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”.

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.