Ranier lets put the boot on the other foot; what if it was a member of your family who was being sent to trial for a serious matter involving the death of another man but the forensic evidence was ambiguous and or just circumstantial and the only witness was an unreliable drunk with an axe to grind.
The last time I checked we have a presumption of innocence in our legal system and all of those who are baying for Hurley's blood in this matter seem to think that evidence substantial enough to convict him is going to magically appear. In the absence of a confession from Hurley he would be acquitted.

A few years ago I saw a Federal Minister in relation to a matter of misconduct and abuse of power and he said to me that he used to be a criminal lawyer and that it didn't matter what evidence I had, that it wouldn't be enough.

I definately think that there is something that we are not being told in relation to the processing of dealing with issues in relation to moral misconduct and abuse of power.

In NSW you really cannot have an Ombudsman decision reviewed independantly and you cannot request the Ombudsmans documents under FOI. They are beyond scruitiny.

When I alleged a cover up of a serious matter I was told by the Office of the Ombudsman and Police Integrity Commission that under the Ombudsman Act Section 31(B) 2 they were prohibited from investigating particular conduct. Particular conduct was not defined in the Act but on further questioning it appeared that particular conduct referred to abuse of power and/or conspiracies to cover up misconduct. It seems that bureacrats are protected from being asked questions about their conduct.

Bureaucrats are above the Law and Policies and Code of Conducts are not enforcable and are not worth the paper they are written on.

Why these people are allowed to get away with this is beyond me.

Ian Hall.

You are right a person is assumed innocent until proven guilty in a court. The last time I checked the DPP wasn't a court. The Coroners inquest was conducted in a Coroners Court, and to date that court accuses him of inflicting injuries which resulted in death of a man in his custody.

And you must also realise in our traditional courts all the admissable evidence would be tested including the evidence of all the policemen present. If I was Hurley that's what I'd be afraid off mostly. And of course Hurley's change of story would also be tested. As would Hurley if he testified.

His guilt or innocence wouldn't be determined by a bureaucrat or fellow police it would be tested openly in our independant courts by an independant Judiciary.

Why can't that be done?

Naaaah something stinks.

Rainier,

You make a good argument. At one level I have no problem with a review of the DPP's actions because, as you suggest, if she has done her job well she has nothing to fear, and if she has done her job poorly then it should be corrected. However I am a bit hesitant too. In the other cases you cite, there were fairly apparent contentions about whether the law had been properly applied, and that was the basis for review. In this case, the concern seems less about issues of legal principle, and more about whether the victim's family have received justice. (I understand it is respectful not to use his name? Sorry if I've got that courtesy wrong). I would be reluctant to institutionalise a system of second guessing the DPP.

If it really is about the victim's family, then I think the answer lies in the political rather than the judicial realm. The best legacy these incidents could leave is a renewed effort to see the aspirations of the people of Palm Island met, and a renewed effort to look at the way Queensland Police interact with indigenous people.

FrankGol,

I'm pretty sure I did extend my sympathy and respect mate. Read my first line.

However you do make two excellent points – one about the DPP going beyond her brief, and one about continuing deaths in custody. I agree that both of those should be considered, and appropriate action taken. But again these are *policy* issues which do not relate to the question of whether this particular police officer should be charged. If he is charged, tried, and acquitted, how are either of those issues advanced?

Unless there is an independant inquiry I will continue to believe there was political interference in the DDPs assesment of this case.

Rainier reminds us of the Hanson case and of Di Fingleton and the Volkers prosecution. I had forgotten the later two. They all point to political meddling.

If Beatie has any brains he will order an independant inquiry. Sadly a person has lost his life and the whole episode leaves a bad taste in ones mouth.

One of the difficulties of having an 'inependent review' of the DPP's decision not to prosecute is that there can be, in this situation, no 'independence' of review, as the DPP, being an independent body, cannot have its independence challenged by a review, without it losing its independence.

Any government appointed review would be, in effect, aying that the government (being the legislative and policy arm of 'government') doesn't like the decision of the DPP, in effect making a political decision.

The alternative possible course would be for the Aboriginal Legal Service to institute a Supreme Court action for civil damages against both the officer concerned, the Qld Police Force and the Qld Government, that whilst still not operating at the 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard required for a criminal matter, would still examine the evidence at a closer level to that required for a criminal prosecution, and would allow that evience to be tested.

One further possible alternative, (and I don't know how far this could go, as I am not a lawyer, let alone a constitutional lawyer) would be for the Aboriginal Legal Service to try to get the High Court, using the powers originating from the 1966 referendum, to get the Federal Courts involved.

I don't know if action could be taken using Commonwealth Anti-Discrimination legislation, in the same way that in the US Federal 'Civil Rights' powers are used when states fail to prosecute. his could still be possibly agitated.