Mirko,
I see by your blurb that you are "a Croatian born Australian based author and lawyer who writes on law and moral and political philosophy.

So explain to me the morals of law and political philosophy that has seen Chris Hurley being cited as the first person to be charged for a death in custody.

Australia, in case you were not aware, has had a violent and bloody history. The law that you hold so sacred has not done a real good job protecting Indigenous Australians - in the past or present.

Why shouldn't the DPP's decision be questioned, particularly when the coroners report differed so greatly.

You also forgot to mention that it has been demonstrated taht the DPP is not infallible, being a mere mortal, and her decisions should not be irrefutable.

The police on the other hand seem to be playing a very unholy campaign to get what they want.

From what I can understand, the police union are demanding the right to impunity for their actions.

It appears to me that they want to continue to be immune from questions over suspicious black deaths in custody.

Where are the morals of a police force trying to blackmail the government.

I suggest that the common good is served when a person, regardless of their role in society, is held legally liable for their actions.

Mirko, Sorry for getting upset with you. The penny finally dropped and now I get it... you talk about morals and political philosophy, like in critical analysis. You don't necessarily have to have to practice any morals just be able to write and talk about them.

Strange that Mirko seems to lack confidence in the Queensland judicial system's capacity to treat Hurley fairly in the process of a criminal trial. I suppose it would be facile to point out that the cops and lawyers have vested interests in this case, and perhaps a little obvious to suggest that this might be linked to the abominable history of Indigenous oppression by the enforcement and judicial arms of government in Queensland.

If a coroner had found evidence that Hurley had caused the death of an Anglo-Australian drunk in a police cell in Brisbane, would we not expect that he should face prosecution for that?

And Mirko - it certainly wasn't just the Indigenous community screaming about the apparent injustice in the decisions by the DPP to not charge Hurley but to pursue participants in the riot that ensued when Mulrunji's community learned the manner of his demise. There were just as many non-Indigenous Australians like me who participated in the outcry. Which is probably why Beattie did the backflip, now that I think of it - his government has not been particularly distinguished in its attention to Indigenous issues per se.

I think you obfuscate some of the central issues of this case by your appeal to a false dichotomy beteween the 'common good' vs 'individual rights'. Surely both imperatives are served well when apparent injustice is seen to be addressed by the State, whether or not it is prompted by bureaucratic decision or social action.

Mirko's is an interesting take in this case, but ultimately it seems to me to be a legalistic navel-gazing exercise.

A lawyer speaking of morality is as laughable as a politician speaking of values. Only a lawyer could believe in levels of morality. The common good is about individuals; The point the snarling majority have to keep in mind is: if they can single him out, why not me?
Of course, it helps if there are other factors, such as: "I'm not a blackfella, so it couldn't happen to me", or "I'm a policeman -or lawyer- so the law will always be on my side".
If an individual can't feel safe before the law, what will a whole community of individuals feel?

"A moral code which elevates individual rights and worships abstract notions above the common good is bankrupt and has no scope for application beyond the realms of fiction, where important rights never clash."

At what point does this stop?
If that logic is valid in a decision to charge an individual then should it not also play a role in a decision regarding the conduct of a trial and the outcome?

When views such as the one quoted above begin to become acceptable we are on the path to tyrany. There is a balance between society and the individual, individual rights without responsibility bring one kind of chaos, trampling the individuals rights in the name of the common good (whatever that may be) leads to another.

R0bert

If I remember right there were video cameras at the Police station, yet they were turned off just before they entered and turned back on after the human being was deceased.

We also had the farcical investigation of Police by Police who knew each other and had dinner with each other.

The person was told to move on when he berated a person of his own racial group to which he complied and was arrested for no more than being drunk.

The recent FOI request which got hold of the results of the trial in the Bayside area of Brisbane where Police were to record any interaction that took place showed that a lot of Police refused to do so, and one would have to wonder why seeing how it would protect them if somebody made a unjustified complaint?

So the Police unions claims seem to be very hollow when one looks at the facts.

The fact is that a 2 year coroners investigation and a Judge have found there is sufficient evidence to lay charges and yet the DPP, CMC and the Police union seem to think that the basis of charges a normal person would have to face should not apply purely because the individual is a Police Officer, sorry but to me if there is a sufficient basis for charges to be laid no matter who the person is the normal processes of the law should take place.

To me It would appear that a deal was worked out before the DPP announced it's decision and now they are dirty that the deal was not followed.

After all we are told by Govt and Police that the judicial system works well so if the Police Officer is innocent what does he have to be afraid of from facing the system like everybody else would have to do.

And the witness who committed suicide had been taken on a drive by Police just before he committed suicide, what a coincidence.

Sorry but to me this matter has had a stench about it from day one.

Well said Darwin,

I would add:

Since 2004 and even in the coroner’s reports it was assumed the deceased was 'drunk'. There seems to conflicting interpretations of what this means.

Indeed it was stated that Mulrunji then said things like “I’m not drunk” “I’ve done nothing wrong” and “why are you arresting me?”

Its seem that thre is a line between being "drunk" and being "drunk and disorderly" is a subjective call that police make all the time.

ie,

• Drunk: If you're white and have an Aussie flag draped over you (superman style) and sucking on can of beer.

• Drunk and disorderly: If you’re Aboriginal and walking down the street (empty handed) having just consumed 1 can of beer.