for a criminal matter, would still examine the evidence at a closer level to that required for a criminal prosecution, and would allow that evience to be tested.

One further possible alternative, (and I don't know how far this could go, as I am not a lawyer, let alone a constitutional lawyer) would be for the Aboriginal Legal Service to try to get the High Court, using the powers originating from the 1966 referendum, to get the Federal Courts involved.

I don't know if action could be taken using Commonwealth Anti-Discrimination legislation, in the same way that in the US Federal 'Civil Rights' powers are used when states fail to prosecute. his could still be possibly agitated.
Posted by Hamlet, Thursday, 21 December 2006 10:46:34 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
Gee Hamlet, you certainly sound like a lawyer. If you are not a lawyer, then maybe you should be?
Posted by Jolanda, Thursday, 21 December 2006 3:35:02 PM
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
Realist,
I may have come on a bit strong, however I live in the locality, and know the history of Palm, and it disgusts me to see the continueing lack of justice. You must know the history of Palm before you can make any comments that will be helpful.

If I over stepped the mark I apologiser, this is a very emotive issue for me I have seen this happen for 30 years, these people have been abused by society in general.
Posted by SHONGA, Thursday, 21 December 2006 5:32:41 PM
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 is another problem with the idea of an 'independent review' and that is what would you do with the reviews findings?

The only sort of possible review that could be held would be in the form of a committal hearing before a magistrate, otherwise a non-judicial review would taint any possible future trial: that is, if an 'independent person' decided that the police officer should face charges, after a review, then that person's findings could be challenged as being politically motivated, and if it is found that no charges should be laid then all the people baying for the blood of the police office and the DPP would start baying for the blood of the reviewer as well.

If the DPP took the matter to committal (hard to do at this stage, because the DPP has already shown the cards in its hand) and a magistrate found that there was 'insufficient evidence for a jury, properly instructed, to find a guilty verdict' then those baying for blood would still not be satisfied, still claiming interference.

The DPP could still lay an ex officio indictment in this situation, but a conviction would still be hard to come by, because if you cannot convince a magistrate that a jury may convict, actually getting one to convict is against the odds (it happens, but is rare).

So, what else could be done? Have a prosecutor from another jurisdiction review the evidence and perhaps run the case in court so that the Qld DPP is out of the loop? Possible, but still difficult. Impartial members of a jury, who would have at least read about the matter, would also be hard to come by.

So last possibility? A 'judge alone' trial conducted by an interstate prosecutor? The High Court would most likely tear any conviction to shreds, particularly if the accused did not consent to a judge alone trial, and why would the accused consent to such a piece of theatre?

No matter what course was taken there will be accusations of political interference.
Posted by Hamlet, Thursday, 21 December 2006 8:26:48 PM
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
I've been informed that the Queensland DPP’s decision not to prosecute is reviewable under the Judicial Review Act.

An application for review to the Supreme Court of Queensland is expected to be filed shortly.
Posted by Rainier, Thursday, 21 December 2006 9:32:04 PM
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
3 legal opinions have been released

See these links:

http://mp3.news.com.au/bcm/1220protest/Scan2266.pdf

http://mp3.news.com.au/bcm/1220protest/Scan2282.pdf

http://mp3.news.com.au/bcm/1220protest/Scan2283.pdf
Posted by Rainier, Thursday, 21 December 2006 10:05:03 PM
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
"If this unholy mess is not sorted out in very short order there will be a lot of disappointed if not angry people about."

The DPP decision not to prosecute Constable Hurley was met with utter disbelief in our household.

I know that the DPP has to have enough evidence to proceed and prove beyond doubt that Mulrunji Doomadgee was unlawfully dealt with, however, this begs the question "Why not proceed with lesser charges? And what about the doubt created in the general population as to the integrity of not only the DPP but the QPS.

Just as point of interest re: the Doomadgee's injury. It takes a hell of a lot of force to cause such an injury. You'd have rughby players, motocross riders, and the extreme sport kinds wiping themselves out to the level that the coroner would disregard the evidence (injuries) in this particular watch-house incident.
The coroner's report suggests without too much doubt that excessive force was used. That is fairly compelling evidence.

You want to help get rid of doubt - proceed to court.

Something is very wrong here.
Posted by ronnie peters, Friday, 22 December 2006 2:42:39 PM
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
ronnie,
dam right something doesn't add up, take it to court and either clear or convict
Posted by SHONGA, Friday, 22 December 2006 3:31:18 PM
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
"I know that the DPP has to have enough evidence to proceed and prove beyond doubt that Mulrunji Doomadgee was unlawfully dealt with, however, this begs the question "Why not proceed with lesser charges? And what about the doubt created in the general population as to the integrity of not only the DPP but the QPS."
Ronnie
The DPP has determined that NO charges could succeed on the available evidence so what is a review going to do? Nothing but raise false hopes for the dead mans family and incur a substantial cost for NO RESULT.

"The coroner's report suggests without too much doubt that excessive force was used. That is fairly compelling evidence."
That is compelling evidence of only one thing the nature of the injuries that caused his death; to get a conviction ,even for manslaughter you would have to prove that Hurley actually intentionally caused those injuries there are NO reliable witnesses to the events in question and Hurley would rightly exercise his right to remain silent. Wether he is culpable or not there can be no way that the law can bring a successful prosecution. Which explains Leanne Clare's decision.

"You want to help get rid of doubt - proceed to court."
You can't seriously believe that those who want to see Hurley imprisoned (or killed) over this matter would be any happier after an acquittal than they are now. The cries of "its an injustice ECT would just be postponed until later.

“Something is very wrong here.”

Yes Ronnie too many people do not understand the rules of evidence and the concept of proving a case “beyond reasonable doubt” That the foundation of our justice system and we abandon it at our own peril
Posted by IAIN HALL, Friday, 22 December 2006 6:29:31 PM
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
IAIAN,
Sadly I have come to your conclusion in the laymans way, even the police sometimes know who the guilty part is, but are unable to prove it, as is the case here. The Mackay murders in Townsville 30 odd years ago proved this, they knew who killed the girls but were unable to prove who did it, the murderer died of natural causes unfortunately.
Posted by SHONGA, Friday, 22 December 2006 6:41:22 PM
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
The foundation of our justice system scares me.

It is scary because the way the system works unless there is a confession then a case cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt because the accused is permitted to refuse to answer questions about the event on the grounds that it might incriminate him/her!?

The Law focuses on saving money and avoids investigations, protecting the accused, because they know that the accused will get away with it as the Law protects the criminal from being asked questions. If there are no questions allowed to be asked a matter can never be resolved.

Given that Mulrunji Doomadgee isn’t alive to tell his side of the story, allowing silence is being afforded a right to cover up or hide your deeds and that isn’t fair especially when the reputation of the deceased and his people are being impacted.
Posted by Jolanda, Friday, 22 December 2006 6:43:01 PM
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
Iain Hall,

My old mate Keith has already tied to point you in the right direction but I’ll try again with another angle.

The DPP appears to think she can decide what a jury would /or would not consider to be beyond reasonable doubt.

If you think that one legal bureaucrat’s subjective evaluation is enough to deliver justice, that’s your choice.

I question whether the DPP could make a positive finding of “accidental death” at all.

This I believe should be left to a jury.

I agree in ‘principle’ only that the government should maintain respect for the independence of the office of the DPP, but from what I understand the DPP has offered up her file to the Attorney General and has therefore agreed to an independent review.

Will this file (including the new evidence) reveal that she exceeded her powers? Her inflammatory public statements suggest that she has.

This is after all the evidence which formed the basis of her ruling not to charge Hurley.

This suggests that she made a ruling on evidence that was not made accessible to the lawyers of the Doomadgee family. Where is the transparency in this?

See this link for more information: http://statements.cabinet.qld.gov.au/MMS/StatementDisplaySingle.aspx?id=49762

If any dangerous legal precedent has been set then it’s much older than the Independent review now underway.

Approximately 250 Indigenous people have died in custody over the past decade and a half - with no criminal charges being made against police.

Another ways of looking at this is that it is 250 precedents of ‘police being innocent beyond reasonable doubt’.

New procedures now being bought in to treat every death as suspicious won’t help these people.

Do Queensland police have a history of flogging Aboriginal people in custody?

There are hundreds of law abiding Aboriginal people who would answer this in the affirmative.

Some believe that the DPP did not deliberate on the cause of death, but rather, on how Hurley et al could get away with murder.

Given the history of Aboriginal Deaths in Custody I think this is a reasonable call.
Posted by Rainier, Friday, 22 December 2006 9:43:36 PM
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
Rainier, the problem about leaving it completely to the jury is that, for various reasons, not all evidence (ie hearsay 'evidence') doesn't make it before a jury.

This works both ways in this situation. It puts limits on what the police and other authorities can place before juries. For instance, say a group of police officers decide to fit up an Aboriginal because they consider him, or her, to be a troublemaker.

The right to silence is also important, because it means that police cannot trick someone who has a low level of education, from making admissions while they are in a state of confusion.

If it was left completely up to police and juries, without the filter of an impartial DPP and judiciary, directing juries, more people would be in gaol as a result of mere suspicion than is the case now.

Juries can be fickle creatures, their responsibility is to the the judges of the facts, not of the law. You never know, under a jury the police officer may just be found not guilty.

In a trial the past history of the deceased, his medical history, any criminal history, his background, character, previous interactions with police and many other factors may be raised, in defence of the accused. Anything that may raise doubt in the jury's mind of the possible cause of the fatal injuries will be dredged up and placed before the jury.

The circumstances of his arrest, and previous arrests, ie did he 'fall' before? These were not necessarily within the brief of the coroner, but will be used by the defence. What doubt can be raised in the minds of the jury?

Before you claim this to be unjust, these are exactly the tactics used by barristers briefed by the Aboriginal Legal Service. Or is someone here claiming that Aboriginals should have the right to silence but a police officer should not have?
Posted by Hamlet, Friday, 22 December 2006 11:02:25 PM
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
Hamlet,

We could hypothesize forever but I would rather stick with the case at hand for an eventual trial by jury of Hurley.

My understanding is that not only does the community (both black and white) feel that the anomaly between the Coroner and the DPP determinations is so stark that it requires a review, there are also lawyers who feel that this should be case should eventually be presided over by a judge and jury.

As previously stated The DPP had not revealed the full evidence that her apparent “impartiality” was based on. Why is this?

While the dredging up of past records or evidence may have impact the jury would be asked to decide on questions directly related to the crime at hand.

From my experience your scenario is more at home on TV law shows than the actual workings of criminal courts.

In my lay perspective the question is whether or not that impact was the result of deliberate conduct or whether it was, as Mrs Clare has decided, the result of a “complicated fall” which was just a "terrible accident”.

Everyone falls over sometime or other.

But few of us fall over with a 130 kilo policemen (throwing punches) on top of oneself.

And very few of die from our liver splitting in two from a simple fall.

If a member of your family died like this in a public place would you accept what the DPP has declared as a reasonable explanation? I doubt it very much.

No , you’d be screaming for a review and criminal charges – which leads to a judge and jury.

Why do you argue for the family of the deceased to accept less than this?
Posted by Rainier, Saturday, 23 December 2006 12:26:46 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
There are a couple of things that will lead to a conviction for Hurley. One is the testing of the evidence of the other police officers present. The other is Hurley's previous history of violence towards individuals.

Both were examined by the Coroner and from a reading of her report appeared to have had a significant influence in her findings.

Those are the things I'd be fearful of, if I was Hurley or among his supporters.

They can only be tested in a court.

Hi Rainier. Thanks. Am ill at present and unfortunately missed last Wed. Am watching Sam's Green webpage for next.
Posted by keith, Saturday, 23 December 2006 9:34:19 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
Any previous history that Hurley has of violence will never make it before a jury, with the possible exception of being used as 'tendency' evidence. Even then, this cannot be hearsay, the victims themselves, or actual witnesses, would need to give evidence, and would also be subject to cross examination.

It is only if the accused himself raises the issues of his own character and history that the crown will be in a position to attack that character.

Always remember that it is the Crown that has to prove guilt, and not the accused to prove innocence.

If a crown witness raises character, except in an extremely limited way, it is most likely that the trial will be aborted. If the trial continues and a conviction ensues it is most likely that it would be overturned on appeal.

Regarding my knowledge of trials, I spent six years working as a court officer in the NSW Supreme and District Courts, observing many murder and other trials first hand. I have seen how witnesses are examined, and cross examined. I have seen how the character of murder victims, and victims of assault and other crimes, is raised and how any actions that they have done may have contributed to events. I am a layman, not schooled in the law, but I have seen the law in action much more than the average person.
Posted by Hamlet, Saturday, 23 December 2006 12:28:25 PM
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
Rainer

"I question whether the DPP could make a positive finding of “accidental death” at all.”

Well that is here job from an administrive point of view to look at the strength of the ADMISSIBLE evidence and consider wether , a conviction would be possible . You do not have to be A QC , barrister or even a first year law student to see that the case against Hurley is not strong enough for Jury to convict him on any charges .


"This is after all the evidence which formed the basis of her ruling .”
No it is the LACK of enough evidence that has led her to make her recommendations.

”the Independent review now underway”.

The review will I think prove to be nothing more than a PR exercise and I think that in the end Clare's decision will be upheld.

‘police being innocent beyond reasonable doubt’.

This is sad but rather irrelevant you seek to conflate other events into the death of this man to establish some sort of dark culture of indifference at best or persistent evil at worst in the Queensland police force.


”Do Queensland police have a history of flogging Aboriginal people in custody? “
Every death in custody is a serious matter but as some one who lives in Queensland I can assure you that the police culture that was evident under Joh has changed but the left’s propensity to assume the worst about those who serve their community in the police has not.


”Some believe that the DPP did not deliberate on the cause of death, but rather, on how Hurley et al could get away with murder. Given the history of Aboriginal Deaths in Custody I think this is a reasonable call.”

Some people believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden but that does not make them real .I have considered this matter further at my own blog in this post http://boltwatch-watch.blogspot.com/2006/12/vengeance-is-not-justice.html I realise that many people are arguing emotionally on this topic but the law actually requires us to consider the matter on variifiable facts and evidence.
Posted by IAIN HALL, Saturday, 23 December 2006 1:25:44 PM
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
Hamlet said: "The right to silence is also important, because it means that police cannot trick someone who has a low level of education, from making admissions while they are in a state of confusion".

I agree that there should be a right to silence at the begining, to a degree so as to protect people from being intimidated into making false confessions or admissions, but it shouldn't extend to the degree and level that it does now.

What's worse, the police tricking someone into making a confession and then the person having to fight for thier innocence or the police killing someone so that they don't make a confession and then the police being allowed to remain silent about it?.
Posted by Jolanda, Saturday, 23 December 2006 1:54:44 PM
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
Iain

The victims of some of Hurleys previous episodes gave evidence at the Coroner's enquiry. The Coroner dwelt heavily on this aspect of Hurley's behaviour in her report and was extreme in her criticism of Hurley's callousness. Read her report.

It would be admissable.

If it was a lack of evidence that led Claire to her decision how then and why did Claire declare the death was a terrible accident and the result of a fall. And why did she go on to champion Hurley's innocence?

'as some one who lives in Queensland I can assure you that the police culture that was evident under Joh has changed but the left’s propensity to assume the worst about those who serve their community in the police has not.'

Mate I have quite a different view. I'm no a leftie. My anecdotal experiences, are obviously, quite different to yours. I think your statement based in emotion. I would suggest many police from Joh's era are still in the dark recesses of the Qld Police Service and while the blatant corruption is gone the same protective 'Police Culture' is alive and flourishing. The alledgedly contemptious statements from the Police Union Officer in this case was a clear expression of that old ingrained attitude.

And the thing we are mostly upset about is that someone is not allowing the law to consider 'the matter on variifiable (sic) facts and evidence'.

So far it's application been undertaken by a bumbling bureaucrat who has overstepped her role and loudly proclaimed Hurley's innocence.

That's just not right...
Posted by keith, Saturday, 23 December 2006 2:47:05 PM
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
Mr Hall,

Why I’m bothering to even entertain you’re opinions is beyond me, perhaps because it’s Xmas and I'm feeling generous.

“you seek to conflate other events into the death of this man to establish some sort of dark culture of indifference at best or persistent evil at worst in the Queensland police force.”

Yes it is subjective but also based on personal knowledge and the experiences of other Aboriginal people, families and communities. Sorry for making you feel uncomfortable!

“Every death in custody is a serious matter but as some one who lives in Queensland I can assure you that the police culture that was evident under Joh has changed but the left’s propensity to assume the worst about those who serve their community in the police has not. “

Come to Palm Island, or Yarrabah or Inala or Cairns and I’ll show you a Queensland you never knew or simply ignored. I’ve lived here all my life Iain, knew the Joh era first hand, and actually knew Joh himself.

Have you read the reports?

“I realise that many people are arguing emotionally on this topic but the law actually requires us to consider the matter on variifiable facts and evidence.”

Well yes, it is emotional for me to see justice not delivered to the family of a man who died in custody for nothing. While you might not think an Aboriginal life is worthy of this kind of emotional response, many do, including THIS Aboriginal man. Sorry, it’s what human beings do.

But I do concede that emotional responses are not required in ensuring justice is served. So what's wrong with me and others simply saying we don't think it has been served based on the facts and evidence before us?

In my view it was the DPP who introduced this quip about'emotional responses' as a defence of her own incompetence.

In closing-

If all you want to do is engage in is a p**ssing competition then find someone else.

PS> read your bloggs, nothing original there either.
Posted by Rainier, Saturday, 23 December 2006 9:57:21 PM
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
.” Sorry for making you feel uncomfortable!”
What makes me uncomfortable is people who have a chip on their shoulder who want to cherry pick aspects of the law that suit them but then wish to abandon principles like the standard of proof for a trial when that clashes with their agenda.
”Have you read the reports?”
Have you read the report in the OZ yesterday saying that that Hurley can’t be charged because of the way the inquest was conducted?
”. While you might not think an Aboriginal life is worthy of this kind of emotional response, many do, including THIS Aboriginal man.”
Why the Racist slur? Certainly we respond emotionally to things but the topic is the way the LAW works and that has to be on the facts, the admissible evidence otherwise NO ONE in our society can expect ANY Justice in ANY circumstance. The legal system we have is not perfect but the lynch mob “justice” suggested by some like yourself is far worse by many orders of magnitude.

”But I do concede that emotional responses are not required in ensuring justice is served”

I still think that you don’t understand that there is a difference between evidence that is acceptable under a “balance of probabilities “standard of proof and evidence to meet the standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”. Do the research and get back to us, any entry level law book should explain it, when you understand this point how about you report back then?

”as a defence of her own incompetence.”

Nah, she said that because it is a fair description of the response from the family and others like yourself who are using this man and his death as a vehicle for your own political agenda; to air past grievances. The actual causes of his death and who is responsible is clearly secondary to that.



”PS> read your bloggs, nothing original there either.”

Well I have never claimed to be that original but there is even less original in your blinkered and racist thinking Rainer.

Nonetheless Merry Christmas Mate.
Posted by IAIN HALL, Sunday, 24 December 2006 7:12:09 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
Lets not forget that we are emotional human beings, we are not robots.
Posted by Jolanda, Sunday, 24 December 2006 8:04:54 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
Jolanda, yes how true, we are all not robots, thanks

Mr Hall,

An informed debate, something you have failed to provide on your side thus far, about this issue requires an acknowledgement that, in any criminal trial, there would be simply no dispute about the fact that Mulrunji died as a result of an impact between his body and the body of Senior Sergeant Hurley.

Admissable evidence in front of a jury would examine for instance;

1.Why Hurley arrested and incarcerated Mulrunji- and the triviality of his "offence".
2.The deceased was then placed in a cell where he bled to death, internally. He had suffered a ruptured liver and four broken ribs.
3. In a conversation with another policemen Hurley said that he had fallen next to Mulrunji. Such a fall could not have caused the death-so what did?

If you believe none of the above are valid evidential points for a court to deliberate over then you know nothing about criminal law. So common, tell me which of the above do you think would no be admissable in a criminal trial pray tell? Just because the DPP let your man off the hook does not mean the principles of law have been also been washed away. The review now underway will hopefully interrogate how the DPP came to such a stupid conclusion, no different to the reviews conducted on her decisions on Hanson, Volkers and Singleton.

While you are trying to find some weasel words and logic to respond to the above please be informed that I did not use a racial slurr against you. I know when I'm in the presence of a racist, and you are one. No need for me to dance around the edges using slurrs about the blantantly obvious. Chip on my shoulder? Too right right mate, come and try and take it off me and see what happens!

PS. Some pictures of Pauline on your blogg site wouldn’t go astray - they’d be thematically appropriate.
Posted by Rainier, Sunday, 24 December 2006 9:43:35 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
Iain

I'm mystified. Can you help. You say Hurley cannot face trial because there is insufficient evidence and if he did he would not have to give evidence. You along with all those who protest his innocence say the injuries were the result of a fall.

Here's my questions.

Who witnessed the fall? According to the Coroner it was only Hurley and it was apparent only because of his conversation with another policeman.

Say there is a trial and since it is only Hurley who claims a fall then that's not going to be shown in any trial. What defence has Hurley in this event?

You think the police culture dead and gone in Queensland? What about that disgraceful initial Police investigation by Hurley's mates?

I think we all agree even if there is no trial that something needs to be done to ensure Justice is seen to be done.

If there is no trial then I reckon a broad inquiry is needed into the Qld Police Service, with a special inquiry into the actions of the DPP, the Police Union, as well as the role played by the Beattie and his Ministers. It should have unlimited terms of reference along the lines of a Fitzgerald Inquiry and it will absolutely be needed to restore public confidence in the Queensland Police Service and more importantly the Justice System in Queensland. Because obviously our system has horriblly failled at least one man and his family and friends. His death was a result much worst than anything that came out of Fitzgerald.

What do you think?
Posted by keith, Sunday, 24 December 2006 4:29:11 PM
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
Keith

I do not know whether Hurley is innocent or not.

However, if the only person who says that the there was a fall was Hurley, and he chooses not to give evidence, then it is only what Hurley has said to another officer that can be presented.

It seems, and someone will correct me if I am wrong, that no-one else saw the actual incident take place.

It would be up to the crown to prove, beyond reasonable doubt in the jury's mind, in order for murder to be proved, that the injuries were caused as an intent of Hurley deliberately attempting to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. This could be lessened to manslaughter if the accused could prove provocation, however, this defence would require Hurley to take the stand and give his version, opening himself up to cross examination.

Manslaughter could be argued if the crown can prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Hurley was deliberately doing something unlawful, but did not intend to cause death or serious bodily harm, and that didn't include the possibility of self defence. Self defence being unlikely to be claimed, as this would require Hurley to take the stand and give evidence.

The jury will be instructed not to make any adverse inferences from the refusal to give evidence.

This therefore leaves forensic evidence: the physical clues: yes, there were major injuries not usually associated with a fall, however, if the defence could get the expert witnesses to even concede the possibility, and were able to produce their own experts to say that it is more than just possible, then reasonable doubt could be created.

One last point, it is likely that the defence would want the jury actually taken to view the place where this happened, to see the steps of the police station, so that they could judge for themselves.

I understand the steps may no longer be there.
Posted by Hamlet, Sunday, 24 December 2006 7:27:20 PM
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
If indigenous people concur with as Noel Pearson (see his interview with Peter Cave on 15 December 2006 below), it is understandable why there are demands for a broader review by an independent commission.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2006/s1812217.htm
Posted by Cornflower, Tuesday, 26 December 2006 12:40:51 PM
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
I just checked the ABS census population numbers for Palm Island. According to that source there are just about 2,100 people living there, not very many.

see

http://www.communityrenewal.qld.gov.au/communities/operate/palm_island.shtm

The Courier Mail says 3,500.

Another source says around 2,500. All in all, not too dissimilar to the numbers on Norfolk Island.

All sources describe it as a social disaster, with high rates of violence, STDs, poor health, nutrition and drug and alcohol abuse.

It is clear that trying to maintain a strong police presence, or indeed any police presence, let alone health care and education, on the Island doesn't seem to help at all.

So maybe the Norfolk Island self-governing model could be adopted, moving away from the Island being run by the Qld govt and instead being a self-governing protectorate?

The Qld government should hand over all the money currently spent on maintaining the (corrupt, if who some have said is to be believed) police presence, and all other law enforcement measures, health, education and other public services, to a democratically elected council on the Island, who can appoint their own law enforcement officers, magistrates, prison officers and the like. The Qld government should perhaps also, if so requested by the council, build and fund a corrective facility, similar in concept to what is happening on Pitcairn Island at the moment. However, once built the Qld Govt should play no further part.

In essence, leave the Palm Island population to be their own masters, without further interference from external police and authority. The Island should probably receive more money from mainland governments, both State and Federal, probably up to the same levels as the average national weekly wage for each person who has been established on the Island, for say, 15 or 20 years, whether they are working or not. Let the council receive and distribute the money as it sees fit.
Posted by Hamlet, Tuesday, 26 December 2006 2:26:21 PM
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
Hamlet, that is exactly what Palm Islander have been saying for years. Its good to read someone's interpretation of this call for independance.

Iain Hall,

Well it seems that not only do you know zilch about criminal law you also know less about copyright laws because you have breached both my copyright and I suspect that of The Forum/OLO.

I’m now going to kindly suggest you remove my comments forthwith from your silly blogg site now before I get all litigious and shirty.

I’m not going to bother citing the relevant clause in the rules here, but they are there in black and white for you to find: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/display.asp?page=legal
Posted by Rainier, Tuesday, 26 December 2006 8:03:11 PM
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
Actually Rainier

think of 'Escape from New York'

with money.
Posted by Hamlet, Tuesday, 26 December 2006 9:08:35 PM
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
I'll get that one out from the vid shop Hamlet,

_________

Now that the retired Justice Pat Shanahan has tendered his resignation from reviewing the Palm Island case it proves conclusively that despite all the talk about fidelity to black letter law, the incestuous culture in the Queensland legal system is proving to be its most dangerous liability.

This is a culture of legal cronyism that goes back decades,via families, clubs and societies and an old boys club connected to university law schools.

When you have police investigating police supported by lawyers and judges who all know each other you can be assured there that the only independence that is practiced is an independence from any sense of social justice being delivered for all Queensland citizens.

EX-JUDGE QUITS REVIEW

A RETIRED Queensland judge appointed to review a decision not to charge a police officer over the death of Mulrunji Doomadgee has quit following accusations of a conflict of interest.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,20977454-3102,00.html
Posted by Rainier, Wednesday, 27 December 2006 1:41:51 PM
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
TRAVESTY !

Not since the late Bjelke Petersen's corrupt manipulation of the Judiciary, Police service, and Indigenous Affair's has the travesty of Injustice of such magnitude been perpetrated on the good citizen's of Queensland.

The DPP under the Directorship of Leanne Clare has unequivocally been caught out. Yet again. Zero tolerance, three strikes (i) Jailing of Pauline Hanson (ii) Jailing of Chief Magistrate Di Fingleton (iii) Abrogation of charges against Scott Volker, despite overwhelming sworn testimony to the contrary (iv) Refusal to support a conviction of Sgt Hurley, despite a Coronial Inquest which suggest otherwise. Whatever next ?

It is manifestly clear : " something is rotten in Denmark " Apocryphal ? It just happens the Fitzgerald Inquiry, for all it's grandeur, achieved little. The litany of malfeasance, ineptitude and sleaziness is alive and well. Our ' smart ' State image slighly tarnished. Our Police State unchanged. Our Judiciary seemingly in limbo.

Key issue : whether Doomadgee was killed or died by ' tragic ' accident ?

Counsellor Peter Callaghan, in his final submission at the Coronial Inquest stated : " correct legislature procedure would have seen Doomadgee charged with resisting arrest and assulting Police. He was NOT. In Hurley's eye's there was no need. Summary justice was administered to Mulrunji Doomadgee as he lay on the floor of the watch house ".

Video depicts captured Sgt Michael Leafe giving the body of MJ a swift kick. Why wasn't CPR administered ? What was Policewoman Tracy Twaddle hiding, when challenged about her implication, as to whether Hurley told her certain things ? Why did Hurley give a different account on four occasions while under oath ? Why wasn't he cautioned ?

Forensic evidence : 4 broken ribs and his liver was ' cleaved ' almost in two - in fact hanging together only by a couple of blood vessels - clear evidence caused by a compression injury causing a rupture. He quickly bled to death !

to be continued :
Posted by dalma, Wednesday, 27 December 2006 2:43:35 PM
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
Andrew Boe - Counsel for Palm Islanders : " most likely explanation for such an injury is that a knee, elbow or closed fist was used with considerable deliberate force by Hurley, while Doomadgee was lying helpless on the ground ".

Anecdotal summation: " to prosecute under these grounds would involve the word of an Indegene Roy Brammel, against a Qld Policeman - that sort of justice hasn't been available in Qld in 200 years ".

" Cant help wondering if a drunken white man could be arrested and held in custody under similar circumstances ? "

"Cant believe Qld has stayed in the same rut that Bjelke Petersen carved in the judicial system, so long ago ?"

" Hurley's testimony is hog-wash. He took the Police Oath, the Court's Oath, and my oath, he can't lie straight in bed if he tried ? "

Commissioner Atkinson, Judy Spence and the Police Union Hierachy fully supported Hurley's reinstatement, albeit ' desk duties ' despite Christine Clement's Coronial Inquiry findings "

On Leanne Clare: " the lady doth protest too much, me thinks "

" The first thing we do, let's kill all the Lawyers ( King Henry VI )"

Last, but not least : James Brown- rock-n-roller. Undisputed King of Soul ( bless him ) " say it out LOUD - I'm BLACK and I'm PROUD ". Yet another : " we'd rather DIE on our feet, than be LIVING on our knees "

Amen, amen, amen.
Posted by dalma, Wednesday, 27 December 2006 3:02:20 PM
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
This is what I always say when describing why I fight for human rights.

"Do we teach our children to stand up and be hard done by or to cower over and be hard done by"?.

Or do we teach our children to fight.

I know which ones I would choose when left with no other choice.
Posted by Jolanda, Wednesday, 27 December 2006 3:11:05 PM
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
Dalma

do you really want to quote James Brown as a black icon?

"Last, but not least : James Brown- rock-n-roller. Undisputed King of Soul ( bless him ) " say it out LOUD - I'm BLACK and I'm PROUD ". Yet another : " we'd rather DIE on our feet, than be LIVING on our knees "

i.e.

(from: http://webcenters.netscape.compuserve.com/news/story.jsp?floc=DC-headline&sc=1403&idq=/ff/story/0001/20061225/1336471535.htm )

By the eighth grade in 1949, Brown had served 3 1/2 years in Alto Reform School near Toccoa, Ga., for breaking into cars.

"he was plagued with charges of abusing drugs and alcohol and of hitting his third wife, Adrienne"

"In September 1988, Brown, high on PCP and carrying a shotgun, entered an insurance seminar next to his Augusta office. Police said he asked seminar participants if they were using his private restroom. Police chased Brown for a half-hour from Augusta into South Carolina and back to Georgia. The chase ended when police shot out the tires of his truck.

Brown received a six-year prison sentence. He spent 15 months in a South Carolina prison and 10 months in a work release program before being paroled in February 1991."

"Brown is survived by AT LEAST four children - two daughters and sons Daryl and James Brown III,"

(you mean this guy screwed around enough so he didn't know how many children he had)..

also

"James Brown was charged with spousal abuse at least three times during their 10-year marriage, but those charges were dropped. Adrienne Brown met Kay Mixon after a beating she received on Halloween night in 1995. Those charges were dropped when Adrienne Brown died January 6, 1996."

see: http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1706/

Lets hope the men of Palm Island aspire to more than this.
Posted by Hamlet, Thursday, 28 December 2006 10:48:09 PM
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
I am extremely angry that any of the hundreds of deaths in police custody may be used as a tool to incite political division among the peoples. The "silly" QLD DPP is not judge and jury, and certainly wont be the last word on this important National reach for our equal rights. It is no secret that Beattie' s Labor government set the stage for what happened on Palm Island by ignoring important parts of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. Any attempt by Labor now to explain away its failure to act on all of the identified concerns in the 1991 Royal Commission, and in response to those other deaths which can be attributed to racist interpretations of given situations. Simply draws attention to the contempt Labor has for the proper conduct of representative government, which is political interference by any other name!
“Joh “Beattie has a dam hide to do anything other than hang his head on National Television. We the peoples need to seek civil relief against QLD police officer Senior Sergeant Chris Hurley and his employer for the wrongful death of Mulrunji Doomadgee in Police custody on Palm Island? And through that action publicly question the intransigence of governments which have only played lip service to the peoples entitlement to equal rights.
Posted by Edward James, Thursday, 28 December 2006 11:55:32 PM
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
From:

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/social_justice/madrid/issue1.html

"Aboriginal people in custody do not die at a greater rate than non-Aboriginal people in custody. However, what is overwhelmingly different is the rate at which Aboriginal people come into custody, compared with the rate of the general community.

"In other words, Indigenous people died in custody in great numbers because there were in custody in great numbers. The recommendations of the report focused on the necessity to reduce Indigenous over-representation at every stage of the criminal justice system if deaths in custody were to be prevented."

and

"A focus on the criminal justice system alone, however, was not going to change the overall life circumstances which drew Indigenous people into the criminal justice system’s web"

There are two ways of lessening the representation of indigenous people in the criminal justice system:

One way is to adopt the "William Golding" (Beelzebub - yeah, check the references) approach, otherwise known as Hobbesian: Leviathan 13:19 and let people live exactly as they want to live, without limits. (the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.)

I'll let others work out the other way.

Someone else will I am sure attack me about this, of course.
Posted by Hamlet, Friday, 29 December 2006 1:13:55 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
It is my belief that this case is well past the point where there can be a just and generally accepted outcome. The waters have now been sufficiently muddied to the point where a fair trial of Hurley would be impossible, and I believe that this is NOT an accidental outcome.

Our Criminal Law like our Tax Law has grown extremely complicated and, while the intent of our Criminal Law is to administer justice without fear or favor, if you have the money, contacts and knowledge of the systems and the letter of the law, you can greatly influence the outcome.

I agree with Keith that it would appear a deal has been done and that the planned outcome is on track, even though there will need to be a few more sideshows to keep the water muddy and the rumblings of discontent under control until they eventually die down.

It is often said that perception is reality and in this case the perception of the vast majority is that the outcome is unjust, but on past history that perception will be managed rather than heeded. While the Mulrunji Doomadgee case is now past the point of a just solution, the whole process should be ringing alarm bells as to just how open or justice system is to behind the scenes influence and manipulation.

The challenge for all of us who are disgusted by this outcome is to find a way to bring our system of justice closer to delivering the intent of the law rather than the letter of the law
Posted by Peter28, Friday, 29 December 2006 9:48:14 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
Peter and Keith,

Some excellent thoughts there.

The calibration of the justice system for social justice will have to destroy the the myth that it operates without interferrence of by political forces.

All through this issue political forces have played a role in how the law was administered and seen to be administered.

While the Beattie government proclaimed for a separation of powers it became incredibily apparent that the legal and thus the legal system was the governments own surrogate child born out of an incestuious relationships between the law and government for over 2 century.

Justice cannot be delivered if the foundations on which the law is built are fundamentally immoral and flawed.

For example, this proclaimation from a 'settler' back in 1800's in Qld.

______

"It was necessary to make severe example of the leaders of the tribe and about a dozen of whom were taken in the open country and shot.

They were complete savages and neverr wore any clothes and were so much alike that no evidence could ever be produced to enable them to be tried by our laws.

These men were allowed to run and they were shot at about a thirty yard distance".

Queensland settler George Serocold.

___

For Indigenous people the basis for this 'sentiment' has not changed one iota. The law does not apply equally - when equal does not mean the same outcome at both a mico and macro level.

For many this disequalibrium does not exist simply because they think the law is a flat egalitarian procedure of application.
It never was.
Posted by Rainier, Friday, 29 December 2006 10:24:27 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
Hamlet,
Some excellent posts.
Well argued,well documented.

"You’re a...voice of reason amid the clamor of (some other posters) political inspired nonsense. Well done"
Posted by Horus, Friday, 29 December 2006 11:56:55 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
Hamlet, perhaps you assume a system of law does NOT exist in Aboriginal communities. Citing Hobes implies this.

Its as though many think the only moral community, the only legal community, the only ethical community that is correct is the one that was imported here. We survived despite its incursions, interuptions and its flaws.
Posted by Rainier, Friday, 29 December 2006 5:25:17 PM
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
Rainier

Yes there was law, but this law has not survived the impact of contact with industrialisation and internationalisation, not to mention that law enabled old men to rape young girls in the name of them being 'traditional' wives. There may have been law in Aboriginal communities, but not much 'equality' before it.

Would the people of Palm Island really consent to the reintroduction of traditional law, with all its limitations, and the privileging of some members of the community over others, particularly when this would require the virtual insulation and isolation of the island from all those outside influences, such as alcohol, tobacco, drugs and the like? Or do they only say that they want traditional law?

Recently I caught an interview on Radio National interview with a black African ophthalmologist who was visiting Arnhem Land and who was horrified by what he saw. It is worthwhile listening at:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2006/1812337.htm

The major point is that that Aboriginal communities don’t aspire to anything more than what they have (or not have), and that black African families will do everything that they can to have their children educated to as high a level as possible, sending them to boarding schools and universities. The money that these families could spend on alcohol and tobacco is instead spent on education.

He tells that tribal leaders go out and get their Masters in Business Administration, or other degrees and diplomas, and then come back to their villages. This is not uncommon, aspirations are higher, and he questions why Aboriginal communities cannot aspire for more for their communities, after all, Abstudy and other programs have been in place for decades.

Instead, Aboriginal kids cannot see any way away from places like Palm Island, through education. (my comment - perhaps they are taught that 'culture' is more important than 'future'?)

This guy can say it – after all, he is black himself.

Or as a whitie am I not allowed to quote him?
Posted by Hamlet, Friday, 29 December 2006 11:24:39 PM
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
Very good point Hamlet!

For far to long Rainier and his cohort have been playing the victim card and there comes a time when it is the future and not the past that is important.

There are three things that will improve the situation for our children no mater where they live and that is education, education and education. And there are NO legitimate excuses for any parent who does not make that the focus of their life.
Posted by IAIN HALL, Saturday, 30 December 2006 6:46:43 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
Iain and Hamlet

Firstly tell me exactly what education has to do with the death of that man at the hands of a policeman in that police cell?

You are using transference to ignore or excuse the behaviour of a clearly racist policeman.

Sure Rainier is proud of his heritage just as we are of ours. But he doesn't harp on about the inequalities and shortcomings in our system that debase our system so as to put our culture down. He does point to inequalities that affect adversely his people in conflicting with traditional culture practises. That's fair. He speaks of problems minorities face which are clearly caused by the dominamnce of the dominant culture. That's fair.

What you guys are doing is unfair and a lot less than generous. With your South African mate, did he point out to you how his race were now the dominant culture and the European based one is now a minority? Did you ask him about the breakdown of law and order in South Africa? No? Oh then you've selectively picked out only the best to highlight a problem in isolated Indigenous communities in Australia. Is that fair? No of course not.
And of course you were able to tell your mate the number of Indigenous people in Australian Universities has risen sharply in the last 30 odd years ... weren't you? No of course you didn't probably because that very positive statistic conflicts with your negative perceptions and attitudes...or you are simply ignorant of the fact. If the former then you have a problem and if the latter you should not discuss matters on which you are so unimformed. Either way you are both out of your depth and really owe Rainier who is imformedd an apology.

Keith Kennelly
Posted by keith, Saturday, 30 December 2006 9:16:50 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
Keith

Firstly, the interview was on the radio, I had no interaction with him, you had better take up your complaints with Phillip Adams.

Your points about the dominant culture are well made, but where the dominant culture is willing to pay considerable amounts more for Aboriginal students to continue with their education than it does for non-Aboriginal students I would say that in the area of education, and therefore aspiration and achievement, the cries against the dominant culture wear a little thin in that particular area.

This thread started as one where the underlying issue was and is: the Aboriginal community versus the white Queensland justice system. It was never about the death of one man and whether one policeman would be placed before a court in response to that death. Conspiracy theories abounded, with suggestions that the cop should simply be found guilty without a trial coming through many posts.

The entire issue of law and Palm Island is the issue of discussion, and therefore the response of the population of Palm Island to the law, and the law's response in return.

Yes, Palm Island has been a place of great social injustice, and that must be corrected. However the abandonment of the rule of law, by either side, has no place in the correction of that social injustice. Correction of social injustice is more about working towards a prosperous future, rather than getting bogged down. Yes massacres happened, but the perpetrators of those massacres are no longer alive. I have in my ancestry some Irish blood, and the Brits have never been pleasant towards the Irish, but I have gotten over that.

I repeat that this thread was never about a single death, and therefore the raising of other issues is therefore pertinent and appropriate.

Perhaps Hurley should be placed on trial, I haven't seen the evidence, however burning down a police station and court house are no basis for a system of justice.
Posted by Hamlet, Saturday, 30 December 2006 10:06:28 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
Rainier

Where's your home and what are you doing for a living?

Keith
Posted by keith, Saturday, 30 December 2006 10:18:31 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
Hamlet, you want a debate on your preferred terms, so what better way of getting what you want than distorting the agenda. First you oppose "suggestions that the cop should simply be found guilty without a trial coming through many posts".

Are you reading something different to me? Can you point out precisely which posts made that suggestion?

You then state that "the abandonment of the rule of law, by either side, has no place in the correction of that social injustice". Again I can't find advocacy for that in what I've read. Just the opposite, in fact. Many posters wanted the rule of law to be applied fairly and felt it hadn't in this case. Again can you point out which specific posts advocated the abandonment of the rule of law?

Finally you say, "I haven't seen the evidence, however burning down a police station and court house are no basis for a system of justice". Another nice try, Hamlet, but a bit unsubtle.

Now back to the real debate. Who killed Mulrunji Doomadge and when will his family and community experience some justice?
Posted by FrankGol, Saturday, 30 December 2006 10:24:11 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
Keith
“…what education has to do with the death of that man at the hands of a policeman in that police cell?”
An educated community is not as likely to be so socially dysfunctional as an uneducated one as some one pointed out with a comparison to Norfolk Island A more functional community would not have the same level of antagonism towards the law or the police that would result in a man being arrested for stirring the possum in the first place,

” the behaviour of a clearly racist policeman.”
Personally I have made no judgment on Hurley’s behavior and if the evidence exists to find him guilty of an offence then he should be charged. BUT I have said that we can’t make an exception, as called for by Rainier on the important principle that no one should be tried for a crime in the absence of admissible evidence that he committed the crime.

”Sure Rainier is proud of his heritage.”
Rose colored glasses are a wonderful for looking at the past but as Hamlet and I suggest it is the future that is where we should be looking and not the past .

”What you guys are doing is unfair and a lot less than generous”
I feel no inclination to be generous to Rainier at all. And it is not unfair to point out that his harping on about past injustices (no matter how egregious they may be ) is no substitute for seeking real answers to the problems of today.

"And of course you were able to tell your mate the number of Indigenous people in Australian Universities has risen sharply in the last 30 odd years ... weren't you?"
The number of indigenous students in our universities is something to be celebrated but likewise the number of indigenous children who are reaching maturity in various communities who can’t grasp basic numeracy or literacy is some thing that every indigenous person should be ashamed off because a small elite that are doing well is no panacea for the majority who don’t even have the basics.
Posted by IAIN HALL, Saturday, 30 December 2006 12:19:24 PM
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
Keith,

Don't worry about IH's postings, he's having a hissy fit because he had to fix breaches of copyright here on OLO.

I've tracked down who IH is and he is not worth the time of day. Just another frustrated ex One Nationer looking for his fifteen minutes of glory. He also plays around with reproduction Go-Karts and this sez it all i reckon.

There’s no use investing knowledge in someone like IH, he’s flat out trying to comprehend his own inconsequential life - let alone trying to understand me and mine.

You know me personally and my involvement with the PI issue - no need to divulge this information here for the narrow minded and hysterical.

Hamlet: Only if you're interested see this article on customary law:
http://www.lrc.justice.wa.gov.au/Aboriginal/DiscussionPaper/Part_05B.pdf
Otherwise I'm not interesting in debating points that emanate from your lack of knowledge on the topic. Sorry, got better things to do.

Oh, by the way, I actually met that African chap you mentioned at this years Garma Festival. He’s was ok, but just one of hundreds of misfits, missionaries and mercenaries types who float around and between Aboriginal communities – many of them all too ready to feed the white moral panic you appear to suffer from.

I asked him if his own people were only 3 percent of the population in his country.
He didn’t get it. He’s back in Africa now giving lectures about 'australian aborigines'. So much for his 2 cents worth.

Good post there Franky Gold
Posted by Rainier, Saturday, 30 December 2006 3:37:59 PM
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
All,
Consider the below, it was written by a man who calls for compassion & justice & who says he is opposed to prejudges & stereotyping:

“Don't worry about IH'… he is not worth the time of day. Just another frustrated ex One Nationer looking for his fifteen minutes of glory. He also plays around with reproduction Go-Karts and this sez it all i reckon.

There’s no use investing knowledge in someone like IH, he’s flat out trying to comprehend his own inconsequential life - let alone trying to understand me and mine”

Rainier- a little bit of practicing what you demand from others, would not go astray.
Posted by Horus, Saturday, 30 December 2006 4:04:38 PM
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
yeah sure horus, what? you want me to advocate justice and compassion for narrow minded rednecks as well as take you all on at the same time? Puleeze!

If you showed that you could move you're toward a more humane and just perspective (shock horror) I'd back you all the way..until then consider yourself the enemy. From my lifes experiences I can't afford to think social and cultural philistines like you any other way.

You're so lucky we all tolerate you all as it stands.
Posted by Rainier, Saturday, 30 December 2006 8:34:11 PM
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
Rainier

Interesting article, the main point being of course collective versus individual responsibility. The idea of religious and criminal law being a continuum is one that is parallelled in ‘white’ law as shown by the recent arrests of youths for urinating on a white sacred site – that is the War Memorial in Sydney.

However, how do you reconcile this sympathetic view with the case of the traditional man who took an under age girl as his ‘bride’ and unlawful sexual intercourse with her? (see http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ILB/2003/20.html )

One question specifically for you: should he have been allowed to do this or not? Please nail your colours to the mast.

Keith wrote:

“You then state that "the abandonment of the rule of law, by either side, has no place in the correction of that social injustice". Again I can't find advocacy for that in what I've read. Just the opposite, in fact. Snip . Again can you point out which specific posts advocated the abandonment of the rule of law?”

David Jackmanson

“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.”

(even if evidence doesn’t support these?)

Michael 06

“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,”

(It is fundamental that an accused not be brought before a court unless there is evidence).

Keith

“The injuries suffered did not result from a fall. How were they sustained is the question. Claire didn't answer that. The Coroner did. The bulling b.....d is as guilty as sin.”

(A trial isn’t necessary – he is guilty?)

Jolanda

“I agree that there should be a right to silence at the beginning, snip, but it shouldn't extend to the degree and level that it does now.”

(Or should the right to silence being abolished, or the silent presumed to be guilty?)
Posted by Hamlet, Saturday, 30 December 2006 11:44:49 PM
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
Hamlet I would abolish the right to silence. I think that for young persons they should be allowed to remain silent until they have an adult with them but adults should have to answer questions and if they refuse to then their silence should be seen as an admission of guilt.

How they can be allowed to remain silent is beyond me!
Posted by Jolanda, Saturday, 30 December 2006 11:50:50 PM
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
Rainier,
I wont keep you too much longer, I can see above some other posters have some pertinent points to thrash-out with you.

I am indeed beholding to you for your “tolerance”
(Heaven knows what would happen if your (most unroyal) “we” decided to no longer tolerate me.

Have you considered a duo act with Michael Richards?
You’d be very compatible -you seem to both react the same when (mentally ) challenged

And, considering your high principled stance on “racism” .
You may consider reviewing your use of the word “philistine”,
since in using it, you are perpetuating the vilification of a race.

Not withstanding the above ,
A happy & safe New year to you & your family & all other posters on OLO.
Posted by Horus, Sunday, 31 December 2006 12:34:36 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
"we deserve to know the truth"
WHY . are we all experts in biology etc.
this is a democracy and there are people in positions of power
as dictated by the system. We the public, may like to see the
reports however, if we did see them then you would have a million
different opinions and then who is right.
the reports are not necessarily the truth anyway.
Posted by normman, Sunday, 31 December 2006 1:10:35 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
Dont you just love Australia?

The land of a fair go - where you need a Royal Commission to be treated fairly!
Posted by Jolanda, Sunday, 31 December 2006 8:28:12 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
Rainier
”snip he's having a hissy fit because he had to fix breaches of copyright here on OLO.”
With some edits my post in response to your rant still stands. The edits were done pursuant to an undertaking I made to the editor of OLO and not because I breached the copyright act, frankly you should read section 48 on” fair use for the purposes of criticism or review”, but I forget you only wish to respect the parts of the law that suit your agenda. Now I invite any one to compare my posts on this thread with yours and they can decide who it is who has had a “hissy fit”.
Have you instructed a solicitor yet?

”I've tracked down who IH is snip. Just another frustrated ex One Nationer looking for his fifteen minutes of glory..”
Tracked me down? You have read some of my blogs. Sadly for you they do not show that I am as you describe me in the sentence that I quote here. We are not obliged to declare how we vote in public but I will tell you that in my entire life I have NEVER cast a vote for one nation or any parties in it’s vicinity on the political spectrum .Now this must be about the third time that you have made this spurious claim and it suggests to me that it is YOU who is having a “hissy fit”.

” let alone trying to understand me and mine.”
I have a pretty good idea of how consequential my life is and I am rather content with it thank you very much .However I have no need or desire to understand yours Rainier, in fact the last time I checked YOU were not the topic of this thread .The phrase that sums up your rant is “hoisted on his own petard”. So how about you consider the actual points made by myself and others rather than just sprouting insults and invective. You dishonor both your people and the memory of Mulrunji with the way that you argue here.
Posted by IAIN HALL, Sunday, 31 December 2006 8:35:10 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
Hamlet, are you squibbing it too?

Hamlet, you want a debate on your preferred terms, so what better way of getting what you want than distorting the agenda. First you oppose "suggestions that the cop should simply be found guilty without a trial coming through many posts".

Are you reading something different to me? Can you point out precisely which posts made that suggestion?

You then state that "the abandonment of the rule of law, by either side, has no place in the correction of that social injustice". Again I can't find advocacy for that in what I've read. Just the opposite, in fact. Many posters wanted the rule of law to be applied fairly and felt it hadn't in this case. Again can you point out which specific posts advocated the abandonment of the rule of law?

Finally you say, "I haven't seen the evidence, however burning down a police station and court house are no basis for a system of justice". Another nice try, Hamlet, but a bit unsubtle.

Now back to the real debate. Who killed Mulrunji Doomadge and when will his family and community experience some justice?
Posted by FrankGol, Saturday, 30 December 2006 10:24:11 AM
Posted by FrankGol, Sunday, 31 December 2006 10:53:10 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
IH proclaimed, "You dishonour both your people and the memory of Mulrunji with the way that you argue here"

Such a revealing statement that.

What would you know about struggle and honour for Aboriginal people Iain?

What standards do you expect?

• Would theses standard include the passive "house nigger" thank you boss - thankfulness that you have taken time out from your busy middle class privileged life (repairing go-karts) to show concern for us poor black folk?

• Is it my ungratefulness for your questioning of the moral integrity of Palm Islanders or their non-Indigenous supporting posters here on OLO?

Or is it my rebuttal of your silly arguments about ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ -which were just excuses to exonerate Hurley and his mates of doing anything untoward? (despite the damning evidence of the Coroner)

But no, you declared that “there are NO reliable witnesses to the events in question”. Once I read this I knew who and what you were in an instant.

If you had read the Coroners report you would have been aware of policemen Kitching and Robinson, both mates of Hurley, who conducted the first two
interviews of note, WITH Hurley and Bramwell.

Kitching didn’t see any problem with this Robinson also participated in interviews with witnesses to the arrest.

But for you this shoddy investigation is all above board. After all its just a black death in custody, not a homicide, isn’t it Mr Hall.

You’re a wonderful example of how blind people are of their own benign racist thinking.

Best you stick to playing around with your go-karts and leave the real world to real people
Posted by Rainier, Sunday, 31 December 2006 7:32:55 PM
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
About 15 years ago I was the victim of a kinghit in a pub. Despite having a number of witnesses, the investigating officer decided it was just a pub brawl and refused to prosecute.
At the urging of several members of the local community -I was far from being the first victim of this king hitter- I decided to prosecute the case myself in a civil court. Incidentally, for those who may be unaware, in a civil action guilt can be established on the 'balance of probability', rather than 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
It was expensive, but I won the case and received compensation.
The point I trying to make is that the DPP is probably right. Although the circumstantial evidence appears overwhelming, securing a conviction (in a QLD court) would probably be difficult. The odds of getting justice in a civil court are probably better.
As to the expense, if the palm islanders decide to go this way, I'd be happy to kick the tin for $50.
I'm sure I'm not alone.
Posted by Grim, Sunday, 31 December 2006 9:44:09 PM
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
Grim, your 50 dollars would be greatly appreciated.:)

Pub fights are relevant to this case as well - the DPP and police prosecutors were quick to prosecture 3 bouncers back in May for a patron who died at the Royal Exchange Hotel.

http://abc.gov.au/news/items/200605/1644044.htm?queensland

The coroner said this:

"I reject Senior Sergeant Hurley’s account that he then simply got up from the heavy fall through the doorway and went to assist the man who had just punched him and caused him to fall over. I find that he did respond with physical force against Mulrunji while Murunji was still on the floor."
Posted by Rainier, Sunday, 31 December 2006 10:40:42 PM
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
Apparently there is a recording of Mulrunji calling and pleading for help as he lay dying in the watch-house.

Hurley did not respond.

How callous is that?

Hurley should have to answer to numerous associated accounts as well as murder.

The police force does itself no favours in harboring the likes of Hurley - it creates the impression that his callousness

As for there being no reliable witnesses, besides the implied insult, there is one witness - Mulrunji.

Mulrunji's body is a silent but irrefutable witness.
Posted by Aka, Monday, 1 January 2007 8:41:48 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
I meant to complete my sentence above but a computer glitch - partly operator error saw me post it early.
What I meant to say is -

The police force does itself no favours in harboring the likes of Hurley - it creates the impression that his callousness is an acceptable and appropriate way of policing in the Queensland force.

It also implies that police are above the law.
Posted by Aka, Monday, 1 January 2007 8:49:19 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
Aka, the Police is above the Law and so are Politicians and to a large degree public servants. They are deemed innocent until proven guilty regardless of what has been done and whether they have been caught and their word has to be believed. Unless they confess how can you prove them guilty if they deny it? It is not in their best interest to confess, not when the system is set up to protect them.

The system is set up so that they can handle their own complaints, FOI applications and paper work without question or challenge. Regularly crucial documents are altered or go missing and they are not questioned about it and nothing can be done about it. It is seen as a mistake and not an attempt to cover up. Hardly any documentary evidence is admissable or able to be presented to Court.

The system focuses on discredeting the victim and the evidence - the accused is protected.

Those employed by the Government that do the wrong thing have to choose to confess to their misdeeds and misconduct in order to be held accountable and even then there are hardly ever any punishments. Since the punishments are non existant then it is seen as a waste of funds and not in the best interest of the Government to persue them. They dont care about what is right and wrong of about innocent victims. If they seek to come to the truth they are going to damage the reputation of the Government and their loyalty is with the Government so they are not likely to do that!. Protection of the Government is of paramount concern - no matter what!

Remember the Law is made by those in power to protect those in and with power.
Posted by Jolanda, Monday, 1 January 2007 9:24:11 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
”struggle and honour for Aboriginal people “

Well Rainier , Honour is not predicated upon “struggle” only a Marxist would make such a claim .

”What standards do you expect?”

I just expect civilized debate on the issues without personal attacks and invective

”• Is it my ungratefulness for your questioning of the moral integrity of Palm Islanders ”

I realise that you are arguing emotionally here but sadly the point of contention is about the law and that requires verifiable facts and that is all that I have said on the matter.

”Or is it my rebuttal of your silly arguments about ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ -which were just excuses to exonerate Hurley and his mates of doing anything untoward?”

You were particularly quiet when, I postulated that if it was you, who was being sent to trial on the same evidence that you cite against Hurley, was to face only a “balance of probabilities” proof. I bet that you would have your barrister moving for a dismissal so fast that he could not draw a breath. The whole point of having a standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” is to give ANYONE who is accused of a crime an expectation of a fair trail and that the prosecution should have to have more than a “feeling he is guilty” to begin with.

”But no, you declared that “there are NO reliable witnesses to the events in question.”

That is not my opinion but the opinion of those who have much experience in such matters given you claim such knowledge of the law (have you read section 41 yet?) can you tell us how Bramwell would fare under cross examination in a criminal trial ? The other person there has said that he did not see any of the events in question . Can you nominate any other witnesses? NO ? Well that means that the case is relying only on Bramwell. Imagine again it is YOU facing trial on this level of evidence; Once again would you not instruct your barrister to demolish his evidence
Posted by IAIN HALL, Monday, 1 January 2007 10:07:04 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
Cont;:-
To cite his intoxication, to cite his prejudice? So what evidence would be left before a Jury? The forensic evidence which is open to an interpretation of death from a tragic accident. The Crown would not be able to secure a conviction against you on such evidence and you would soon be down the pub celebrating with your mates.

”If you had read the Coroners report you would have been aware of policemen Kitching and Robinson, both mates of Hurley, who conducted the first two
interviews of note, WITH Hurley and Bramwell. “
Even with the relationship that you cite here the fact remains that any person has a right to remain silent and to not incriminate him or herself . Imagine yourself before the courts and the “evidence”
against you was what some one else claimed that you had said about the matter would you not, through your barrister, insist that such evidence is “hearsay” and should be ignored by the Jury? I bet you would.

“After all its just a black death in custody, not a homicide.”

Well I agree it is a death in custody and very sadly there is not enough EVIDENCE to get a conviction for murder. The reality is that even if there was evidence that Hurley had caused the death it would be impossible to convict on a charge of murder with out proof of “malice a forethought “ the best you could hope for is a manslaughter conviction .IF THRERE WAS ENOUGH EVIDENCE. And strangely that is the important point here.

”You’re a wonderful example of how blind people are of their own benign racist thinking.”
Take a good hard look in the Mirror if you want to see racism mate.


The law is not perfect and sometimes the guilty will go unpunished but better that one hundred of the guilty should go free than any one who is innocent should be convicted on false or flimsy evidence , but that is an alien concept to the lynch mob who don’t care if their blood lust is satisfied.
Posted by IAIN HALL, Monday, 1 January 2007 10:12:19 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
What a load of crock that better 100 guilty persons go free then one innocent man go to jail.

What about the innocent victims of the guilty persons, now and in the future? When you set them free you re-victimise victims in a manner that destroys them as human beings and they never feel safe, respected or free.

One innocent man going to jail would be better than 100 guilty men going free.
Posted by Jolanda, Monday, 1 January 2007 10:22:26 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
Iain I think the point is not that the evidence won’t convict Hurley but that some bureaucrat has decided a jury won't be given the opportunity to decide.

I'd prefer the coroner's description of what happened to that of Claire's.

Why? Simple. Claire said there is not sufficient evidence for any court to convict. She also added the death was a tragedy and the result of a fall. Right?

Then you yourself say the Hurley won't give evidence, that the only other witness Bramwell is unreliable, and the evidence of the Policeman with who Hurley discussed the incident is also inadmissible.

Then tell me why has Claire decided there was a fall? Is it on Hurley's word? The word of the other policeman? Bramwell's word?

Since nobody witnessed a fall and all evidence of a fall is either inadmissible or not provided by the suspect then how does Claire know there was a fall?

Why has she despite the admissible evidence taken a jury's role upon herself and declared against all the admissible evidence that there was a fall?

Therein lays most people's horror at the DPP unilateral declaration of Hurley's innocence. It is not the way our Police and Justice system works. Public servant bureaucrats don't determine guilt or innocence and Claire overstepped her responsibility? My opinion of Hurley’s guilt is just as valid as Claire's guess of his innocence.

Obviously given the facts justice is not seen to be done.

The other horror is that Hurley has been promoted. It that fair? He is presumed to be innocent but no one can deny a mysterious death from horrific and uncommon injuries occurred when only he was present.

A Black Death in custody has occurred where none of the Black Death in Custody Inquiry's recommendations were implemented; in fact very basic ones within Hurley's sphere of responsibility were ignored. Hurley was the Senior Officer present. He is responsible. Has anyone anywhere investigated his actions in this regard? Let's hope it's not left to his copper mates? Like the initial investigation Eh Iain? Or do you hope it is?
Posted by keith, Monday, 1 January 2007 1:20:13 PM
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
The case reported in the Coroner's report where Hurley ran over the Indigenous woman on Palm Island resulting in her broken foot and where he observed her complaint but didn't even get out of his police vehicle but drove off. Were any investigations carried out or was Hurley charged with leaving the scene of the accident. If not why not? Put yourself in that same situation as a driver and see what would happen to you?

Given these facts what do you suggest is done from here? Do you understand that justice is not being seen to be done? Can you in your bias at least admit that...after all I've relented and accepted your view that in a properly conducted jury trial the evidence probably cannot convict Hurley.

If you think the only punishment we as a society can mete out is through our courts you are sadly mistaken. Do you want an example? Remember Joh...he was financially ruined by the results of the Fitzgerald Inquiry and the subsequent court actions. The odious stench from all the exposures at that inquiry stuck to him too. Oh and our courts found him innocent.

So come on give us a situation and hel[p initiate some action where justice can be seen to be done.

Or would you prefer to have a serving senior police office that is found responsible of an arrested person’s death by a Coroner and in a future civil action continuing to 'serve' the Queensland People. And you know as well as I that on the nature of the proof required in such an action...on the balance of probabilities... Hurley will be found responsible. I wonder just how angry the people of Queensland will become when they realise they too will be held responsible, because of both the inaction of their Government and their involvement in the aberration of Justice that has occurred in the last three months.

Keith Kennelly
Posted by keith, Monday, 1 January 2007 1:20:17 PM
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
Jolanda wrote:

What a load of crock that better 100 guilty persons go free then one innocent man go to jail.

What about the innocent victims of the guilty persons, now and in the future? When you set them free you re-victimise victims in a manner that destroys them as human beings and they never feel safe, respected or free.

One innocent man going to jail would be better than 100 guilty men going free.

---

Unless you are that one inncocent person...

Why stop at one inncoent person in one hundred, why not two in a hundred, ten in a hundred? How about mere suspicion? Change the system to guilty until proven innocent?

Corrupt police would love that, it means that they would not have to do their job properly.

---

Keith - an apology - my post should have been aimed at Frank Gol, not you, even though you are quoted.
Posted by Hamlet, Monday, 1 January 2007 2:46:37 PM
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
Keith wrote:

"Therein lays most people's horror at the DPP unilateral declaration of Hurley's innocence."

Keith, the DPP did not declare Hurley as being innocent, the DPP said that there was insufficient evidence to reach a conviction.

The two are very different.
Posted by Hamlet, Monday, 1 January 2007 2:49:18 PM
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
Hamlet, you rise to only one of my challenges for evidence of your allegations against OLO posters. You don’t attempt to justify your initial claim that many suggested "that the cop should simply be found guilty without a trial". Because you can’t.

On your second claim, I asked you to identify which posts advocated the abandonment of the rule of law. You cited 4 alleged instances.

The 1st said: “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.” To which you added your own words: “(even if evidence doesn’t support these?)” Acting on the evidence and bringing criminal charges equals abandonment of the rule of law?

The 2nd said: “I would argue… it would be better to have this matter heard by a criminal court regardless of the lack of evidence,” To which you added your own words: “(It is fundamental that an accused not be brought before a court unless there is evidence).” To which I add: Having a matter heard by a criminal court allows the evidence to be tested and rejected if insufficient.

The 3rd said: “The injuries suffered did not result from a fall. How were they sustained is the question. Claire didn't answer that. The Coroner did. The bulling b.....d is as guilty as sin.” To which you added your own words: “(A trial isn’t necessary – he is guilty?)” A strong opinion on a person’s guilt does not amount to abandonment of the rule of law.

The 4th said: “I agree that there should be a right to silence at the beginning, snip, but it shouldn't extend to the degree and level that it does now.” To which you added: “(Or should the right to silence being abolished, or the silent presumed to be guilty?)” Disquiet with the right to silence does not amount to abandonment of the rule of law.

Now can we get back to the real agenda about justice without manipulating and misrepresenting other posts?
Posted by FrankGol, Monday, 1 January 2007 3:57:09 PM
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
Hall,

This is getting to be a bit tedious now. You are obviously running out arguments to support you irrational and biased views on the case at hand - as well as trying to salvage some respectability after having revealing your deeply embedded racism for Aboriginal people.

From my reading of the submission to the coroner and from the investigation reports there were a number of witnesses to the physical interaction between Hurley and Mulrunji. A court of law and its jury would assess assess the actions and motivations surrounding these interactions and thus the application of force upon Mulrunji.

“The fatal injuries could not have been caused by a simple fall”.

Such a conclusion does not disallow for charges not to be pressed. This is why a review is now being conducted.

The DPP publically stated that she sought and received further evidence- evidence she did not pass on the lawyers of Mulrunji’s family.
What was this evidence? What was this other mysterious evidence that inflicted fatal injuries to Mulrunji?
Would you accept this is it were your brother who died but because the only explanation given credence by the DPP was that it was it was by ‘accident’.
Was there a meeting between the DPP and Hurley’s lawyers? Are not these essential questions that a transparent system of justice should address forthwith?
But for you Mr Hall, its appears these outstanding matters are inconsequential.

• My thanks to others who have shared to burden here of trying to grow a brain and a sense of social justice in this buffoon. Despite the laborious effort required I still believe in miracles.
Posted by Rainier, Tuesday, 2 January 2007 11:13:45 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
Oops I accidently first posted this somewhere else:

I don’t buy the concern about the innocent man in jail because black people have been the victims of injustices for years without too much concern from the white man.

In the real reality of White man’s law the 100 guilty men that will be freed will probably be white and the innocent man in jail will be black.
Posted by Jolanda, Tuesday, 2 January 2007 11:27:55 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
http://boltwatch-watch.blogspot.com/2007/01/definitions-and-proofs.html
Rainier

I've been doing a little reading of the pertinent legal definitions which I have compiled into the post linked to above.

”This is getting to be a bit tedious now. You are obviously running out arguments to support you irrational and biased views on the case at hand - as well as trying to salvage some respectability after having revealing your deeply embedded racism for Aboriginal people.”

Need I point out that If I had “deeply embedded Racism FOR Aboriginal people” then I would be privileging them above all others ? what is actually tedious is the fact that You can not or will not understand that there is a legal principle that is the bone of contention here and despite repeated attempts by myself and others you persist in thinking that actual evidence is unimportant.

”From my reading of the submission to the coroner and from the investigation reports there were a number of witnesses to the physical interaction between Hurley and Mulrunji. A court of law and its jury would assess assess the actions and motivations surrounding these interactions and thus the application of force upon Mulrunji.”
You still don’t get it do you? A criminal trial will consider matters of FACT, motivations can only be assumed or inferred and such assumptions and inferences would have no standing in a criminal trial unless Hurley were to make some admission about them (which he is unlikely to do) .
I am still waiting for you to tell me what you would do in the scenario I outlined in my previous posts here(where You were in a position analogous to Hurley.

Sadly you continue to demonstrate that you don’t respect the concept of civilized debate; as sure as the sun rises in the east when you post something you will try to bully anyone, like myself, who disagrees with you by making spurious claims that disagreeing with you is equal to racism. Buy a new record mate that one is rather worn out already
Posted by IAIN HALL, Tuesday, 2 January 2007 11:42:21 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
The legal principle as I see it is that whilst the Anti-Discrimination Act says that it is against the law for people to discriminate because of race, the law - BY OMISSION - says that people CAN discriminate because of malice, prejudice or spite.

Isn't that handy for the powerful white man?
Posted by Jolanda, Tuesday, 2 January 2007 11:51:05 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
Hello all,

For you information: no actual criterion is outlined in the DPP Act to guide whether prosecution is viable or judicable. Instead this is referred to in a bureaucratic guide - how pathetic is this! See: http://www.justice.qld.gov.au/odpp/pdfs/guidelines.pdf

Its left up to the discretion of the DPP. Yes discretion and they rabbit on about 'emotional responses and political interference'.

Using this discretionary role the DPP Clare obviously took it upon herself to say that the evidence of PI Murri's, the shoddy initial investigation by Hurley's police buddies mates and the medical evidence were not of themselves sufficient for a jury to deliberate on. The cause of death is well known, what led up to the death has been investigated and documented (as fact).

Crown solicitor Sofronoff admits he was not referring to any of the evidence in his letter to Beattie - but nonetheless is supportive of the DPP's "discretionary decision" not to prosecute.
Posted by Rainier, Tuesday, 2 January 2007 11:56:30 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
Seems to me that Iain Hall has painted himself into a corner here. His argument is redundant, since there will now be a properly constituted inquiry into the case, which will undoubtedly consider all available evidence pertinent to Hurley's culpability or otherwise with respect to Mulrunji's death. Hall's persistence in pursuing this point seems to have now gone beyond reasonable debate, particularly given his hectoring of Rainier, who is one of the very few Aboriginal participants in this debate.

Let's see what the inquiry brings to light, and give the personal and racial invective a rest :)
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 2 January 2007 12:15:21 PM
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
Frank Gol

One of the basic principles of our judicial system is that an accused should not face trial unless there is a prima facie case against that person, but this is what posters have been calling for.

The process for this includes the examination of evidence by the DPP and where it is appropriate, the placing of the matter before a magistrate for a committal hearing.

Whilst it doesn’t deal directly with the procedures used by DPPs, the discussion of committal hearings at is informative:

http://lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/IP3OUTCHP10

If a magistrate decides that there is insufficient evidence the DPP can still present an ex officio indictment to bring an accused to trial, however this does not mean that the committal stage can be avoided.

The requirement that a prima facie case has been established is absolutely inherent in our legal system, and is intended to prevent malicious and vexatious prosecutions. Any DPP bringing a matter to trial with such a case is actually jeopardising any future prosecution due to the principle of double jeopardy.

If Hurley is brought to trial, and found not guilty either by the jury as the tribunal of the facts, or by direction by the judge on legal grounds, then that is the end of the matter. No further case can be brought against him and the DPP would wear the blame if further evidence became available, such as a confession by Hurley, for bringing the matter to trial without sufficient evidence.

For a definition of ‘prima facie’ see

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1598&bold=

Jolanda

Re the Right to Silence, you may want to read the report at:

http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/Silence-BeijingfinalOct15.PDF

particularly page 18.

Rainer

I notice that you have not responded to my question re traditional law: Should it be allowed to override the individual rights of indigenous people, as in the case of ‘promised brides’?

You may be interested that an Aboriginal woman I know told of her niece who was raped at Redfern, the police said that they were told not to interfere in matters between Aboriginals. Is this the other side of traditional law?
Posted by Hamlet, Tuesday, 2 January 2007 3:08:39 PM
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
Hamlet, here mate from the ass’s own mouth. In black and white. It would appear her words contradict your claim that the DPP didn’t unilaterally declare his innocence…

"Media Statement
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
GPO Box 2403, Brisbane Qld 4001
Ph: (07) 3239 6840 Fax: (07) 3220 0035
14 December 2006
Hurley not to face criminal charges

Senior Sergeant Christopher Hurley would not face any criminal charges over the death of Cameron
Doomadgee on Palm Island, Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions Leanne Clare, SC, announced in
Townsville today.
Mrs Clare said the evidence was not capable of proving Senior Sergeant Hurley was criminally responsible
for Mr Doomadgee’s death….

Mr Doomadgee died from internal injuries caused by a crushing force to the front of his abdomen.
“The evidence suggests that in this case, this could only be the result of a complicated fall. It seems clear
that Mr Doomadgee and Senior Sergeant Hurley fell together through the open door of the police station,”
Mrs Clare said.’

“There were two autopsies. From them we know that neither kicks nor punches are likely to have caused Mr
Doomadgee’s death. On the evidence, the fall is the only satisfactory explanation for the injuries identified by
the doctors.’…

'My decision in relation to any criminal prosecution, however, has to be based upon the evidence, and only
that evidence admissible in a criminal trial. My duties are different to those of the coroner. This may lead to
different views being reached in the same case, without questioning the processes and findings of the Coroner’…"

And contrary to what everyone is thinking nobody…nobody repeat nobody witnessed a fall. One policeman said he witnessed feet protruding from the doorway. I’d like to question that policeman for I believe Hurley threw the man to the ground and then dived onto him knees first. That would inflict the injuries received. I reckon Hurley’s story about a fall, to his policeman mate, was a crock of bulldust and intended to hide his cowardly and culpable action. His changing of his story indicates he’s lying to hide something.
Posted by keith, Tuesday, 2 January 2007 5:51:37 PM
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
Cowboy Joe

We all have opinions. Some are based on better information and clearer argument. Just as you are free to challenge other opinions on this forum, I am free to challenge your opinion (but not your character). At the end of the day, we go to bed having had our say. What’s the problem?

Thank you for sharing the opinions of the foreign gun lobby media release dated October 1996. It suggests that some people warned that President Clinton was conspiring to introduce severe gun control laws in the United States using U.N. treaties as a "back door".

Two questions if I may ask:

Did Clinton actually make this happen in the US?

What has this (or the Gorbachev conspiracy) got to do with Australian gun laws?
Posted by FrankGol, Tuesday, 2 January 2007 5:51:59 PM
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
Keith please take not of the words in block capitals

“The evidence SUGGESTS that in this case, this COULD only be the result of a complicated fall”
As Hamlet has said there is a big difference between declaring that someone is innocent and saying that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute.

”And contrary to what everyone is thinking nobody…nobody repeat nobody witnessed a fall. One policeman said he witnessed feet protruding from the doorway. Snip // Hurley’s story about a fall, to his policeman mate, was a crock of bulldust and intended to hide his cowardly and culpable action. His changing of his story indicates he’s lying to hide something.”

Keith
The first sentence sums up a matter of fact that NO ONE witnessed the scuffle and subsequent fall . the rest of this is just supposition on your part and just as valid as me saying there are fairies at the bottom of the garden. I challenge you to tell three different people the story of some event in your life and I guarantee that you will not tell the story the same way twice let alone three or more times over a period of time. Would that mean that you are laying? In fact if the story is told exactly the same way it is in fact more likely to be a fabrication
CJ Morgan said
“Hall's persistence in pursuing this point seems to have now gone beyond reasonable debate, particularly given his hectoring of Rainier, who is one of the very few Aboriginal participants in this debate.

Let's see what the inquiry brings to light, and give the personal and racial invective a rest :)”

CJ
I treat everybody the same in a debate and Rainier deserves no patronizing because he has claimed to be Aboriginal. It is I who has been consistently vilified by him clearly in an attempt to bully me into silence and in reality it is the very points that I make that will be the crux of any review or inquiry into this matter.
Posted by IAIN HALL, Tuesday, 2 January 2007 7:36:42 PM
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
Keith

There is a problem of definition here:

Firstly, anyone facing criminal charges is innocent until proven guilty. When a jury is asked for its verdict it is not asked if the person in their charge is innocent or guilty, they are asked if they have found the person to be guilty or not guilty. A person may not be innocent, but still be found not guilty if the crown does not meet its burden of proof. The same happens before a magistrate or in a judge alone trial: guilty or not guilty: innocence is not the issue.

This is the approach that the DPP has to take: I did not see the word 'innocent' or 'innocence' in the press release. I did see a discussion of the evidence, and I recognise in the press release the outline of what the Crown would have to say to a jury, what the defence would say to a jury and what a judge would say to a jury.

On top of that there are the implications how both sides, and the judge, would deal with the issue of intent, as an intention to kill or severely injure would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt for murder to be proved. There are other arguments in relation to manslaughter that require a few more words than are available here.

You may want to take a look at the relevant law:

http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/C/CriminCode.pdf

Contrary to the view that you wish to take, Hurley does not have to prove his innocence, it is up to the Crown to prove his guilt, and his intention in his actions. The fact that no-one saw a fall simply means that no-one saw a fall.

It does not provide evidence of anything.

I am not a lawyer, but I have spent enough time sitting in courts during murder trials to be able to see clearly how this matter would be dealt with in court with the evidence made public so far.
Posted by Hamlet, Tuesday, 2 January 2007 8:16:17 PM
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
How could Claire declare that the injuries were the result of a 'complicated fall' when according to all accounts in the the admissable evidence no-one witnessed a fall?

How is that so?

I reckon the evidence suggests something other than a fall.

Yep my supposition is just as valid as Claire's supposition...but there is a difference she's the DPP and should not be making such a suggestion. She should merely be saying there is insufficient evidence to convict ... period.
Posted by keith, Tuesday, 2 January 2007 8:39:22 PM
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
people...

i understand that law requiers that all cells have to be monitored by video cameras at all times.

the camera in Mulrunji's cell was not turned on...

not enough evidence??

how conveniant...
Posted by no1inparticular, Tuesday, 2 January 2007 11:50:32 PM
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 IS a recording of Mulrinji calling for help from his cell.
Hurley did not respond!!

Mulrinji was placed in a cell after his liver was torn almost in half and left to die while his pleas for help were ignored.

Justice needs to be seen to be done. I don't believe that one person has the moral right to state that the fatal injuries suffered by Mulrinji were the result of a fall on the stairs.

IAIN HALL,
I would suggest that you put some effort into researching the terms 'racist/racism'.

Indigenous Australians have just cause to be cautious, wary and suspicious of white Australians, particularly those whose opinions appear to agree with the continued marginalisation and demonisation enacted by mainstream policies and public servants such as police.

When Hurley faces court, not I state when not if, the evidence will be available to all, not just the private viewing of one individual.

Just think, without justice, Hurley might become your local copper. Be careful when walking up stairs!!
Posted by Aka, Wednesday, 3 January 2007 8:23:59 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
The problem with prima facie evidence is that those that you are accusing have the opportunity to rebut what you presented but you are given no right of reply to that rebut. The word of the accused is believed on face value as they have a right to rebut and the matter is closed.

As to the issue in relation to silence. This again is another Law that is said to protect the innocent man who is incorrectly being charged but in reality it protects the guilty. An innocent man has nothing to hide.

Somebody said that the purpose of the law was to put the guilty persons in jail and ensure that no innocent man went to jail. That seems like the wrong focus. The focus should be to ensure that guilty persons go to jail so that innocent persons are protected.

There is a difference.
Posted by Jolanda, Wednesday, 3 January 2007 11:52:41 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
The facts speak for themselves.

• Hurley moved Mulrunji from the paddy wagon into the station.

• Mulrunji resisted being taken into custody and continued to protest his arrest.

• Each struck at the other violently.

• Once Hurley got Mulrunji into the station there were further assaults inflicted upon Mulrunji by Hurley.

• During this interaction Mulrunji received the fatal injury in his abdominal region.

• The most likely explanation for such an injury is that a knee, elbow or a closed fist was used with considerable deliberate force by Hurley whilst Mulrunji was on the ground.

• Following this altercation, Mulrunji appeared lifeless and was unconscious.

• Hurley was the only person who had been involved in any physical
interaction with Mulrunji from the point of arrest to when he was rendered
unconscious.

Many here want to avoid discussing the above and prefer to talk about rules of evidence and innocence.

Consider how quickly justice would have been brought to bear if it had been Hurely who had sustained a similar injury from that night’s scuffle?

If Mulrunji had protested his innocence over a terrible accident which resulted in the death of Hurley, what would you think of his chances in court?

Moreover, would those supporting Hurley’s innocence here be as vocal on behalf of Mulrunji? I doub't it and they know they would not but are too gutless to say it out loud here.

• Hamlet, I will discuss CL with you but for now it’s off topic.
Posted by Rainier, Wednesday, 3 January 2007 11:54:41 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
Continued..

The DPP over-reached her brief by a country mile; pushes aside [or
refuses to consider - which is it?] the evidence of medical examiners to reach a conclusion the coroner already ruled out.

Its one thing to say the admissible evidence does not warrant laying
charges, quite another to put in place her alternate reading of events, particularly where it is contrary to the entirely admissable evidence of medical examiners.

Kieth has already put this succinctly by asking:

"How could Claire declare that the injuries were the result of a 'complicated fall' when according to all accounts in the admissible evidence no-one witnessed a fall?
Posted by Rainier, Wednesday, 3 January 2007 12:05:30 PM
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
Yolanda
Without the basic protections of a presumption of innocence, a right to silence, and the requirement that any case in a criminal matter be proved to a high standard . Our civil liberties would rely only upon the benevolence of the government of the day. I don’t know about you but that would be a very distopian world indeed.

Rainier
your claims in turn

“• Hurley moved Mulrunji from the paddy wagon into the station.”
Uncontested .

”• Mulrunji resisted being taken into custody and continued to protest his arrest. “
To the extent of striking Hurley with a fist.

“• Each struck at the other violently.”
A scuffle took place after Mulrunji struck Hurley no one disputes that.

”• Once Hurley got Mulrunji into the station there were further assaults inflicted upon Mulrunji by Hurley.”
What is the evidence for this claim? Apart from Bramwell’s tainted testimony this is just supposition on your part.

”• During this interaction Mulrunji received the fatal injury in his abdominal region”
This is an assumption as well .

”• The most likely explanation for such an injury is that a knee, elbow or a closed fist was used with considerable deliberate force by Hurley whilst Mulrunji was on the ground.”
Assumption on your part again and you admit as much in your opening phrase “the most likely explanation”

"• Following this altercation, Mulrunji appeared lifeless and was unconscious."
Not contested
however the alternative explanation that the injuries are consistent with the two men falling together in the course of the scuffle is just as plausible as your SUPPOSITION of wrong doing by Hurley.

• Hurley was the only person who had been involved in any physical
interaction with Mulrunji from the point of arrest to when he was rendered
unconscious.
This is not proof of any wrongdoing though is it ? It is a circumstantial at best.

I notice that You still confuse the standards of proof between a coronial hearing and a criminal trial and you still don’t understand the role of the DPP. Do some research and try again.
Posted by IAIN HALL, Wednesday, 3 January 2007 2:14:01 PM
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
Ian it seems that the way it is now our civil liberties rely on the benevolence of the accused/criminal.

I think that our chances would be better with the Government?
Posted by Jolanda, Wednesday, 3 January 2007 3:51:09 PM
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
Oh dear, while I was dancing with my beloved, I just slipped up the stairs, call an ambulance, I think my liver split in two because he landed on top of me!!

I think my spleen was ruptured as well as my portal vein!!

If the above scenario is not believable, then who can believe that Mulrunji died in an unfortunate accident.

Get real. The semantics and nitpicking does not hide the fact that Mulrunji died from horrific injuries.

What part of JUSTICE is negotiable?
Posted by Aka, Wednesday, 3 January 2007 10:39:42 PM
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
Just remember the verdict in the case of Crown v Zdravko Micevic (the bouncer charged and acquitted in the death of David Hookes).

For background of that case see

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/all-losers-in-hookes-death/2005/09/12/1126377252789.html

for the verdict see

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/i-am-sorry-it-happened/2005/09/12/1126377256829.html

A civil case was then brought:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/now-relieved-bouncer-sued-over-hookes-punch/2005/09/13/1126377289014.html

There was even more evidence available to the jury in that matter than in the death of Mulrunji Doomadgee.
Posted by Hamlet, Thursday, 4 January 2007 9:04:33 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
Fellow trendsetters, Sorry about the delay, the 24 hr posting clock caught up with me.

There are (3) three parts to this post.

1.

Hamlet,

That you’re a judges associate (how scary is that) I feel justfied in expecting a much more learned and scholarly approach to CL, certainly a lot more than you’ve articulated so far.

Here are some references of articles written by some of your law colleagues.(who incidently read and research more widely than the newspaper on CL)

These can be access through AGIS or informit databases (assuming you know how to do some basic electronic research?)

Politics clouds issues of culture and 'customary law'. by
BEHRENDT Larissa

Recognition of Aboriginal customary laws in WA. by
HANDS Tatum L

Circle sentencing breaks cycle. by
LAVELLE Keren

The culture of consent and traditional punishments under customary law. by
BIELEFELD Shelley

2.

• Humble pie time for Rainier!

[Deleted]

Besides all the nice things lots of people have to say about him - check out the big porky where IH claims he was demonstrating against the Vietnam War when he was 8 years old. Yes, afraid so, he’s that pathetic.

3.

Now with house keeping out of the way here’s a juicy little one for trivia buffs.

Check out this PDF document – hit the word search button and type in ‘Hurley”
Yes, she’s one and the same.
http://www.hansard.act.gov.au/HANSARD/1992/pdfs/19920624.pdf

BONAPATITE!
Posted by Rainier, Thursday, 4 January 2007 12:22:23 PM
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
Rainier

I am not a judge's associate

I work with judge's associates,
Posted by Hamlet, Thursday, 4 January 2007 12:26:26 PM
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
Good one, Rainier. Why am I not astounded to learn that Mrs Hurley is/was a Crown prosecutor in Qld?

Also, I'm equally unastounded to learn that Hamlet is the tea-lady for some judges' associates!
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 4 January 2007 1:36:16 PM
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
Hamlet, sorry but I don't provide introductory legal studies online. Put the effort in and get better educated. - 2 sugars/milk thanks.

Here is another sad development.

Rioting mother jailed
By Peter Michael
January 03
Article from: <http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/?from=ni_story>

EMOTIONS ran high on Palm Island yesterday as a mother-of-four was jailed for throwing a rock in the November 2004 riots.

Alissa Norman, 32, hugged and kissed her children goodbye in an emotional outpouring at the island's airstrip yesterday before she was flown to Stuart Creek Women's Correctional Centre, near Townsville, for her four-month prison stint.

Ms Norman, affectionately known as Minnie, handed herself in after being allowed to spend Christmas with her family and was taken into custody, handcuffed and flown off the island on a police charter flight about 11am.

Her three youngest children Keifer, 13, Noel, 5, and 18-month-old daughter Sioni sobbed openly as the plane disappeared from view.

"It is one rule for police and one for everyone else," said her emotional mother and Palm Island councillor Rosina Norman, who will care for the children.

"She had no police record, no criminal history, had never been in trouble before. "But ... she throws a rock in a riot and gets the book thrown at her, while a policeman kills a man and gets off scot-free – it's not right."

Ms Norman's prison term was the result of Attorney-General Kerry Shine successfully appealing the leniency of her original sentence –

a 12-month intensive correction order, to be served in the community.

Australian Council for Civil Liberties president and lawyer Terry O'Gorman said the case highlighted the growing perception of double-standards in the state's justice system.

"The perception is there is one standard for the aboriginal community who have the full weight of the law thrown at them including by the Attorney-General who appeals the leniency of the sentence.

"And the other is despite a coroner finding Mulrunji was killed by Sergeant (Chris) Hurley there is no basis for criminal charges.
Posted by Rainier, Thursday, 4 January 2007 3:01:42 PM
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
IAIN HALL

You say: "Yes Ronnie too many people do not understand the rules of evidence and the concept of proving a case 'beyond reasonable doubt' That the foundation of our justice system and we abandon it at our own peril"

Iain I am well aware of the "beyond reasonable doubt" thinking behind the DPP decision. I have, as a victim of a crime, first-hand experience of how hard it is to get a conviction when the defendant, like Constable Hurley, evades responsibility for his or her actions

Even if a conviction wasn't recorded people will still regard Hurley as guilty. However, maybe some facts would come to light in the court case to show why Mulrunji Doomadgee was killed in such suspicious circumstances. Maybe some facts under examination in a court of law would surface that proved beyond doubt that Hurley lost his temper and unloaded on Doomadgee . The injuries sustained are clearly beyond what is reasonable anywhere, especially, in a QPS watch house.

I think most people would think it very reasonable to suspect that the DPP were taking care of their own here. I certainly wouldn’t blame Indigenous peoples from holding firm to that belief given the QPS’s history here in Queensland in relation to indigenous deaths in custody.

Iain, you are defending a system that clearly doesn't work in certain situations. And I don't think it is a coincidence that it usually involves the more vulnerable and under-represented sections of our community. Justice hasn’t been served here and until it is peoples like Australia’s Indigenous will live in peril. Also, the QPS and its officers are generally too worthy a group to have that going against their good works.

You talk about a justice system that prevents "us" from peril. Tell me how it prevented Mulrunji and all the other victims of crime in Australia from peril. Our justice system didn't, it hasn't and it still doesn't. I don't pretend to know the answers to this difficult situation but there is something very wrong here and something needs to be done.
Posted by ronnie peters, Thursday, 4 January 2007 4:31:27 PM
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
Yay ronnie! I couldn't have said it better myself.

To my mind, one of the most offensive aspects about the bureaucratic protection of Hurley has been the Crown's simultaneous alacrity in throwing the book at the Palm Islanders who rioted after learning of the manner of Mulrunji's death. NB: there was no riot immediately pursuant to Mulrunji's known demise at the police station - rather, it was the evident brutality which killed him that precipitated the subsequent violent response by a group of Palm Islanders.

Any objective observer of this case at its current stage would have to think that Queensland hasn't changed all that much, at least with respect to Indigenous relations with the police and judiciary, in the last century or so.

On the reported Coroner's evidence, Hurley was reponsible for a man's death - yet he currently faces no charges. On the other hand, Mulrunji's kin and community reacted violently and deplorably when they learnt of the manner of his death.

Property belonging to the State was damaged. Policemen were frightened. They all lived.

Black people have gone to gaol, but the cop whose killing of their kinsman is yet to be charged with anything.

Something is still rotten in the state of Queensland.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Thursday, 4 January 2007 9:32:09 PM
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
With the appointment of Sir Laurence Street to look into the DPP's decision http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200701/s1821673.htm we'll get some genuinely knowledgeable insights into this matter. Hopefully his decision will be accepted, even if he does find that a trial should not proceed.

In the meantime, I think a lot of the anger has been misdirected. The way the police, the police force and the police minister have handled this matter has been appalling. The government's probably quite happy for Leanne Claire to take the stick and divert attention from the fact that despite employment matters requiring a much lower hurdle of proof to be met Hurley, and the incompetents who manage and investigated him, continue in their jobs.

They'd also be happy that no-one is asking how so long after the Deaths in Custody Royal Commission the police are still locking up Aborigines for drunk and disorderly behaviour when that was pinpointed as one of the reasons there were so many aboriginal deaths in custody. The problem of deaths in custody is not that aborigines die at greater rates than other ethnicities when in custody, but that larger numbers of them are arrested in the first place, so they die in absolutely greater numbers.

This issue is much broader than Mulrunji and if it is going to do any good for anyone, I think it should be used as a catalyst to get change in the way that the police do their job. Senior officers ought to be sacked over this.
Posted by GrahamY, Thursday, 4 January 2007 9:52:51 PM
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
Well said, GrahamY. A calm and reasonable summation of key issues in this matter, yet written with passion and conviction.
Posted by FrankGol, Thursday, 4 January 2007 10:15:17 PM
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
GY, yes it's timely to provide some background to the Royal Commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody as it has great relevance to the political temperature of the room.

This Royal Commission did not have terms of reference or ability to hold anyone accountable for the 99 deaths that occurred.

In fact the report admitted this as a fundamental shortcoming of its powers when it declared in Volume 1 / The Overall Findings - in section 1.2.5. -

“It is not surprising that there was much cynicism about official explanations for the deaths. It is quite clear that this Royal Commission would not have been necessary or at least its Terms of Reference would have been very different--had there been adequate, objective and independent investigations conducted into each of the deaths after they occurred and had those investigations examined not only the cause of death--in the medical sense--and whether there had been foul play but also questions of custodial care and the issue of responsibility in the wider sense.”

This cynicism continues to justifiably exist and more so now that this particular death has resulted in contradictory findings of the DPP Ms Clare (nee Hurley) and the Coroner Ms Clements, both of whom apparently conducted ‘adequate, independent and objective investigations’.

Back in 1989 in Yarrabah I recall them investigating 3 deaths.

2 of these deaths clearly implicated the actions of police. There was unambiguous opinion in the community that these two would never suicide – as it was claimed for all 99.

That anxiety continues to exist in the minds of families and communities.

Burning down a police station is only the tip of the iceburb in terms of a deeper trauma of not ever realising justice.

Couple this with the acceptance of many white Australians of black deaths as 'natural' and inevitable and hey presto you have this
combination of trauman/terror - and institutional and public blindness.

I hope Sir Lorry is up to interrogating those laws and procedures he also cherishes. Or is he just another prodigy from the rum corp?

We'll have to wait and see.
Posted by Rainier, Friday, 5 January 2007 4:12:14 PM
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
Graham Y, Rainer and FrankGol,
I am agreement with all of your views, and ask this question:

If it is good enough for a Coles check out lady to be monitored all day by security camera's why is it not of paramount importance in troublesome stations like Palm Island just as an example. Tamper proof cameras covering every square centimetre of the police station inside, and for a 6 mtr radius outside would provide the proof of innocence or guilt. The police if innocent could point to the tape as evidence that they were innocent, while relatives of the grieving Dommagee family could point to the tape as evidence of guilt of Hurley. Nobody could argue against this measure because it would provide substantial proof one way or the other.
Posted by SHONGA, Friday, 5 January 2007 6:53:20 PM
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
The real question that Rainier and his cohort should answer is this :

Now that a legal identity from NSW has been appointed to review the case will you accept that no prosecution should occur if that is the finding of the review
Posted by IAIN HALL, Friday, 5 January 2007 7:03:49 PM
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
Shonga

I would go further, lets put the whole of Palm Island under video surveillance.

Put it under the same level of surveillance as many parts of Sydney and Melbourne that are as troubled as Palm Island.

After all, if the police know that there are always being watched in and around their station, then they could just use violence elsewhere.

Cover the whole island, its the only safe way.
Posted by Hamlet, Friday, 5 January 2007 7:53:18 PM
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
Shonga,

There is video surveillance footage of Mulrunji lying lifeless on the cement cell floor, not beds or bunks. Hurley watched on, assumed he was asleep because Hurley thought he was drunk. He was not.

IH, I will accept the ruling if it concurs with the DPP ruling. It is all I can do. It won't be the first time I've witness injustice done. It will merely toughen my resolve. See my last post.

But will you 'accept' if Street and Davis find that there are grounds to charge Hurley? Of course not. So why bother asking me?

Hamlet,

Coffee please, black with one.
Posted by Rainier, Friday, 5 January 2007 8:43:42 PM
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
I welcome the appointment of the Honourable Sir Laurence to review the evidence concerning Hurley's responsibility for Mulrunji's death. In my opinion, any consideration of the acceptance or otherwise of his findings must ultimately depend on their content, as opposed to their context. Obviously, it is premature to discuss the Street review's findings at this stage.

It is important to note that Street has not been appointed to be the referee, or final arbiter, in this matter. His review is best regarded as another, albeit hopefully more objective, investigative aparatus into the circumstances of Mulrunji's death in custody. As His Beattiness says, a 'second opinion' of the available evidence.

Oh... Hamlet, I'll have a strong flat white, no sugar thanks :)
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 5 January 2007 10:15:21 PM
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
Murrandoo Yanner (cousin of Mr Doomadgee ) said: (http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Palm-Island-fallout-Premier-calls-for-calm/2004/11/30/1101577467810.html)

"If we're not going to get it through white law, we will take it through our own means, through Aboriginal law which has payback,'' Mr Yanner said.

"When someone's killed, someone must be killed in return.

"If this policeman isn't punished, jailed or charged with murder, under the law, if you can't get one policeman you get another."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/exjudge-tests-palm-island-ruling/2007/01/04/1167777218774.html

THE Queensland Government has asked the former chief justice of NSW, Sir Laurence Street, to review the decision not to charge a policeman blamed for a death in custody on Palm Island.

The Mayor of Palm Island, Delena Oui-Foster, had not been informed of the appointment when contacted by the Herald, but conditionally welcomed it. "At the end of the day, we want justice done," she said, indicating that a second opinion that supported Ms Clare's view would not be welcomed on the island.

- - -

I still say the solution is simple, if the Qld police service cannot fairly deal with Palm Island, withdraw the police completely.

Could be an interesting social experiment.

Rainer, are you sure that you and CJ wouldn't prefer a nice glass of sherry to coffee?
Posted by Hamlet, Friday, 5 January 2007 11:04:20 PM
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
Mulrunji Blues’

Poor bugger me, Mulrunji,
Young man called Doomadgee,
Arrested for public nuisance, he.
His singing offended Chris Hurley
Poor bugger me, Mulrunji.

Poor bugger blackfella, Mulrunji.
Fatally injured in custody
Subject of 2 autopsies
Coroner switched for objectivity
Hoped for JUSTICE, you & me,
Justice for Aborigines.....

Poor bugger me, Doomadgee's
You’s bin sit down this country
Long time before that DPP,
They hungry 4 votes for the ALP
Oh poor bugger me, Doomadgee’s

Poor bugger me; Mulrunji
2 more losses to his family
Son & grandmother, now join He.
More devastation to community
Waiting for coronial enquiry
Oh poor bugger me.

Poor bugger whitefella Chris Hurley
13 jailed for Palm Melee
Whilst He was flown to Big City
Long time Leave with Pay, for he.
That poor bugger, he, Chris Hurley.
Poor bugger me, in this Country

No charges from the DPP
Hurley not responsible, criminally.
Not even charged for perjury .
Oh Poor bugger me.

Poor bugger blackfella, this Country
The white-man laws for Equality
Maintain the political hypocrisy.
We scream for Justice, you and me
Beattie says listen to the referee - The DPP.

Poor bugger me, Mulrunji
Locked up by Sgnt Chris Hurley
Sworn to protect our Community,
Non-operational desk duties
For his crime against humanity.
Poor bugger blackfellas in this country.

Adapted from Gurindji Blues.

“In 1962, Aboriginal stockmen at Wave Hill Station in NT went on strike. This was a strike for land. It wasn't until 1975 that the Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam poured Gurindji sand through Lingiari's hands that title was partially won. A whitefella country singer Ted Egan had cause to write the Gurindji Blues. Galarrwuy Yunupingu sang the song, it was recorded by RCA in 1971. It kicked off Ted Egan’s career. Even though it wasn’t a hit it had an impact for its sales funded the establishment of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy on the lawns of Parliament House in Canberra in early 1972. It is now an Australian classic.”

Source: Buried Country – The Story of Aboriginal Country Music Soundtrack
Posted by AbSolve, Friday, 5 January 2007 11:17:37 PM
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
AbSolve,
that is good.
Can you send it to the Townsville Bulletin, and or Australian. I know a few people who would appreciate it. Maybe a copy could be emailed to Beattie :)

I would like to know why other police involved in this tragic and sordid murder of Mulrunji are not being held accountable.

Why havent the investigating officers been repremanded for their innapropriate relationship to Hurley. They should have refused to investigate if they knew they were mates.

What about the head of the police in Townsville, surely they must bear some responsibility for the investigation fiasco. As the regional head they should bear some culpability.

As the buck passes up the chain of command, surely the police commissioner should be facing some hard questions as this sort of behaviour has occured on his watch.
Posted by Aka, Saturday, 6 January 2007 8:39:57 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
I do not know who wrote the Mulrunji Blues lyrics they are circulating around Australia as an email.

What is preventing the DPP or the Police Commissioner from laying procedural charges? The Officers concerned acted out of depraved indifference. When Police follow the letter of the law, that is the ethical requirements of the Police in the course of exercising their duty, a death in this instance is largely avoidable. Why is it that Indigenous people continue to die in custody at alarmingly impossible rates? Why didn’t Senior Sgt Hurley or other officers have a medical practitioner attend on Mulrunji? Senior Sgt Hurley answers to no-one for the ‘accidental’ death of a person held in custody. Police can cover their tracks by ensuring that mates undertake investigations in order to pervert the course of justice and contaminate evidence.
Posted by AbSolve, Saturday, 6 January 2007 10:55:26 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
The whole episode is sad. The death of any person in custody for any reason other than natural causes is tragic. However, there will be no satisfying any person with an entrenched view.

I am no bleeding heart, but the whole sad affair has to be disaggregated. There is the question as to whether this matter should have gone to trial - we'll now wait for Sir Laurence Street's findings.

There is the broader question of many commentators misunderstanding of seperation of powers and legal process. The DPP is not protected by the principal of seperation of powers. The DPP independence comes not from convention but rather from statute law determined by Parliament. However, the Attorney-General can bring a prosecution where he believes its warranted. The DPP was overruled in the Patel extradition deal. Its when it gets to the courts that courts rightly exercise their independence.

Saddest of all, is that yet again we have a demonstration of two standards of law. Aboriginal people should have the same standard of law applied to them and aboriginal people deserve the same protections by the law that apply to everybody else(hence the rightful concern over the revelations of the NT Deputy DPP Nannette Rodgers). If a person breaks the law they should be tried and if guilty sentenced on the same principles that apply to everybody. To do otherwise is an injustice to victims. The Nannette Rodgers stuff showed that black victims got second rate protection in that jurisdiction and there is widespread evidence the same applies more widely. If in custody, a black person deserves the same duty of care as others.

This broader context of two standards of law undermines confidence and reinforces the impression that a different standard applies to Mulringi's tragic death. This does not serve the interests of the victim, the accused or their families. Nobody wins with a double standard legal system.

One standard of law is the only way to mitigate these anxieties into the future. For now, we have to hope Laurence Street can restore some confidence.
Posted by gobsmacked, Saturday, 6 January 2007 12:15:31 PM
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
IAIN HALL says 'The real question that Rainier and his cohort should answer is this: Now that a legal identity from NSW has been appointed to review the case will you accept that no prosecution should occur if that is the finding of the review.'

Leaving aside the pejorative "cohort", that is just one question - and not all that important at the end of the day.

How about all the other questions that have been raised in this forum? Or even the core question: How did Mulrunji Doomadgee sustain severe internal injuries that caused his death while in custody, and was anyone culpable?

Try these others, IAIN HALL.

1. Why so long after the Deaths in Custody Royal Commission are police still locking up Indigenous Australians for drunk and disorderly behaviour when that was identified as one of the reasons there were so many Aboriginal deaths in custody?

2. In claiming that Mulrunji’s death was an accident, the DPP went beyond her role which was to determine whether the available evidence supported a prosecution. It did not require her to decide whether the death was accidental or not. She did not have the evidence or capacity to support that finding. Why did she make that claim?

3. The Deputy State Coroner found that the police investigation into Mulrunji’s death did not meet the standard required for a death in custody (Deputy Coroner Clements found that officers did not follow correct guidelines by meeting informally and then dining with Sen-Sgt Hurley.) What action, then, has the Police Commissioner or the Government taken to remedy that failure?

4. Did the police act with all propriety in the way they handled Mulrunji Doomadgee's arrest and incarceration? If not, what has been done to discipline the police?

5. Have the police, the police force and the police minister handled this matter competently?

6. And finally, a hypothetical twist on a question raised by IAIN HALL: what might have been the outcome if it were Sergeant Hurley rather than Mulrunji Doomadgee who died in the alleged fracas?
Posted by FrankGol, Saturday, 6 January 2007 12:48:53 PM
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
Iain Hall,

The number and quality of posters on this issue is higher than is usual. You are one of the very few who appear defensive of Hurley, the DPP, the Police and the Justice system. Most seem to be at a loss why earlier reforms weren't implemented, why no charges have been laid, why some action isn't taken against Hurley or question the actions of many of the officials involved.

Given the obvious genuine concern over the events surrounding the death in custody what do you think should be done from here?
Posted by keith, Saturday, 6 January 2007 2:55:42 PM
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
Frank your questions are answered in turn below

1> Why are so many indigenous people still behaving so badly when they are in their cups? But seriously in the absence of an alternative should the police ignore disorderly drunks if their shin is dark? In small communities there is no alternative.
2> Clare did not definitively claim that Mulrunji’s death WAS am accident she said that it COULD have been one.
3> My understanding is that instruction has been given that ALL deaths in custody will henceforth be treated as a suspicious death. Which should address your concerns on this point
4> I don’t know for sure but then neither do you. You make assumptions here.
5> You are asking me to express an opinion on matters to which I am not privy but it would appear to me that the police department and the Minister have followed the law.
6> I expect that if there was the same evidence against Mulrunji as there is against Hurley then the outcome would be the same; no prosecution would result . The point has always been the amount and quality of what evidence there is that is the reason that no one is to be prosecuted.
Posted by IAIN HALL, Saturday, 6 January 2007 3:07:32 PM
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
Hallwatch claims that “Clare did not definitively claim that Mulrunji’s death WAS am accident she said that it COULD have been one”

Here is what she said in her press release – note the last sentence.

“The evidence suggests that in this case, this could only be the result of a complicated fall. It seems clear that Mr Doomadgee and Senior Sergeant Hurley fell together through the open door of the police station,” Mrs Clare said.

“There were two autopsies. From them we know that neither kicks nor punches are likely to have caused Mr Doomadgee’s death.

On the evidence, the fall is the only satisfactory explanation for the injuries identified by the doctors.

“In other words, the admissible evidence suggests that Mr Doomadgee’s death was a terrible accident.”

http://media01.couriermail.com.au/multimedia/2006/12/061214palmisland/hurley.pdf

As for the rest of Hallwatch’s responses, why bother, much the same as before, lots of weasel sidestepping etcetera. Yawn!
Posted by Rainier, Saturday, 6 January 2007 4:56:57 PM
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
Frank Gol asked:

1. Why so long after the Deaths in Custody Royal Commission are police still locking up Indigenous Australians for drunk and disorderly behaviour when that was identified as one of the reasons there were so many Aboriginal deaths in custody?

There are several different answers, these include that the parliaments of Australia have not repealed laws against being drunk and disorderly. Police would be criticised for not enforcing these laws and when we realise that a leading cause of violence in public is that the perpetrators and victims are often drunk it doesn’t leave police with many options.

This is the reasoning behind the declaring of so many ‘alcohol free zones’ in many cities and towns.

What alternatives to taking people into police custody? Firstly, unless a person is suspected of an offence, or is a danger to themselves or others, in the medical sense, the police cannot simply take someone into custody: in some states ambos can if they think that the person should be scheduled. So, the models are either police custody or medical intervention. An adult cannot simply be taken to a place of safety and held against their will without a legal reason.

Drinking to excess is seen as a lifestyle choice, not a medical condition.

Perhaps Noel Pearson provided another answer back in October 2000

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s203074.htm

“Noel Pearson: ‘On a lot of counters the situation of people in Cape York is deteriorating, and I put that down to a lot of really dangerous thinking. I mean some of the poor thinking is such that Aboriginal people believe that it is Aboriginal to drink, and when you get to the stage where a people actually believe that it is somehow part of the identity of a people that we live in parks, that we sit around in circles and drink, that we sit around and waste all of our money in gambling and stuff, when you get people to that state of mind, or where they actually believe that it's to identify as a true Aboriginal person to engage in those things, ‘”.
Posted by Hamlet, Saturday, 6 January 2007 7:59:52 PM
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
IAIN HALL replies to my questions.

1. Why are police still locking up Indigenous Australians for drunk and disorderly behaviour when that is one of the reasons there are so many Aboriginal deaths in custody?

HALL: Indigenous people behave badly when drunk. No alternative to arrest.

Non-Indigenous people are told to go home and sober up, and even escorted home.

2. The DPP did not require her to decide whether the death was accidental or not. Why did she make that claim?

HALL: Clare did not definitively claim that Mulrunji’s death WAS an accident; she said that it COULD have been one.

The DPP's media release (14 December): "On the evidence, the fall is the only satisfactory explanation for the injuries identified by the doctors... the admissible evidence suggests that Mr Doomadgee’s death was a terrible accident.”

3. The Deputy State Coroner found the police investigation into Mulrunji’s death did not meet the standard required for a death in custody... What action has been taken to remedy that failure?

HALL: Instruction has been given that ALL deaths in custody will 'henceforth' be treated as a suspicious death.

So there will be no action in this case? Why not?

4. Did police act with propriety in the way they handled Mulrunji Doomadgee's arrest and incarceration? If not, what has been done to discipline the police?

HALL: 'I don’t know for sure but then neither do you.'

Shouldn't we be finding out and taking action if warranted?

5. Have the authorities handled this matter competently?

HALL's reply: 'You are asking me to express an opinion on matters to which I am not privy but it would appear to me that the police department and the Minister have followed the law.'

He has no opinion, but his opinion was that everything was above board.

6. What might have been the outcome if Sergeant Hurley rather than Mulrunji Doomadgee had died in the alleged fracas?

HALL's reply: The outcome would be the same; no prosecution would result.

Only fools believe their own propaganda - and lose their credibility.
Posted by FrankGol, Saturday, 6 January 2007 8:29:22 PM
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
It is said that “Violence is built into unequal, unjust and unrepresentative social structures. These inequitable social structures create low incomes, poor education, health and low life expectancy” Indigenous people are in this category and I suggest that such outcomes promote contact with the criminal justice system. One only need examine the statistics to bring into sharp focus Indigenous life experience. The records are appalling and mostly avoidable. The basic structure in Australia has come to establish the parameters around what kind of freedoms and obligations Indigenous people may enjoy. While it does not literally determine them, it does exert profound influence over the social context in which they freely make their choices and develop lives for themselves.

It is the case for Indigenous people, their land tenures, languages, cultural and social interactions have been historically and contemporarily impaired or limited by such structures. The structures that impact upon their lives has severly restricted access to their land so much so that they have none or are required to use the structure to establish their connection/right to land. I do not know of any other group in Australia who have been treated so poorly and with such contempt. The DPP is a structure that exterts a profound influence and likewise the QPS, need I say more. And the suggestion Indigenous people sit in "circles" and drink as a means to identify themselves as being real Aboriginals is absurd in the extreme and insulting.
Posted by AbSolve, Sunday, 7 January 2007 12:49:24 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
GOL
You have consistently misrepresented my position with the way you have paraphrased my comments. I endorse Hamlet’s comment about the detention of people who are drunk and disorderly. If the infrastructure does not exist for diversion then the police have no choice but to act. Given the bother and responsibility involved in arresting someone I bet just as many drunk blackfellas are told to go home and sleep it off as whitefellas are.

With regard to Leanne Clare’s statement you need to look up the meanings of words like “suggests” and phrases like “on the evidence” these are qualifiers that make an statement less than definitive.

You specifically asked “What action has been taken to remedy that failure?” and I pointed out the new policy to treat ALL deaths in custody as suspicious. The “failure” appears to have been in the way that this matter has been treated from the outset so the change in the way all deaths are to be considered is a complete answer to your question.
“So there will be no action in this case? Why not?”
Without of time travel nothing can be done now to change the way that this case was treated .
“Shouldn't we be finding out and taking action if warranted?”

Just how could any one do this? Who saw all of it? In the absence of any independent witness we can investigate and still end up with just speculation and guess work.
“an opinion on matters to which I am not privy” does NOT mean that I don’t have an opinion it means that my opinion is NOT informed by personal knowledge and “it would appear” is a further qualification of my answer saying that I’m not sure . Do you get that Frank? Basic English here.

“Only fools believe their own propaganda. “

Take a long hard look at yourself Frank I answered your questions in good faith and all you do is try to go the “Gotcha “ the same evidence = the same result different evidence = different result Simple even YOU can understand that.
Posted by IAIN HALL, Sunday, 7 January 2007 6:49:33 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
When investigations are are not done properly, it isn't usually incompetence or a mistake - it is usually an attempt to cover up.

Thing is that even if there is a mistake or incompetance, why should the persons responsbile be allowed to get away with it and continue to carry out their duties without punishment.

If you make a mistake whilst driving and accidently run someone over in your car, you are still held liable. There should be standards! All invovled in this matter should me made to answer and held accountable so that the standards can be lifted to level that is more acceptable. Bashing Aboriginal people and ignoring them until they die and then covering it up is not an acceptable standard.

If there are no repercussions for doing the wrong thing and it actually means that you are better protected then it presents as an appealing alternative to those who's heart is filled with prejudice, malice and spite.
Posted by Jolanda, Sunday, 7 January 2007 9:00:53 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
Jolanda, of course the investigation was botched, so we have three problems:

The treatment of Mulrunji Doomadgee was abominable, he should have been checked on, and medical assistance / assessment called for if there was any doubt. So far I have not read anything about the availability of such medical assistance, and whether this assistance would have helped.

The coroner's inquest functioned as a reinvestigation, and shows that the initial investigation left a lot to be desired. Unfortunately any defence lawyer would call into question, before a jury, any non-contemporaneous investigation.

So basically this particular case may be lost, however it should prompt the Qld government to put new procedures in place, so that when a death in custody occurs, or an allegation of violence, this should be investigated as quickly as possible by police officers from outside the command where the incident took place.

Lastly, the problem is that of the nature of the law: Processes are designed to ensure that vexatious prosecutions take place and to stop the authorities of being oppressive. Sometimes these processes are seen to be unfair, but it is a hard balancing act. What you are asking for in this matter would set a precedent for future actions that may result in injustice rather than justice.

Our laws are a mixture of precedent (common law) and legislative measures. Legislation overrules precedent. In general terms, criminal legislation cannot be passed retrospectively, so that the law as it stood at the time of any offence remains in place
Posted by Hamlet, Sunday, 7 January 2007 6:30:17 PM
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
Hamlet you said:

"Processes are designed to ensure that vexatious prosecutions take place and to stop the authorities of being oppressive".

What do you mean by that?

You also said: "Sometimes these processes are seen to be unfair, but it is a hard balancing act. What you are asking for in this matter would set a precedent for future actions that may result in injustice rather than justice".

How would it result in injustice rather than justice.
Posted by Jolanda, Sunday, 7 January 2007 7:15:51 PM
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
Jolanda

Please accept my apologies:

I meant to say:

""Processes are designed to ensure that vexatious prosecutions NOT take place and to stop the authorities of being oppressive".

The Crown, in comparison to the average accused person, has enormous resources: not only police, but the legal minds of the DPP, the virtually unfetterred ability to hire expert witnesses, such as forensic biologists, medical experts, overseas experts (In the R v Keir matter the NSW DPP paid for experts from the FBI and US Armed Forces DNA Laboratory to come to Australia to give evidence: in the 1840s courtroom of Court 5 Darlinghurst in Sydney it was a little like Queen Victoria meets the X-Files).

So while it is important that the trial process seeks the truth, the evidence available to the Crown has to be laid out before the defence before the trial commences. The defence has to know what it is facing.

If the Crown is allowed to override the rules of evidence in any matter, it is setting precedent to override the rules of evidence in matters in the future: which is why the Victorian Court of Criminal Appeal in allowing the the media interviews of 'Jihad Jack' Thomas into evidence is so important and controversial. His statements to the Aust Federal Police in Pakistan were ruled inadmissable so his original appeal succeeeded, but when he said the same things to the media, freely, in Australia, he opened the door for a new trial.

Evidence in trials has to be seen to have been collected legally and fairly, therefore search warrants, rather than police being able to bust down your door looking for something to use against you. I know that in NSW it has been standard procedure in search warrants, that is the searching for evidence, and the interviewing of suspect persons, to be videotaped. This provides a check and a balance against planted evidence and against 'verbals'.

As much as you would have Hurley 'brought to justice', the same standards apply to him as to any other person suspected of a criminal offence.
Posted by Hamlet, Sunday, 7 January 2007 10:17:29 PM
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
Good points there Hamlet, the point made by one prominent Brisbane lawyer recently was that many murder trials have proceeded with less substantive evidence compared to that which exists in this case.
I imagine this will be weighed up carefully by Street in his examination and review.

O'Groman said that the Deputy Coroners report clearly implicates Hurley in Murunji's death and the only scrutiny we need to see now is that which is available in court.

If not, why have a Coroner and the rich resouce allocation they have to gather evidence at all?
Posted by Rainier, Sunday, 7 January 2007 11:42:41 PM
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
Hamlet can you please explain to me how allowing people to stay silent is going to assist an innocent person from having to deal with a vexatious prosecution or oppression by authority?

It doesn't make sense to me.
Posted by Jolanda, Tuesday, 9 January 2007 12:44:20 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
Yet another attack:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21043723-2,00.html

on top of

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200701/s1825201.htm

How about the powers that be pull out all the police from these law abiding areas, and let them police themselves.

Why should the authorities bother?
Posted by Hamlet, Thursday, 11 January 2007 11:05:00 PM
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
"How about the powers that be pull out all the police from these law abiding areas, and us police ourselves."

We say exactly this everytime one of ours dies in custody.

There was a time not that long ago this is how it was.
Posted by Rainier, Monday, 15 January 2007 9:46:57 PM
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
PRESS RELEASE
Issued Friday 13 January 2007

“Call for Aboriginal Representation on Doomadgee Independent Review”

Townsville Aboriginal activists and community are calling on the Beattie Government to ensure there is Aboriginal Barristers and Lawyers are represented on the Independent Review team headed by Sir Lawrence Street.

The call made at a community meeting held early this week, stated that the decision by the State Government to appoint an independent review into the DPP decision not to charge Sen. Sgt Hurley with the death in custody of Mulrunji Doomadgee on Palm Island in 2004 is a step in the right direction. However, community leaders and activists are concerned that the whole process will become another whitewash if there is no Aboriginal legal representation on this Independent Review.

We have been contacted by a number of Aboriginal Barristers and lawyers who will make themselves available to assist in this review and we call on the Beattie Government to appoint these representatives to provide some credibility to the whole process. At the moment the Queensland people have very little faith in the judicial system based on what has occurred in this case and the only way forward is if the Government ensures Aboriginal legal representation in the Independent Review.

Other concerns coming from the community meeting was the decision by the DPP that there was not a prima facie case to take before it based on evidence obtained during the initial investigation was deemed “unacceptable and flawed” by the Deputy State Coroner. The DPP took into consideration additional evidence before making her almost overnight decision. We as community want to know “What was the additional evidence that influenced her decision, and will this information be made public?

The questions of rules of evidence, medical evidence, statements by witnesses and the complete stuff up by senior police officers investigating from the beginning will be contributing factors that can see this review fail once again. The police union publicly stated “a second review would end up with the same outcome”.
Posted by Rainier, Tuesday, 16 January 2007 10:34:45 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
It's been suggested to me that this discussion may breach the sub judice rule, now that Hurley is to be charged. In this case I think it is best to err on the side of caution. I will delete any further comments, and in fact have deleted all those back to Australia Day when the announcement that Hurely would be charged was made.
Posted by GrahamY, Saturday, 27 January 2007 10:19:21 PM
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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 24
  7. 25
  8. 26
  9. All

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