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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

"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.