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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?