ronnie,
dam right something doesn't add up, take it to court and either clear or convict

"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."
Ronnie
The DPP has determined that NO charges could succeed on the available evidence so what is a review going to do? Nothing but raise false hopes for the dead mans family and incur a substantial cost for NO RESULT.

"The coroner's report suggests without too much doubt that excessive force was used. That is fairly compelling evidence."
That is compelling evidence of only one thing the nature of the injuries that caused his death; to get a conviction ,even for manslaughter you would have to prove that Hurley actually intentionally caused those injuries there are NO reliable witnesses to the events in question and Hurley would rightly exercise his right to remain silent. Wether he is culpable or not there can be no way that the law can bring a successful prosecution. Which explains Leanne Clare's decision.

"You want to help get rid of doubt - proceed to court."
You can't seriously believe that those who want to see Hurley imprisoned (or killed) over this matter would be any happier after an acquittal than they are now. The cries of "its an injustice ECT would just be postponed until later.

“Something is very wrong here.”

Yes Ronnie too many people do not understand the rules of evidence and the concept of proving a case “beyond reasonable doubt” That the foundation of our justice system and we abandon it at our own peril

IAIAN,
Sadly I have come to your conclusion in the laymans way, even the police sometimes know who the guilty part is, but are unable to prove it, as is the case here. The Mackay murders in Townsville 30 odd years ago proved this, they knew who killed the girls but were unable to prove who did it, the murderer died of natural causes unfortunately.

The foundation of our justice system scares me.

It is scary because the way the system works unless there is a confession then a case cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt because the accused is permitted to refuse to answer questions about the event on the grounds that it might incriminate him/her!?

The Law focuses on saving money and avoids investigations, protecting the accused, because they know that the accused will get away with it as the Law protects the criminal from being asked questions. If there are no questions allowed to be asked a matter can never be resolved.

Given that Mulrunji Doomadgee isn’t alive to tell his side of the story, allowing silence is being afforded a right to cover up or hide your deeds and that isn’t fair especially when the reputation of the deceased and his people are being impacted.

Iain Hall,

My old mate Keith has already tied to point you in the right direction but I’ll try again with another angle.

The DPP appears to think she can decide what a jury would /or would not consider to be beyond reasonable doubt.

If you think that one legal bureaucrat’s subjective evaluation is enough to deliver justice, that’s your choice.

I question whether the DPP could make a positive finding of “accidental death” at all.

This I believe should be left to a jury.

I agree in ‘principle’ only that the government should maintain respect for the independence of the office of the DPP, but from what I understand the DPP has offered up her file to the Attorney General and has therefore agreed to an independent review.

Will this file (including the new evidence) reveal that she exceeded her powers? Her inflammatory public statements suggest that she has.

This is after all the evidence which formed the basis of her ruling not to charge Hurley.

This suggests that she made a ruling on evidence that was not made accessible to the lawyers of the Doomadgee family. Where is the transparency in this?

See this link for more information: http://statements.cabinet.qld.gov.au/MMS/StatementDisplaySingle.aspx?id=49762

If any dangerous legal precedent has been set then it’s much older than the Independent review now underway.

Approximately 250 Indigenous people have died in custody over the past decade and a half - with no criminal charges being made against police.

Another ways of looking at this is that it is 250 precedents of ‘police being innocent beyond reasonable doubt’.

New procedures now being bought in to treat every death as suspicious won’t help these people.

Do Queensland police have a history of flogging Aboriginal people in custody?

There are hundreds of law abiding Aboriginal people who would answer this in the affirmative.

Some believe that the DPP did not deliberate on the cause of death, but rather, on how Hurley et al could get away with murder.

Given the history of Aboriginal Deaths in Custody I think this is a reasonable call.

Rainier, the problem about leaving it completely to the jury is that, for various reasons, not all evidence (ie hearsay 'evidence') doesn't make it before a jury.

This works both ways in this situation. It puts limits on what the police and other authorities can place before juries. For instance, say a group of police officers decide to fit up an Aboriginal because they consider him, or her, to be a troublemaker.

The right to silence is also important, because it means that police cannot trick someone who has a low level of education, from making admissions while they are in a state of confusion.

If it was left completely up to police and juries, without the filter of an impartial DPP and judiciary, directing juries, more people would be in gaol as a result of mere suspicion than is the case now.

Juries can be fickle creatures, their responsibility is to the the judges of the facts, not of the law. You never know, under a jury the police officer may just be found not guilty.

In a trial the past history of the deceased, his medical history, any criminal history, his background, character, previous interactions with police and many other factors may be raised, in defence of the accused. Anything that may raise doubt in the jury's mind of the possible cause of the fatal injuries will be dredged up and placed before the jury.

The circumstances of his arrest, and previous arrests, ie did he 'fall' before? These were not necessarily within the brief of the coroner, but will be used by the defence. What doubt can be raised in the minds of the jury?

Before you claim this to be unjust, these are exactly the tactics used by barristers briefed by the Aboriginal Legal Service. Or is someone here claiming that Aboriginals should have the right to silence but a police officer should not have?