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There are several different answers, these include that the parliaments of Australia have not repealed laws against being drunk and disorderly.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, ‘”.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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