There were two people responsible for reviewing the case to determine if charges should be laid; Coroner and then DPP. Their opinions varied wildly. A third party was called in to review the evidence impartially.

This article seems to assume that Sir Laurence Street didn't conduct a proper de novo review.

While it is irregular for him to have been called upon, did that decision actually reduce the chance of justice being served? That's the question on everyone's lips.

I'd like to see more attention paid to the issue of the Police Union running a campaign against the government. I can see far more problems arising from that breech than an independant review of a single DPP decision.

Mirko argues a strong case but he overlooks the cause of the problem. The initial police investigation that failled miserably to ensure the law was upheld , by the police, without fear or favour. Had that investigation been carried outwith even a smidgeon of Police 'mateship' then the case Mirko argues wouldn't have eventuated. Hurley should have been charged at that time.

Oh and I've seen quite a few people from other communities, not just indigenous communities, express their disquiet in various ways over many aspects involved in this fiasco, too.

Darwinboy,

If the video camera thing were true it would be on the front page of the Courier Mail. Where did you hear that? Also, the deceased was not known for being violent or a troublemaker. The witness was there because he had just bashed three women.

The ‘Judge’ was hired by Beattie to find grounds to lay charges after the DPP decided not to proceed. He was not functioning as an independent judge in court. If the DPP decided there was insufficient evidence a normal person would not be charged. That is not the normal process of law. Hurley is only being charged because of Beattie’s actions.

What would the police give DPP in return in the deal?

“like everybody else would have to do.”
If the DPP decided not to charge anyone else with manslaughter there would have been no ex-judge hired to make an argument to the contrary. He is a tall rugged white police officer who arrested an aborigine who died so he must be guilty.

If the police drove around the witness before his death you should notify the Murri newspapers.

”Sorry but to me this matter has had a stench about it from day one.”
That is no excuse. How would you feel if you were in Hurley’s position and people spread rumours about you just because of their feeling from day one?

CJ,

What were the rioters charged with? Were the DPP involved?

Glen v

The coroner was independent. The DPP are independent. But we know who paid Lawrence Street and what his boss wanted. He would have become a judge due to his ability to argue displayed while a barrister. To suggest he was not independent is a fact not an insult. While he wasn’t independent he may or may not have been objective. However he is essentially a lawyer and lawyers are in the habit of arguing a case not being objective so I take a view.

Keith,

I partly disagree. The police should have investigated properly. Whether or not that would lead to a charge is not so certain.

All of this completely pointless stupidity could have been avoided if Australia had simply adopted the German system.

Their Department of Public Prosecution does not have discretion to choose whether they prosecute or not. They don't try to pre-judge the outcome of the trial and whether or not they should attempt it (effectively, a trial behind closed doors before the real trial) they simply have to forge ahead.

Actually, the German system is infinitely better than ours in a multitude of ways, not the least of which is the reduced opportunity for lawyers to grab exorbitant fees.

mjpb

You appear to have me confused with Darwin so your comments don't apply to my post.

In response to your post. Are you saying the media is the forum where truth is determined and revealed?

With regard to the witness. If he had committed a criminal act then it was correct to detain him to start the due process. But do his crimes make the substance of the allegations against Hurley (that he allegedly caused the Aboriginal mans death) acceptable? This seems to be a circular argument.

My understanding is that the "Judge" was commissioned to determine whether or not there was a basis for laying charges, as the previous two inquiries went either way. You are entitled to your opinion that the Premier commissioned the "Judge" to "find" a basis for charges.

I could go on and respond to your questions with more of my own. However I feel the tone or your posts suggets (IMO) that you feel Aboriginal people are "un-normal".

Darwinboy,

"You appear to have me confused with Darwin so your comments don't apply to my post."

Sorry it is the first time I have seen either of you.

"In response to your post. Are you saying the media is the forum where truth is determined and revealed?"

Not at all but some people make that mistake. The media always say that they are not there to educate.

"You are entitled to your opinion that the Premier commissioned the "Judge" to "find" a basis for charges."

Thank you it is based on my perception of: hiring people, what the premier wanted, and lawyers. You realize that I don't think the Premier sat down and said "I want you to argue that he should be charged". I just take into account who hired Street, Street being intelligent enough to know why, and the way lawyers approach things.

"However I feel the tone or your posts suggets (IMO) that you feel Aboriginal people are "un-normal"."

No. I'd like to know why? Are you saying that Aboriginal people get charged due to the premier hiring an interstate ex-judge after the DPP decides not to charge them? Perhaps something else I said? I can see why you could read in that I am saying Hurley is un-normal but not anyone else. Naturally I just meant Hurley was treated differently not that he is abnormal.