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

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?

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.

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 :)

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?

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.