Hamlet,

We could hypothesize forever but I would rather stick with the case at hand for an eventual trial by jury of Hurley.

My understanding is that not only does the community (both black and white) feel that the anomaly between the Coroner and the DPP determinations is so stark that it requires a review, there are also lawyers who feel that this should be case should eventually be presided over by a judge and jury.

As previously stated The DPP had not revealed the full evidence that her apparent “impartiality” was based on. Why is this?

While the dredging up of past records or evidence may have impact the jury would be asked to decide on questions directly related to the crime at hand.

From my experience your scenario is more at home on TV law shows than the actual workings of criminal courts.

In my lay perspective the question is whether or not that impact was the result of deliberate conduct or whether it was, as Mrs Clare has decided, the result of a “complicated fall” which was just a "terrible accident”.

Everyone falls over sometime or other.

But few of us fall over with a 130 kilo policemen (throwing punches) on top of oneself.

And very few of die from our liver splitting in two from a simple fall.

If a member of your family died like this in a public place would you accept what the DPP has declared as a reasonable explanation? I doubt it very much.

No , you’d be screaming for a review and criminal charges – which leads to a judge and jury.

Why do you argue for the family of the deceased to accept less than this?

There are a couple of things that will lead to a conviction for Hurley. One is the testing of the evidence of the other police officers present. The other is Hurley's previous history of violence towards individuals.

Both were examined by the Coroner and from a reading of her report appeared to have had a significant influence in her findings.

Those are the things I'd be fearful of, if I was Hurley or among his supporters.

They can only be tested in a court.

Hi Rainier. Thanks. Am ill at present and unfortunately missed last Wed. Am watching Sam's Green webpage for next.

Any previous history that Hurley has of violence will never make it before a jury, with the possible exception of being used as 'tendency' evidence. Even then, this cannot be hearsay, the victims themselves, or actual witnesses, would need to give evidence, and would also be subject to cross examination.

It is only if the accused himself raises the issues of his own character and history that the crown will be in a position to attack that character.

Always remember that it is the Crown that has to prove guilt, and not the accused to prove innocence.

If a crown witness raises character, except in an extremely limited way, it is most likely that the trial will be aborted. If the trial continues and a conviction ensues it is most likely that it would be overturned on appeal.

Regarding my knowledge of trials, I spent six years working as a court officer in the NSW Supreme and District Courts, observing many murder and other trials first hand. I have seen how witnesses are examined, and cross examined. I have seen how the character of murder victims, and victims of assault and other crimes, is raised and how any actions that they have done may have contributed to events. I am a layman, not schooled in the law, but I have seen the law in action much more than the average person.

Rainer

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

Well that is here job from an administrive point of view to look at the strength of the ADMISSIBLE evidence and consider wether , a conviction would be possible . You do not have to be A QC , barrister or even a first year law student to see that the case against Hurley is not strong enough for Jury to convict him on any charges .


"This is after all the evidence which formed the basis of her ruling .”
No it is the LACK of enough evidence that has led her to make her recommendations.

”the Independent review now underway”.

The review will I think prove to be nothing more than a PR exercise and I think that in the end Clare's decision will be upheld.

‘police being innocent beyond reasonable doubt’.

This is sad but rather irrelevant you seek to conflate other events into the death of this man to establish some sort of dark culture of indifference at best or persistent evil at worst in the Queensland police force.


”Do Queensland police have a history of flogging Aboriginal people in custody? “
Every death in custody is a serious matter but as some one who lives in Queensland I can assure you that the police culture that was evident under Joh has changed but the left’s propensity to assume the worst about those who serve their community in the police has not.


”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.”

Some people believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden but that does not make them real .I have considered this matter further at my own blog in this post http://boltwatch-watch.blogspot.com/2006/12/vengeance-is-not-justice.html I realise that many people are arguing emotionally on this topic but the law actually requires us to consider the matter on variifiable facts and evidence.

Hamlet said: "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".

I agree that there should be a right to silence at the begining, to a degree so as to protect people from being intimidated into making false confessions or admissions, but it shouldn't extend to the degree and level that it does now.

What's worse, the police tricking someone into making a confession and then the person having to fight for thier innocence or the police killing someone so that they don't make a confession and then the police being allowed to remain silent about it?.

Iain

The victims of some of Hurleys previous episodes gave evidence at the Coroner's enquiry. The Coroner dwelt heavily on this aspect of Hurley's behaviour in her report and was extreme in her criticism of Hurley's callousness. Read her report.

It would be admissable.

If it was a lack of evidence that led Claire to her decision how then and why did Claire declare the death was a terrible accident and the result of a fall. And why did she go on to champion Hurley's innocence?

'as some one who lives in Queensland I can assure you that the police culture that was evident under Joh has changed but the left’s propensity to assume the worst about those who serve their community in the police has not.'

Mate I have quite a different view. I'm no a leftie. My anecdotal experiences, are obviously, quite different to yours. I think your statement based in emotion. I would suggest many police from Joh's era are still in the dark recesses of the Qld Police Service and while the blatant corruption is gone the same protective 'Police Culture' is alive and flourishing. The alledgedly contemptious statements from the Police Union Officer in this case was a clear expression of that old ingrained attitude.

And the thing we are mostly upset about is that someone is not allowing the law to consider 'the matter on variifiable (sic) facts and evidence'.

So far it's application been undertaken by a bumbling bureaucrat who has overstepped her role and loudly proclaimed Hurley's innocence.

That's just not right...