Interesting piece and well argued. Question though - to whom is the Qld DPP accountable? Clearly, it is not ideal to have an eminent jurist called in to review every case that creates a public hue and cry as we would end up with a weekly law and order auction. However, in cases such as this, where a man is dead and coronial and DPP views appear to differ so widely, what other means is there to ensure justice is done?

Also - is the Qld police union REALLY so upset about the PROCESS by which Hurley has been charged? Or is it that he has been charged at all? There seems to be a significant element that is of the view that police officers should be above the law that they enforce

The DPP's decision was a dreadful decision but it should not have been overturned.

Beattie has set an awful precedent. The prospects of trial by media, U.S.-style justice, are rising and rising in Australia.

It is something we should try to stop.

I think your argument is sound and sets a logical process for the greater good. However your comment about the Aboriginal people being able to "scream" loud enough demonstrates that perhaps you are writing about Aboriginal people without any first hand or family knowledge. If the Government chose not to pursue charges against Hurley the fallout would not be felt by most Australians. However the fallout would mean that Aboriginal people would continue to turn on each other as demonstrated by the violence and self harm that exists in these communities. If Hurley was not charged this would have escalated, and then mainstream views would say "that's how they are". I find it is a common approach to downsize Aboriginal concerns in the bigger picture. Aboriginal people commonly hear "No no you've got it wrong. We didn't mean that"

A good article, a very difficult case. Too complicated for me to begin to fathom. The system is often not satisfactory for the police. There do need to be more trained liasson officers to mediate any misunderstandings. It should have never got to this in the first place.

Well what else you would expect from a member of the congregation of the legal fraternity!

Mirko speaks of protecting the sanctity of a system (for the sake of legal tradition) because for him this is far more important than the death of a fellow human being.

I can hear Mirko arguing ‘Its just another black death in custody, business as usual’

He also speaks of political pressure by Indigenous protest.

Why does Mirko find it deplorable that Indigenous dissent questioned the findings of legal bureaucrats? Are they protected specie in our apparently democratic society?

He forgets (or is unaware) of the hundreds of marches in the streets protesting this same issue over the past 2 decades.

It is one thing to advocate fidelity and blind faith to a system of law, quite another when it becomes clear this same system has repetitively failed to protect the most vulnerable within its ambit.

The utilitarian view of things is alive and well in Australia, I think more so than in any other Anglo country we tend to rely more on the greater good argument.

Who determines what is the greater good ? Can that be separated from the self interest of those making the decisions ? Somehow I doubt it.

I also wonder whether we can know the greater good , for example, if someone assasinated Hitler in 1939 would that have been for the greater good ?

As Spock said "Sometimes the needs of the one outweighs the needs of the many". He was a Vulcan, you know..