Gee Hamlet, you certainly sound like a lawyer. If you are not a lawyer, then maybe you should be?

Realist,
I may have come on a bit strong, however I live in the locality, and know the history of Palm, and it disgusts me to see the continueing lack of justice. You must know the history of Palm before you can make any comments that will be helpful.

If I over stepped the mark I apologiser, this is a very emotive issue for me I have seen this happen for 30 years, these people have been abused by society in general.

There is another problem with the idea of an 'independent review' and that is what would you do with the reviews findings?

The only sort of possible review that could be held would be in the form of a committal hearing before a magistrate, otherwise a non-judicial review would taint any possible future trial: that is, if an 'independent person' decided that the police officer should face charges, after a review, then that person's findings could be challenged as being politically motivated, and if it is found that no charges should be laid then all the people baying for the blood of the police office and the DPP would start baying for the blood of the reviewer as well.

If the DPP took the matter to committal (hard to do at this stage, because the DPP has already shown the cards in its hand) and a magistrate found that there was 'insufficient evidence for a jury, properly instructed, to find a guilty verdict' then those baying for blood would still not be satisfied, still claiming interference.

The DPP could still lay an ex officio indictment in this situation, but a conviction would still be hard to come by, because if you cannot convince a magistrate that a jury may convict, actually getting one to convict is against the odds (it happens, but is rare).

So, what else could be done? Have a prosecutor from another jurisdiction review the evidence and perhaps run the case in court so that the Qld DPP is out of the loop? Possible, but still difficult. Impartial members of a jury, who would have at least read about the matter, would also be hard to come by.

So last possibility? A 'judge alone' trial conducted by an interstate prosecutor? The High Court would most likely tear any conviction to shreds, particularly if the accused did not consent to a judge alone trial, and why would the accused consent to such a piece of theatre?

No matter what course was taken there will be accusations of political interference.

I've been informed that the Queensland DPP’s decision not to prosecute is reviewable under the Judicial Review Act.

An application for review to the Supreme Court of Queensland is expected to be filed shortly.

3 legal opinions have been released

See these links:

http://mp3.news.com.au/bcm/1220protest/Scan2266.pdf

http://mp3.news.com.au/bcm/1220protest/Scan2282.pdf

http://mp3.news.com.au/bcm/1220protest/Scan2283.pdf

"If this unholy mess is not sorted out in very short order there will be a lot of disappointed if not angry people about."

The DPP decision not to prosecute Constable Hurley was met with utter disbelief in our household.

I know that the DPP has to have enough evidence to proceed and prove beyond doubt that Mulrunji Doomadgee was unlawfully dealt with, however, this begs the question "Why not proceed with lesser charges? And what about the doubt created in the general population as to the integrity of not only the DPP but the QPS.

Just as point of interest re: the Doomadgee's injury. It takes a hell of a lot of force to cause such an injury. You'd have rughby players, motocross riders, and the extreme sport kinds wiping themselves out to the level that the coroner would disregard the evidence (injuries) in this particular watch-house incident.
The coroner's report suggests without too much doubt that excessive force was used. That is fairly compelling evidence.

You want to help get rid of doubt - proceed to court.

Something is very wrong here.