It isn’t about immunity from prosecution. It is about different treatment of someone in the criminal justice system. If the DPP determines that a matter shouldn’t proceed that is normally the end of it and the potential accused can get on with their life.

“... coroners investigation and a Judge have found there is sufficient evidence to lay charges and yet the DPP, CMC and the Police union ...”

“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 ...”

Coroners (or Acting Coroners as in this case) don't determine if charges should be laid. That is the role of the DPP for these types of matters. At most a Coroner can refer a matter to the DPP.

Kalali

“mjpb, perhaps you ought to read the (Acting) coroners findings, in it you'll find the references to that video camera as posted by darwinboy.”

Good idea. I did so and it probably gave me a much more detailed and accurate understanding of the incident. I say “probably” because coroners aren’t bound by the same rules of evidence that courts are. The purpose of the rules is to ensure fairness and accuracy.

That said, Darwin said that cameras were turned off just before they entered and turned back on after the human being was deceased. That is incorrect. I think that type of thing happened at Logan Brisbane. I don’t believe anyone died however. Rumour alone connects it to this matter.

You make a lot of good points but they don’t apply to the issue that has become controversial. Mirko has a better understanding of the legal issue. I refer you to my first paragraph not specifically addressed to you.

I also note your comment "negligent or deliberate". Are you referring to the delay in medical treatment and nudging the deceased with the foot to check if he was okay something criticized as a hopelessly inadequate way of managing someone even if he was just intoxicated (blood alcohol concentration of 0.292)?

I think the police are more worried about Hurley being charged and I can understand why. The point however is that we need to know if Hurley is guilty and if so he should be punished. Group and community pressure to know what happened and or demand further review is not new. History is full of examples where people power has won out. The Goverment has to listen and act.

Mjpb,

While considering his field of study one might assume that “Mirko has a better understanding of the legal issue”.

However I don’t think he quite understands the moral associated with social justice.

Mirko appears so busy pumping out his ‘writing’ and trying to appear somewhat an expert on law and morals etc but he seems to be incapable of understanding the basics of human rights.

You also state that “it isn’t about immunity from prosecution. It is about different treatment of someone in the criminal justice system. If the DPP determines that a matter shouldn’t proceed that is normally the end of it and the potential accused can get on with their life.”

It is precisely because Hurley is a police officer that this case should be treated differently.

Can’t you understand that the police have a fair amount of power in the community. They are supposed to uphold the law, and protect people.

You cannot go past the fact that Hurley is a police officer, and therefore in a privileged position of trust and power in the community.

The police union seem to be wanting to forget, or gloss over the fact that a man is dead. Mulrunji died in custody from severe injuries.

The police union sickens me. They whinge about Hurley being charged but Mulrunji's death is glossed over.

Mirko might be expected to know the law, but I and many other posters know right from wrong.

Aka,

Re: different treatment

Mulrunji's tragic death demands that action be taken to prevent reoccurance. However the saying “two wrongs don’t make a right” applies. Mulrunji had the right to be properly looked after and not left to die in a jail cell. Police routinely deal with heavily intoxicated people or people with injuries yet in this situation Mulrunji was left sufficiently unmonitored to die unnoticed and noone had the skills, or the medical or safety equipment to implement an attempt at resuscitation. This reflects on adequate staffing, training, and equipment. Further, Mulrunji’s family should have been told immediately when he was known to be deceased. However unless the appropriate authority considers that there is evidence that Hurley is criminally responsible for the death he and his family shouldn’t have to go through a trial for a very serious criminal matter.

Finally in this regard I note that I believe that the Acting Coroner got it right when she described it as “reprehensible” that so many years after the Royal Commission into similar deaths the relevant recommendations were still ignored.

”The police union sickens me. They whinge about Hurley being charged but Mulrunji's death is glossed over.”

I agree. In fairness at the time of the QPU actions the charge was the most obvious issue and that was the thing to respond to. However that is no excuse. They should have made a loud fuss a long time ago about the other issues. Mulrunji’s death pointed to major problems that need addressing.

”Mirko might be expected to know the law, but I and many other posters know right from wrong.”

Sometimes arguments in the forum have been about the legal process and inferences about right and wrong have been drawn from the incorrect understanding. A lynch mob situation based on knowing right from wrong but basing the call on rumour and misunderstandings is not good and will not resolve the problems. I was using Mirko to focus on the correct understanding of the legal situation. Given your view on his ideas about social justice perhaps it wasn’t the best example.

I do not know what happened. Nor do any of us here. A man is dead. THere is a weeping family and a heartbroken community. Nevertheless, we have rules and a process of law for a reason, and the appropriate authority in this case found there was insufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution. As was said earlier two wrongs don't make a right.

We are currently allegedly fighting a war in Iraq against terrorism and for the rule of law. Yet in this case we have allowed rioting, ransacking and threats of violence and protest to force a government motivated by political expediency to abrogate its responsibility to uphold a just legal framework. Because of this, and the medias predjudicial influence, Mr. Hurley will not get a fair trial. Sure, there is a good chance Mr. Hurley killed Cameron Doomadgee. But as the DPP concluded, there is not enough evidence to prove it. And you cannot just arrest people without evidence. (Interestingly enough, watertight cases could easily have been made against the arsonists who destroyed the police station and courthouse, but weren't, again for political reasons).

Mirko is still missing in action I see.

It is a pity he can not explain the morals associated with his logic.

INteresting show on ABC last night re the Victorian Police Union.

Bully boy tactics appear normal police union culture in Vic.

I wonder how widespread it is.

Moral coment Mirko?