Where the liver is situated it is protected by the ribs.

To rupture a liver it requires a lot of force like a seatbelt in an accident or the handle bar of a motorbike or pushbike.

A simple fall onto stairs will not rupture a liver.

Now I do not envy a policemans job especially dealing with often violent and intoxicated people.

Why no hand-wringing about the phenomenal number of aboriginal people dying at the hands of other aboriginal people? Do you simply consider it normal? After spending some time with aborigines in the late 1970's i lost all sympathy for them because their behaviour toward each other was so disgusting.

in another country with a proud history of unnacountable law enforcement the Dead Kennedy's re-worked the Clash's 'i fought the law' about a similar situation... 'you can get away with murder if you got a badge'.

Drinkin' beer in the hot sun
I fought the law and I won
I fought the law and I won

The law don't mean .... if you've got the right friends
That's how this country's run
Twinkies are the best friend I've ever had
I fought the law
And I won

I blew George and Harvey's brains out with my six-gun

I fought the law and I won
Gonna write my book and make a
million
I fought the law and I won

I'm the new folk hero of the Ku Klux Klan
My cop friends think that's fine
You can get away with murder if you've got a badge
I fought the law
And I won
I am the law
So I won.

If you want to talk about getting off easy for criminal offences look at this http://www.australian-news.com.au/abosentence.htm
Aborigines ony get 42% sentence for equivalent crimes.

“I don’t begrudge anyone from voicing a protest on any matter but one would have thought it more prudent of police to await the outcome of a jury of Hurley’s peers to arrive at a verdict before trying to influence the court’s outcome by threatening to march on Parliament House as well as an array of other innovative planned actions.”

I most definitely do begrudge the police taking this course of action.

The message they are sending to the community is powerful and grossly wrong. This message is that the police are above the law; that the very notion of a police officer being charged and tried is completely unacceptable; that the notion of innocence until guilt is proven or shown beyond a reasonable doubt should not apply at all to police – they should simply be seen as innocent all the time; that even in a matter as serious as a death in custody, with such grave implications for the officer involved, a trial by his peers is simply out of the question.

I share Stephen Hagan’s deep disgust at this development. In fact I don’t think I’ve ever experienced anything more putrid.

Citizen,should be called Citizen Roguespere.
His disgust of Aboriginals is typical of the senseless cruelty handed down to those of us less able to defend ourselves,in law and on the streets.
Young Aboriginals do not run from the Police because they have committed a crime but rather the fear that they will be accused of a crime that somebody else has committed.
Yes I you were born Aboriginal and lived outside Melbourne or Sydney
you are easy pickings.
Australia has not changed the Convict image in two hundred years and probably will never with racists promoting Police /Jailers crimes.

Because the union can see the DPP has been overridden in this case, that ordinary criminals don't recieve this treatment. I can't blame the union even though I think Hurley did it, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

“I don’t begrudge anyone from voicing a protest on any matter but one would have thought it more prudent of police to await the outcome of a jury of Hurley’s peers to arrive at a verdict before trying to influence the court’s outcome by threatening to march on Parliament House as well as an array of other innovative planned actions.”

Is it unfair to discuss whether Aborigines burning down the police station on Pam Island, rioting at other settlements, protesting and marching in Brisbane and Cairns etc was intended to influence the process of justice. Which it did.

We are still waiting for anything like a coherent explanation from the Queensland Government on what the circumstances are in which the Attorney-General will decide to ignore the decision of the independent DPP and present a case to the courts directly, using a Justice Department employed barrister.

I am still waiting for Stephen Hagan or any other apologists for the ATSI community to explain why they aren't as vocal about Aboriginal men raping three year old girls - something that I would have thought as morally heinous as wrestling with an unruly drunk.

Shonga:

The DPP's decision showed that she completely ignored the evidence suggesting that Hurley could be charged. She also, completely inappropriately, tried to claim that the Mulrunji death was a 'tragic accident', which is not her job.

That, and her actions in the Pauline Hanson, Di Fingleton and Scott Volkers cases, indicate a pattern of behaviour that protects the powerful and puts the boot into those on the outer.

Are you seriously suggesting that a DPP who is clearly biassed and making bad decisions should never have those decisions reviewed?

The political decisions that were made did not put Hurley in jail, they kick-started a legal process that had been stalled by a DPP who is failing in her duty.

As for Kevin, what are you doing to find out what Aboriginal leaders are saying about toxic behaviour in their own communities? What are you doing to help the leaders who are trying to stop that toxic behaviour?

Or do you just want to cling to any excuse you can to help you believe that all Aboriginals as bad people?

David Jackmanson
http://www.letstakeover.blogspot.com
http://www.lastsuperpower.net

My grandfather in the UK was a police constable. an uncle was a Chief Superintendent. I don't think that they would recognise the attitudes held by the Queensland force, as highlighted by Ludwig, which so amazed me when I first came to Queensland in 1979, and continue to do so. Their emphasis was on serving the public, not their self-interest and that of their mates.

It is interesting that the Police Union rage over the prosecution of Hurley went silent and not much has been heard from the acting Union Boss in Cairns in the recent past. It is also interesting that the same amount of vocal support was not shown for the two Police officers who allegedly raped the female prisoners in the Police Cells in South East Queensland and which received very little media coverage. I do wonder if the wrist bans will now include their rego numbers as well and is the Qld Police Union also paying for the defence of the charges these vile grubs face. It was reported today that a nurse who made a complaint about the conduct of public servants in the Cairns Base hospital was interviewed by the CIB and this is typical of how this fascist regime works in Qld and if I were Stephen Hagan I be very careful on the street after publishing his views in this forum. The matter of Hurley going before the Qld Supreme Court is a process that could have been commenced by anybody and it did not necessarily require the Attorney-General to commence it. I do hope that the Honourable Judge in Townsville is going to deal with this matter as a Judge in a properly constituted Qld Supreme Court in accordance with the laws of the Qld Parliament displaying the statutory SEAL of the Court on the face of the originating process or otherwise he is dealing with this matter as an individual in an administrative TRIBUNAL, not one of Her Majesty's Courts, and that would be contrary to the High Court reasons for their decisions in KABLE v The DPP NSW and GROLLO v MIC PALMER, COMMISSIONER OF AFP. I do hope that one of the highly educated lawyers for the victim are going to ensure that the matter is being dealt with by a proper white-fella court or Stephen Hagan will be able to add this one to his long list of failures of this fascist regime to appropriately address the many deaths in custody.

Actually, I'm going to go against the grain and support the actions of the police union.

Not because of Chris Hurley - I think he probably is guilty and should be tried.

However, the official reason why the police union has reacted so strongly is that this is a case of the government stepping in to overturn a decision of the DPP.

That isn't supposed to happen. Political interference in the judicial system isn't supposed to occur - there is a reason why we have a separation of powers.

Now I'm not so naive as to believe that this is the actual reason why the police are protesting. They see one of their own being charged, and they see themselves in his shoes. They are making a show of solidarity.

I don't believe this is right, but I don't think the government should be able to step in and correct an unpopular decision of the DPP.

What is needed, is a review of how the DPP prosecutes - the German system of prosecution is quite different, in that the prosecutors do not have any leeway in deciding if there is enough evidence to go to trial. If a number of conditions are met, they simply have to go to trial. The politics are taken out of the decision making process. This is probably why the Germans are the only ones prosecuting CIA agents for rendition procedures, but I digress.

So yes, I think Hurley should have been charged. But not because the Premier stepped in.

TRTL, I can’t understand why you are supporting the police union.

The PU should surely have upheld the principle that Hurley needed to be tried. The fact that someone died in his presence and that he could not prove or very strongly indicate his innocence quickly should surely have been sufficient grounds for a trial.

This basic principle takes precedence. The DPP decision clearly ran counter to this. If the PU really stood for the principles of law, morality and equality, THEY should have been the first ones to denounce the DPP’s decision not to charge Hurley.

The basic principles here are much more important than a show of solidarity for a police officer that has not been shown to be innocent in a court of law.

As for political interference in the legal system, yes we have to be very careful about it. But no system should be beyond reproach. In this case the public outcry was so strong that the government really was compelled to act. If the circumstance had been such that the government had acted against the tide of community outrage, then there would have been cause for the PU to cry foul. It is afterall part of the government’s role to represent the peoples’ wishes, and when community outrage is expressed very strongly, the government is pretty much compelled to act. That’s democracy.

There’s no doubt about it – it was difficult stuff to reconcile. But I certainly cannot go along with the notion that the DPP’s word should have been final and that the state government was wrong to interfere.

And there are certainly NO grounds for the PU to take the course of action that they have.

I agree TRTL that the DPP needs some pretty major reforms. It has basically had its credibility skittled.

It isn't that I am supporting the police union per se.
I don't like the idea of the police rallying to protect someone who appears to have caused a death in custody.

But should there be opposition to what the government has done? To that I say yes... perhaps it would be better if it wasn't the police union doing so, though for various reasons, they are the ones who are doing so.

The government has reacted to a public outcry to order a trial - okay, but here's the rub. Effectively they've caved to public pressure to step in and correct a problem in the judicial system.

We're both agreed there is a problem in the judiciary, but somehow the pressure needs to be applied to the DPP - but not via the government.

Consider this - there was a huge amount of public support for Schapelle Corby, yet there was never all that much evidence supporting her story. It could however, have proved a popular election tactic to try and interfere in the process. While there may be some justifications based on differing standards between Indonesia and Australia, this isn't applicable for Hurley - it's about the facts of the case.

In our system of law, the facts of the case weren't sufficient for the DPP to prosecute.
This is a politically charged case - instead of having the government intervene in this particular instance, the judiciary should be treating the problem, rather than allowing the government to treat this symptom.

Without referring to the subject case it is a cause for concern that the mob with the support of a media addicted to sensationalism, can cause political interference in the legal system.

One only has to look at the Schapelle Corby case to see how the media and activists savvy in using the media, can hijack the political process even at federal level.

The Hurley case has been a godsend to activists and the death of this poor unfortunate man allowed a futher opportunity to galvanise opinion against independent scrutiny and change that could improve the lot of the Palm Island community.

We should not forget that in any dysfunctional system there are those with a vested interest in maintaining the systemic corruption that always exists. Perpetrators have a very strong motivation to undermine police and the legal process. Arguably, if Palm Island did not have the culture of lawlessness, mob rule and alcohol abuse this death would not have happened in the first place. It reflects very poorly on the self management of Palm Island.

There was a Police Union article in the paper commenting on its concern about political interference in the legal system. To me this seems a reasonable issue for it to take up. Equally, others might look at whether positive discrimination in public service recruitment and selection reduces public confidence that the best people are selected for government positions.

In the Hurley matter there have been intemperate voices heard from both sides and this is to be expected given the preference of the media for sensationalism and the skill of activists in manipulating the media.

So why shouldn't the Police Union try to ensure that one of its members gets a fair hearing? A cursory look at the recent happenings on Palm Island would show that activists are prepared to go much further than that in their protests. As a community we should think very carefully and soberly before we lend support to mob rule.

It is a cause for alarm that the mob with the support of a media addicted to sensationalism, can cause political interference in the legal system.

One only has to look at the Schapelle Corby case to see how the media and activists savvy in using the media, can hijack the political process even at federal level.

The Hurley case was a godsend to activists who capitalised on the death to galvanise opinion and a rabble against independent scrutiny and change that could improve the lot of the Palm Island community.

In any dysfunctional system there are always those with a vested interest in maintaining the systemic corruption that exists. Perpetrators have a very strong motivation to undermine police and the legal process. Arguably, if Palm Island did not have a culture of lawlessness, mob rule and alcohol abuse this death would not have happened in the first place. It reflects very poorly on the self management of Palm Island, not on the police service.

There was a Police Union article in the paper outlining its concern about political interference in the legal system. That was an eminently reasonable position for it to take. Equally, others might look at whether positive discrimination in public service recruitment and selection reduces public confidence that the best people are selected for government positions.

In the Hurley matter there have been intemperate voices reported from both sides and this is to be expected given the preference of the media for sensationalism and the skill of activists in manipulating the media.

A cursory look at the recent happenings on Palm Island would show that activists are prepared to go much further than that in their protests. As a community we should think very carefully and soberly before we lend support to mob rule. So why shouldn't the Police Union try to ensure that one of its members gets a fair hearing?

JamesH,

Get your hand off it! Expert opinion said the fall could cause that damage but you say it can't. Care to volunteer to have a solidly built 200.66cm cop fall on top of you downstairs to prove your point?

Ludwig,

Your posts in other threads are anti-cop but don't let your perspective mix you up. The QPU were the ones upset that the normal course of legal procedure was not followed not trying to put themselves above the law. You need to read more than Courier Mail headlines. If the DPP had determined that there is not enough evidence for trial then in the normal course of events there would have been no trial. The government interference resulted in the trial.

"The fact that someone died in his presence and that he could not prove or very strongly indicate his innocence quickly should surely have been sufficient grounds for a trial."

In this country it is innocent until proven guilty. I know most posters on the subject advocate a lynch mob approach but legally you have it back to front.

David Jackmanson,

DPP biased. Paid ex-judge unbiased? Why would DPP be biased? That makes no sense.

TRTL

I agree that it is irrelevant to the issue of government interference in the judicial process but if you think that Hurley did it you really need to read the coroner's report.

What a load of sanctimonious crap these latest posts are.

The facts are that the Coroner and the DPP findings were totally opposite.

So logically a third opinion was sought.

The police union aren't asking for a fair trial - they are objecting to one of their own being charged at all. It give the impression that they demand that they are above the law and can act in whatever way they want with total immunity.

It was not mob rule that sought the changes, but some significant people from all walks of life cried foul.

Chris Hurley will face the court and the legal mob from both sides with argue the fine details.

All this sanctimonious bs is just aimed to beat the race drum once again.

If you don't like it so what - get over it.

It is 2007 and maybe, just maybe, Australia is ready to demand justice for all its citizens.

"The facts are that the Coroner and the DPP findings were totally opposite."

Impossible. The Coroner doesn't decide whether or not something proceeds to trial. They refer it to the DPP. It is the DPP's call.

"So logically a third opinion was sought."

About as logical as Beattie paying an ex-judge to determine guilt or innocence if he doesn't like the jury finding. ie. not logical

"The police union aren't asking for a fair trial - they are objecting to one of their own being charged at all."

In the circumstances it is outrageous. The DPP decided there was insufficient evidence for charges. What if it was you being charged when due process would have had you left alone?

"It give the impression that they demand that they are above the law and can act in whatever way they want with total immunity."

If you cover your eyes and ears and take a view accordingly it could appear that way.

"It was not mob rule that sought the changes, but some significant people from all walks of life cried foul."

Come on. It is mob rule for the government to second guess a DPP decision due to a protest.

"Chris Hurley will face the court and the legal mob from both sides with argue the fine details."

Putting him and his family through about a year of anguish assuming he is found not guilty. Yet if Beattie didn't do what he did it would be over.

"It is 2007 and maybe, just maybe, Australia is ready to demand justice for all its citizens."

Except Chris Hurley.

ahh but what if a jury of his peers finds he is guilty?

What if he is found as guilty as sin?

What if having a full jury to hear the evidence finds that there was something fishy about the initial police investigation - you know getting a blokes mates to investigate him - will your sanctimonious prattle alter?

Chris Hurley's family may well be suffering but Mulrunji's family is mourning. Regardless of if he is found innocent or guilty, Chris Hurley will not be robbed of his life.

If he is found innocent, or guilty, at least Chris Hurley is alive.

If your son, father or brother, died in the same circumstances as Mulrunji, would you be preaching so ferverntly in favour of the police.

It is time that the police force was held accountable for their actions.

It is 2007 and Chris Hurley will be judged by a court of law and a jury of citizens. Chris Hurley will get all the available justice.

Mulrunji died because of a public drunkeness offence. His liver was split almost in 2, ribs broken, his portal vein severed, he was denied medical help.

Is this your version of justice?

Aka,

“.. what if a jury of his peers finds he is guilty?”

He’d be a cop in jail for a lot longer. However the jury won’t be comprised of ivory tower judiciary. A jury can display a lot of common sense when working together in those circumstances.

”What if he is found as guilty as sin? “
See above. I’ve read the coroners report so I suspect that, subject to dishonesty/bias, I don’t think that will be the outcome.

”What if …jury … finds that there was something fishy about the initial police investigation …?”

I’m sure the jury will hear about the mishandled initial investigation and take a view on it but they are only there to decide Hurley’s guilt or innocence so we will never know what they consider to be the motivation of the investigators.

”Chris Hurley's family may well be suffering but Mulrunji's family is mourning....”

That is no excuse to override the normal judicial process. Should we charge doctors every time a patient dies? It is pretty hypocritical for people who yell when someone is deprived of the proper judicial process to turn into advocates for overriding the process when they don’t like the person getting shafted. It also demonstrates the mentality that creates the abuses of justice in the first place. People haven’t changed mentality since the Myall Creek massacre in 1838. Only the victims and punishments change.

”If your son, father or brother, died ...”

No but I hope I would have the integrity to say that he shouldn’t have been charged.

”It is time that the police force was held accountable ….”
Chris Hurley isn’t a symbolic sacrificial lamb for the police force. He is a human being.

”Chris Hurley will get all the available justice.”
Are you serious? Do you think history will get erased?

“Mulrunji died because of a public drunkeness offence. Is this your version of justice?”

No his tragedy is not. But two wrongs don’t make a right. If instead everyone advocated justice for everyone there would be no more Myall Creeks or Chris Hurley trials etc.

I love reading these forums, particularly when it comes to cop bashing. And a few of the reliable bashers always turn up, namely AKA, and Ludwig.

The police union is so vocal, or were vocal until silenced by the courts, because they know that if there had been video cameras in every watchhouse as has been requested and in fact recommended by the Fitzgerald Inquiry in 1990, there would be no case to answer.

Does anyone think that it is funny that the only person charged over this matter for contempt of court has been the Police Union Executive. No one else.

Remember the police are there to protect life and property. And in this state they do a damn fine job with the resources they are given. All they seem to ask and have been doing so for some time is to have the tools available to protect them and there families from this sort of accusation.

Hurley wil be proven innocent but what then? Imagine what his family is going through. And will that stop the protests? Imagine what is going to happen when he is found innocent. Do you think there will be the usual minority jumping up and down. I'm sure Aka and Ludwig will be saying how it was rigged or whatever.

Remember at the crux of all of this rubbish is a person, how would you like to be going through what he is going through. Imagine that. Not me.

I reckon police could avoid these situations by just not doing anything anymore. Don't arrest people, let them do what they want. Walk away from the aboriginal communities. They don't want police there anyway. See how long before they self destruct. See how long before the state self destructs. See how long before people like AKA start crying for help because there is noone there to protect him anymore.

Nice to see someone so one eyed about the police dtrain. Anyone would think you are a union member.

The simple fact is that Chris Hurley and other police choose to be police officers and they get paid to do a job. They are public servants and if they don't like the job or cannot do it in a lawful and proper manner then they should leave.

I think that the fact that Mulrunji ended up dead from horrific injuries while in the custody of the law enforcement officer Chis Hurley, needs to be bought before a court of law. If Chris Hurley did nothing wrong then why and how did Mulrunji die and how did he get such terrifying injuries?

The case just keeps going around and around - Hurley did nothing wrong but Mulrunji died in his custody.

What happened will be determined by the court.

Cameras may or may not have meant a different outcome or proof of innocence or guilt, but they were not there.

The police force is made up from a cross section of society and there are some fine and honest police, but the inference by the union is that the union wants immunity from the law.

It is about time that the union is reminded that they are supposed to protect citizens and up hold the law, even if that means against one of their colleagues.

Citizens of Queensland should be able to expect that the police service is there to protect all.

Mulrunji was not offered such protection, even his pleas for help went unanswered.

Unfortunately I also expect that Hurley will get freed because I have reservations about the process, but then again I do have some hope as they jailed the police commissioner Terry Lewis after finding that some in the police force were a little dodgy.

It is an adolescent stance to maintain that the police alone are there to uphold the law.

Everybody in the community has that responsibility not just the police.

Because corruption is systemic and widespread within it, the Palm Island community desperately needs outside help and police have a key role to play. It will be a coordinated team effort and hopefully indigenous police will feature strongly in it.

Focussing on one personality does not help and it is unethical to quote his police number. Whatever the Court outcome, any person with a concern about the greater good of the Palm Island community should accept it and move on. Welcoming police and helping them to integrate into the community to become effective is part of that. The women and children deserve a long break from the troubles.

What prevents Palm Island becoming peaceful for the vulnerable? Who stands to gain from more trouble and what do they get out of fomenting more disruption?

"I think that the fact that Mulrunji ended up dead from horrific injuries while in the custody of the law enforcement officer Chis Hurley, needs to be bought before a court of law."

AKA You are entitled to your opinion. However fortunately those types of decisions are made by the DPP. If you started running the justice system like that it will be anarchy. People should only go before a court of law if evidence indicates that they might be guilty of a crime.

"If Chris Hurley did nothing wrong then why and how did Mulrunji die and how did he get such terrifying injuries?"

I'm sure if you set your mind to it you could generate many possibilities. The answer seems pretty obvious from the coroner's report so I'm not as open to brainstorming. Perhaps someone else can assist you.

"The case just keeps going around and around - Hurley did nothing wrong but Mulrunji died in his custody."

It is a bit more specific than that. How perfect Hurley is is not the issue. For example the acting coroner pointed out that he should have been better trained in first aid and provided better monitoring of the prisoner. I suspect the acting coroner was correct. However the issue is whether or not there is sufficient evidence that he committed the crime that he has been charged with.

"The police force is made up from a cross section of society and there are some fine and honest police, but the inference by the union is that the union wants immunity from the law."

You obviously didn't get past the courier mail headline.

"It is about time that the union is reminded that they are supposed to protect citizens and up hold the law, even if that means against one of their colleagues."

That is what they did. They protested when there was political interference in the normal process. Your comment makes no sense.

In response to mjpb of 12 March;

“Your posts in other threads are anti-cop…”

You’ve made this point before on those other threads that we have exchanged views. I’ll say again, I am NOT anti-police. Not at all. In fact it seems that I am the strongest advocate on this forum for a more effective police force. The blame for problems with the policing regime in many areas of our society needs to be shared amongst the police, politicians and general community. The blame by no means rests entirely with the police. So please, don’t brand me as anti-cop again.

OK, so the PU was outraged by political interference. I can understand that. But I repeat from my last post;

“The PU should surely have upheld the principle that Hurley needed to be tried. The fact that someone died in his presence and that he could not prove or very strongly indicate his innocence quickly should surely have been sufficient grounds for a trial. This basic principle takes precedence.”

Don’t you think this is true mjpb? Don’t you think this principle needs to apply to police just as fully as it does to the rest us? I would love to know how you may think that this principle should not apply in this case or could be compromised or overridden by any other factors.

Things went off-track at a level below this all-important principle. Clearly the DPP decision went awry. Clearly it needed to be corrected. And the best (or only) way of doing that was government intervention. The PU should see things in this hierarchical manner, with due recognition given to the most important things.

It just makes no sense to make a stand about a particular principle being violated while completely ignoring the blatant violation of more important principle. In doing so, the PU is very strong being seen to be trying to protect one of its own from even being subjected to due legal process and thus of the whole police force being above the law! This is enormously damaging.

“I love reading these forums, particularly when it comes to cop bashing. And a few of the reliable bashers always turn up, namely AKA, and Ludwig.”

Deary deary me Dtrain. If you have really read even a small number of my copious posts on this forum regarding police and law, you would not be saying that. You would be appreciating my desire to see that the police effectively protect life and property and that they get the resources they need to do the job.

If there had been a camera in the watch-house, there wouldn’t be an issue here. Surely the police and government realise this, and should have acted on the Fitzgerald recommendation! Especially in a watch-house in a troubled place like Palm Island!! The mind boggles as to why such a simple safeguard wasn’t installed.

“Does anyone think that it is funny that the only person charged over this matter for contempt of court has been the Police Union Executive. No one else.”

Gary Wilkinson made the statements. So he copped the rap, pure and simple. Mind you, I think a more basic principle has been breached here – that of freedom of speech. He should have been entitled to say exactly what he said. There really is something fundamentally wrong with the whole system if contempt of court breaches prevent people from giving their honest and forthright opinion on the relevant issue. Magistrates’ decisions and indeed anything that happens in a courtroom or in any other institution should be completely open to public comment and scrutiny.

“Hurley will be proven innocent but what then”

Neutrality please! Wait for the court to make its finding. Don’t pre-empt the outcome!

“I'm sure Aka and Ludwig will be saying how it was rigged or whatever.”

The issue won’t end with the verdict, as one side or the other will be outraged. But the proceedings will be as thorough and as well-founded as any case could be, given the high profile and implications for police and indigenous community.

What will you do if Hurley is found guilty? Simply accept the verdict?

What I find so shocking about this whole dreadful episode is that it has taken over 2 years. It is quite unbelievable that with such a sensitive issue as an allegedly violent death in police custody the powers to be did not only do everything possible to get to the bottom of this, but where also very publicly and openly seen to be doing so.
Justice should not only be done, but also seen to be done.

For both parties concerned it is truly a nightmare beyond belief. And what is also shocking, but not surprising anymore, is why nobody, but nobody with ministerial responsibility and within the police hierarchy has had to resign over this abysmal handling of this affair.

The responsibility for the culture at the coalface, so to speak, of attitude and the management of crisis situations surely lays with those who get the higher pay for their increased responsibilities. It is their attitude and (mis)management that trickles down to affect the day to day operations.

Ludwig,

“The PU should surely have upheld the principle that Hurley needed to be tried. The fact that someone died in his presence and that he could not prove or very strongly indicate his innocence quickly should surely have been sufficient grounds for a trial. This basic principle takes precedence.”

Don’t you think this is true mjpb?

No. People die in the presence of doctors all the time without trials.

“Don’t you think this principle needs to apply to police just as fully as it does to the rest us?"

Yes and no. Yes equally fully. No it shouldn’t be applied. For most people the principal 'innocent until proven guilty applies'. You charge people if there is sufficient evidence that they are guilty not because they haven’t proved their innocence. I think your 'principle' should be overriden by fundamental tried and tested notions of justice.

”Things went off-track at a level below this all-important principle.”
It isn’t a principle in the legal system.

“Clearly the DPP decision went awry.”
I really don’t think that DPP went awry. Indeed, as someone suggested to me, it is a safe bet that they made the decision very carefully due to the circumstances. Further, I have lost sleep trying to get my head around how Beattie’s hired ex-judge could work around things and have still not figured it out.

There is no point discussing your subsequent comments because they flow from the faulty premise discussed above.

Are people missing the point because they think that trials result from opinions alone? If it helps I’ll emphasize that the starting point and finishing point is innocence until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In that context, if something happens that someone could be criminally responsible for, evidence is gathered and a determination must be made if there is sufficient evidence before charges are laid. It is not the case that if you suspect that someone did something wrong you leap on them, lock them up, send them in court and let the jury sort it out.

I have worked in remote Aboriginal communities on and off for over 12 years. The role of the police is a very difficult job that alot of people who have plenty to say about it are far removed from the reality of being a Policeman in such a community.
To begin with the majority of Police who work in such communities do so by choice and even enjoy the work, but having seen the role alcohol can have in Indigenous communities I think the problem lies directly at the feet of ATSI people. It appears to be a cultural trait within ATSI people that they can not accept responsibility for there actions relying on an idealistic past and a chip on there shoulders blaming the white man for all of there problems.
What happened on Palm Island was very unfortunate and the Courts will provide Justice either way but what needs to be remerbed here is the fact that it is a two way street, something the bleeding heart left wingers forget.

outbackjack, puleeze refrain from inventing a fiction you are not.
just say what you mean, no need to do dress ups.

Rainer,
Once again you sit back and attempt to have the last say.

Jimmy Chi's song "Acceptable Coon” has been turned off.

I have no idea which paradise of police propriety in a remote community 'outback jack' has lived. In my long experience in remote areas of central Australia and WA I have witnessed the constant police heavy-handedness with Aboriginal people. Aboriginal people are singled out by police for harrassment, intimidation - always treated as if they are under suspicion. I suspect Murulunji in the isolation of Palm Island had every reason to fear for his life in the hands of police. The man died.

“No. People die in the presence of doctors all time without trials”

My goodness! Gravely ill people dying in the presence of their doctor is comparable to an inebriated but healthy man receiving mortal injuries in the presence of a police officer, is it?

“Yes and no. Yes equally fully. No it shouldn’t be applied”

Now there’s a confusing response if ever I’ve seen one!

You are virtually saying the same thing that I am being very critical of the QPU over – yes the principle should apply, but no not to them because they or their police officer members are above the law !! !! !!

“For most people the principle of innocent until proven guilty applies”

But not for police eh? What do you mean most people? Everyone!

“You charge people if there is sufficient evidence that they are guilty not because they haven’t proven their innocence”

For goodness sake no! People should get charged if there is significant suspicion of guilt and if the police think that the evidence as presented in court will most likely result in a guilty verdict, or that there is strong circumstantial evidence of guilt and that the principled thing to do is to charge them rather than release them even if the hard evidence is not there at the time.

“It isn’t a principle in the legal system”

Another strange response. You haven’t disagreed with this principle (the fact that a healthy person in an officer’s presence and that the office couldn’t prove or very strongly indicate his innocence quickly should surely have been sufficient grounds for trial), or that it IS the all-important baseline consideration here. The principle involved is indeed fundamental to our legal system. Why would you think it isn’t?

You seem to be really struggling to justify the actions of the QPU, and to mount a case that Hurley shouldn’t even be subjected to due legal process despite the grave circumstances.

Dammit, the first line of my last post disappeared.

I am responding to mjpb.

- its not easy being. Look sport I think I need to temper your opinion with the other kind of police officer. I've experienced both good and bad. Most are really good folk. DK's have a point but so do DM.

John Law
Music: Barton, Lyrics: Casey, McColgan

Now let me tell you about a man named John Law
He's a neighborhood cop the toughest man I ever saw
A man who knows his duty, a man with a gun
To the people in the neighborhood John Law is number one

Freeze, we said Stop
His name was John Law
For John Law,
Neighborhood cop
A man we know and love

When John Laws not kickin' Ass on robbers and rapist
He's helpin little kids deliver newspapers
When John Laws not chasin crackheads from their perch
He's helpin old ladies on their way to church

chorus:

He walks the Beat
Riding scumbags from the streets
He turns his eye to petty crime
Cause John Law will never drop a dime

Suburban Anarchists who've never broke the law
Sing about police oppression, but they've never met John Law
He doesn't f@#k with young kids drinking in the Park
But he makes the city safe for women after dark
END

I think the Police Union needs to aspire more to this kind of Police Force. I recall being down at West End one Sunday morn' when a motorcycle cop sat chatting to the local homeless. They were laughing and joking about. Let's not be like the racists and make generalisations about these people.

I think that TurnRightThenLeft is correct to say that the PU were concerned about government interference. Indeed, I think there needs to be an enquiry into the networking that, I think, led to Hurley not being charged in the first place.

I don't envy the DPP's prosecutor and the defence will go in hard on the victim's reputation. Not looking forward to a strained time between PU, DPP and certain Queenslanders.

Ludwig,

”My goodness! ...is comparable ... is it?”

I chose it as an extreme example to show the implausibility of your principle.

"You are virtually saying the same thing that I am ...”

What I am saying is that all principles should be applied equally. However I am also saying that there is no such principle so it shouldn’t be applied.

”“For most people the principle of innocent until proven guilty applies”

But not for police eh?”

Certainly not for Hurley it would seem. He has incurred the wrath of the lynch mob.

”“You charge people if there is sufficient evidence that they are guilty not because they haven’t proven their innocence”

For goodness sake no!... “

Ironically you overstated the threshold in the first half but just seem muddled in the second.

” Why would you think it isn’t?”
People are normally entitled to a presumption of innocence. Thus there are more steps involved as people's lives aren't interfered with without good reason. The situation you described attracts attention. In this case there were at least two separate investigations. The latter investigation was an extremely broad coronial enquiry. From there it would go to trial if the DPP determined there was sufficient evidence. Do you see how things are a little more sophisticated than you assume?

”You seem to be really struggling ....”

Perhaps I am struggling to see why it isn’t obvious to you that no justification is necessary. I am trying to work out why you don’t get it. The QPU simply criticized a breach of due legal process.

The Criminal Misconduct Commission said the evidence was not capable of proving before any disciplinary tribunal that Hurley was responsible for the death. The DPP determined the evidence was not capable of supporting a manslaughter charge. It seems patently obvious. Only a hired gun and a lynch mob argue otherwise. What is the go?

outhouse jack, you're not worth the effort..

Young Dan, the reason that the Union rage over the prosecution has gone quiet is because it is now before the Court and stirrers like yourself and Hagan should also respect this. It is disgraceful that Hagan has raised this issue at this late stage despite it being sub judice. The same goes for the other two officers you have mentioned that were charged in conformance with normal convention. No police officer would dispute the law taking its course as opposed to the Hurley matter.

Hypothetically, can you imagine Hagan going off his brain if an aboriginal was adversely mentioned in a Coroners Report, the DPP failed to prosecute and then the government indicted that person anyway? You can bet there’d be more than marches on parliament

Mjpb, we are obviously going to get nowhere in this discussion. I’ve said all that I need to say. I’m not going to start repeating myself. So We’ll just have to leave it for others to judge.

I’ll just reiterate the most important things; the police need to be as accountable and to be seen to be as accountable as anyone else. When there are grave circumstances, as there are in this case, then charges and court proceedings must surely be seen as mandatory. The police should be upholding this fundamental principle. They can’t let this principle be violated and then express outrage at some lesser principle. That does not compute – unless they really are motivated primarily by the desire to keep Hurley and hence all police above the law.

"Mjpb, we are obviously going to get nowhere in this discussion."

Well at least we have reached a point of agreement.

"the police need to be as accountable and to be seen to be as accountable as anyone else."

I can see how that might be relevant. Was my mistake that I assumed your concept of being seen as accountable was concerned with civilized justice systems that support human society and uphold principles such as innocent until proven guilty? Are you being totally literal? Do you consider justice a popularity contest? If someone is made to look bad then they and their family should face a criminal trial for a year and be suspended from work during that time until they can prove their innocence? The DPPs findings regarding sufficiency of evidence is just an annoying detail to address?

"When there are grave circumstances, as there are in this case, then charges and court proceedings must surely be seen as mandatory."

I'm grateful that you are not in a position to rejig the legal system or we would be stuck with the 'lock up doctors' principal where anyone in the vicinity of a deceased person would get locked up until a jury decided whether they were guilty or innocent. I would consider that barbarism. You would consider it applying a higher principle.

"The police should be upholding this fundamental principle. They can’t let this principle be violated and then express outrage at some lesser principle."

It would be deliberately obtuse to pretend to assume that you are referring to innocent until proven guilty as "some lesser principle" beneath your 'lock up doctor' principle. I assume you are trivialising political interference due to a lack of understanding of the big picture.

"That does not compute – unless they really are motivated primarily by the desire to keep Hurley and hence all police above the law."

Then what needs to be said to make you compute the fact that the 'lock up a doctor' principle is neither a part of our justice system nor a workable idea.

Ludwig,

Sorry if I was too short with you yesterday. A human being is involved so I felt pretty strongly about your mix up. Many seem to see him as a symbol of something and want the poor guy to hurt whether he is innocent or guilty. To them it doesn't matter. Cops have to be taught a lesson. I have read your posts after reading all that and the posts do attempt to rationalise pretty shabby treatment of this man. Hence my reaction.

“ ‘the police need to be as accountable and to be seen to be as accountable as anyone else.’

I can see how that might be relevant.”

MIGHT be relevant?? In some circumstances… perhaps…maybe??

I’ve found your position on this issue to be highly confusing. But suddenly it seems a whole lot clearer – apparently you really don’t consider this most important premise to be very important at all!

I just don’t get how you can keep on referring to the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ principle. That’s a solid part of my argument. It doesn’t seem to fit with yours at all.

How on earth can you advocate this principle and then not advocate a transparent determination of guilt or innocence? How can you say that Hurley should not be tried in the circumstances??

What you really seem to be advocating here is ‘innocent, end of story’.

You feel very strongly about the treatment of Hurley. But you don’t at any stage seem to feel anything about the treatment of Mulrunji.

With respect (and I have a lot of respect for you and your concerns over this issue and others that we have debated on this forum), everything that you have said appears to be a rationalization to this end – protect Hurley at all costs, as you are an ex-police officer and continue to feel impassioned solidarity with the police.

It is certainly not coming across to me as a balanced perspective

“ ‘the police need to be as accountable ..."

”MIGHT be relevant?? …??”

The issue is political interference in the judicial process for one individual. Police accountability seems irrelevant unless you think a different system should apply to police. However I had a theory as to why you might say it.

”...apparently you really don’t consider this most important premise to be very important at all!”

It is not a premise. It is a unique theory that I am suggesting is not practical or fair.

”How on earth can you advocate this principle (innocent until proven guilty) and then not advocate a transparent determination of guilt or innocence?”

The principle prevents lynch mobs and innocent people being punished (as much as possible). Transparency ensures reliability and inspires confidence. Two different issues. If you think it isn’t transparent why make an exception for Hurley then go back to business as usual?

“ How can you say that Hurley should not be tried in the circumstances?? “

Because it is a bastard of a thing to do to a human being to put them through a year of suspension and criminal trial when anyone else in their position would have it all behind them.

”What you really seem to be advocating here is ‘innocent, end of story’.”

What I am advocating is equal treatment for all.

”You feel very strongly about the treatment of Hurley. But you don’t at any stage seem to feel anything about the treatment of Mulrunji.”

If you don’t feel you can support your position without resorting to that you need to ask yourself why? You realize for that to make sense requires a guilty until proven innocent assumption? In case it is not just a nasty diversion I need to point out that noone is arguing that Mulrunji should die but you are arguing that Hurley gets shafted. Hence the topic of my comments.

”With respect ...”

I need to clarify that my employment history is part of your assumption. Other people may not realize. It is not clear in that comment.

I can’t make any sense out of that at all mjpb. So I’ll just have to stick to what I said two posts back and leave it for others to judge.

No problem Ludwig and I’ll comment on it again in case it helps.

”; the police need to be as accountable and to be seen to be as accountable as anyone else.”

A man (police officer) is in going to trial in circumstances where people would not normally go to trial. The justice system was derailed by political interference. It makes no sense to talk about police accountability in a situation where a police officer is more accountable than the rest of the community. If it were the other way around and the DPP decided to send a police officer to trial but Beattie interfered and there was no trial than the issue of police being accountable and being seen to be accountable would be relevant.

The justice system shouldn't be based on lych mob rule and reputation from Courier Mail reporting with people needing to go to trial to prove his innocence if the Courier Mail doesn't favour them.

“When there are grave circumstances, as there are in this case, then charges and court proceedings must surely be seen as mandatory.”

There are grave circumstances every day of the week. For example a little child wandered onto the gateway highway during the night and was killed by a driver. Obviously it was investigated as drivers often do the wrong thing and if the kid would have been alive if they hadn't done the wrong thing then they should go to trial. There was no indication that the driver was at fault and no charges were laid. If there is any suspicion and if the grave circumstances are irregular then the situation gets examined and if there is sufficient evidence to send someone to trial then they go to trial.

“The police should be upholding this fundamental principle. They can’t let this principle be violated and then express outrage at some lesser principle.”

The higher principle is innocent until proven guilty. Sufficient evidence of guilty = trial. Insufficient evidence of guilt = no trial.

“That does not compute…”

Of course not because (fortunately) your principle doesn’t exist.

Oh no, you’ve sucked me back in to the discussion. Hwaww!!

“A man (police officer) is in going to trial in circumstances where people would not normally go to trial”

Why do you say this? It is crystal clear to me that the circumstances would warrant a trial, no matter who was involved.

I haven’t heard this argument from anyone else mjpb; that in being committed to trial Hurley is being treated in an unfair manner, that the general public would not be subjected to under similar circumstances.

“The justice system was derailed by political interference.”

No! You surely cannot hold the view that any political action would automatically be inappropriate. Obviously the government was within its powers to have the DPP’s decision reviewed. This sort of check and balance is essential. The DPP (nor any other authority) should have total autonomy in decision-making. There surely must be provision for scrutiny and review.

The government represented the feelings of outrage expressed not only in the indigenous community, but the whole community across Queensland, and Australia. In these circumstances, and with a lack of strong and convincing justification from the DPP for its decision, the issue was rightly reviewed.

Your driver-hits-child-on-freeway example is irrelevant, as there was no evidence, indication or suspicion that the driver was at fault. Obviously the Hurley-Mulrunji situation is completely different.

“If there is any suspicion and if the grave circumstances are irregular then the situation gets examined…”

Absolutely.

“…and if there is sufficient evidence to send someone to trial then they go to trial.”

Well, what do you call sufficient evidence? If there is insufficient evidence to alleviate strong suspicion, then the matter should go to trial, especially if it is unlikely that more evidence will emerge. If there is a feeling that more evidence could come to light, then it is reasonable for the police or relevant authority to hold off, if there are not likely to be adverse consequences in not dealing with the relevant person quickly. It can get very difficult. There are lots of things to consider in many cases.

continued

If there is insufficient hard evidence, an acquittal may well result, although that would depend on the development of a total perspective of the whole affair and how it is viewed by a jury or judge. This holistic and intricate overview is simply not gained in initial inquiries, in all but very simple cases. So a decision not to proceed with legal action needs to be taken only if one is pretty sure of innocence, overriding mitigating factors or lack of indictable evidence.

We should definitely not pre-empt a court judgement by not committing someone to trial who is under significant suspicion of grave wrong-doing. You would essentially be judging them to be innocent if you did that. And you can’t judge them to be innocent if there is a strong suspicion of guilt, until the issue has been properly examined.

Mjpb, by your reasoning guilt must be decided before a legal process is even considered. Also by this reasoning it can be acceptable for someone to remain under deep suspicion but not face a formal and transparent analysis of the situation at all! That doesn’t sound like justice to me!

In fact this has been something that has worried me for a long time – police effectively acting as judge and jury, and the courts basically rubber-stamping their decisions. I think this happens a lot of the time, especially with minor issues. But that’s another story.

It becomes very difficult to know how much evidence is enough. You can’t just harangue people over some suspicion without a fairly strong indication of guilt. I sympathise with the police and other regulatory authorities over the difficulty in deciding just what course of action to take in many cases.

But neither I nor thousands of disgusted people across the country can see how there could be a lack of rather compelling hard or circumstantial evidence in the Hurley case.

“It is crystal clear to me that the circumstances would warrant a trial, no matter who was involved.”

That is because you are wrong.

”I haven’t heard this argument …”

You didn’t notice the police union jumping up and down or read letters to the editor at the relevant time? Perhaps you were out at the backblocks of lower Cape York Peninsula at the time.

“The justice system was derailed by political interference.”

” You surely cannot hold the view that any political action would automatically be inappropriate.”

For a justice system to work it can’t be a political puppet. We aren’t talking about an institution reviewing a DPP decision we are talking about a once off political interference.

”… convincing justification from the DPP for its decision…”

Just because there has been a ‘trial by media’ doesn’t justify a review. Justice isn’t a popularity contest.

”Your driver-hits-child-on-freeway example is irrelevant, as there was no evidence, indication or suspicion that the driver was at fault.”

The hell there wasn’t. Someone is killed in any but the most clearly faultless circumstances and there has to be suspicion/investigation. Like Hurley there wasn’t sufficient evidence to proceed.

”If there is insufficient evidence to alleviate strong suspicion…”

That depends on what you call strong suspicion. Yes if you meant evidence admissible in court to make out a prima facie case and evidence that a reasonable, properly instructed, jury could convict on. No if you mean the opinion of the guy at the pub who isn’t familiar with the evidence and gets his facts from the media sensationalism.

“ So a decision not to proceed with legal action needs to be taken only if one is pretty sure of innocence, overriding mitigating factors or lack of indictable evidence.”

I explained above when to proceed when discussing strong suspicion. Innocence until proven guilty is presumed not vice versa.

”We should definitely not pre-empt a court judgement by not committing someone to trial who is under significant suspicion of grave wrong-doing.”

Justice isn’t a popularity contest. It is about hard facts not your beliefs about something you know nothing about.

”Mjpb, by your reasoning guilt must be decided before a legal process is even considered.”

Absolutely! No lynch mobs! People are innocent until proven guilty. However suspicion/investigation can be appropriate and if there is sufficient evidence of guilt they go to trial. If found guilty at trial then they are considered guilty and punished.

“… not face a formal and transparent analysis of the situation at all! That doesn’t sound like justice to me!”

I agree and it is totally irrelevant to the current situation. There was a formal analysis. Both the DPP and the CJC decided that there was insufficient evidence to send Hurley to trial or to disciplinary tribunal respectively for causing the death of Mulrunji. That is completely formal and transparent. The only way it could be more transparent is if every time the media whipped up a sensation every citizen was trained up to the level of an experienced Criminal Lawyer and were provided with all the facts of the case and an explanation of the DPP’s decision. Of course that would be pretty expensive and totally stupid.

” You can’t just harangue people over some suspicion without a fairly strong indication of guilt.”

Yes! That is why the DPP makes those decisions.

”But neither I nor thousands of disgusted people across the country can see how there could be a lack of rather compelling hard or circumstantial evidence in the Hurley case.”

For good reason:.
(a) You have no idea of the case.
(b) You have less than no idea as it is from media stories aimed at sensationalism.
(c) You are not experienced criminal lawyers and thus would struggle to make the requisite determinations.
(d) Your lack of knowledge and expertise doesn’t seem to bother you. You are prepared to screw around with someone’s life regardless.

“We aren’t talking about an institution reviewing a DPP decision we are talking about a once off political interference.”

Exactly! It was a one-off extraordinary circumstance. If it happened on anything like a regular basis, you might have some credence in your arguments about political interference.

Quite frankly, the argument that this political action was in any way inappropriate just completely doesn’t hold up. Afterall, the government requested that the decision be reviewed in a fully proper and rigorous manner. They didn’t just overturn the decision. And if the same decision had been reached, that would presumably have been the end of the issue.

Are you willing to accept that this second appraisal was as rigorous and unbiased as the first? If not, what do see wrong with it – what do you see as the critical flaw in their reasoning? Do you point your finger straight at the Qld government and directly accuse them of forcing this decision against the evidence?

Given that you are apparently much closer to the issue than I am, can you provide the nitty gritty on why the initial decision was made not to charge Hurley, and just what it was that the second examination found that they thought didn’t justify that decision.

Now isn’t this next bit interesting……

I wrote; ”Mjpb, by your reasoning guilt must be decided before a legal process is even considered.”

You replied; “Absolutely!”

Holy snort! You really do believe that guilt gets determined outside of the courtroom or formal legal process! How can you?? What is the purpose of the courts then? Simply to determine sentencing?

If this applies as a general rule, it basically means that a magistrate, judge or jury accept a person as guilty, or most likely guilty, due to the very fact that they have been charged and are in court! They are not starting from a neutral position, .....

continued

...let alone one of a presumption of innocence! Thus the person in question really is in a position of having to prove their innocence in court, rather than the fundamental legal premise of guilt having to be proved or shown beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution.

This issue of the police effectively being judge and jury is truly incredible. It explains a great deal in the Hurley case.

And finally, you wrote;

“(a) You have no idea of the case.
(b) You have less than no idea as it is from media stories aimed at sensationalism.
(c) You are not experienced criminal lawyers and thus would struggle to make the requisite determinations.
(d) Your lack of knowledge and expertise doesn’t seem to bother you. You are prepared to screw around with someone’s life regardless.”

a. Excuse me, I have a pretty good idea of the case. How could anyone who is interested in it not have, given the level of publicity?

b. Not all media is sensationalist. There is a lot of good balanced reporting and debate, and there has been no shortage of it over this issue.

c. Are you an experienced criminal lawyer? We don’t have to be trained lawyers to have a good feeling of what is right and wrong in this case and what the intent of the law is, without knowing the minute detail of it.

d. This is an open forum for ordinary members of the community. You don’t have to be an expert to partake in it. Are you an expert in this subject? For goodness sake, stop accusing me of screwing around with someone’s life and start respecting my motives of wanting to see this issue properly sorted out, with Hurley, the police, courts and government held accountable for their actions, and the principle of law upheld in such a manner as to be fair for the white and indigenous communities and for all individuals.

my sentiments exactly Ludwig, well put,
the acceptance of the proposition of "Aboriginal criminality" as natural, predictable, and thus deserving of anything police and the criminal justice system deal out as an acceptable level of justice is key to this whole issue.

Hundred of deaths in custody whereby no cause for suspicion was ever expressed bu the public or police is symptomatic of not just a criminal justice system gone wrong, but also a of a public blindness and compliance to this anomaly.

It took this long for people to realise that David Hicks deserves a fair trail.

I too hope Hurley gets the same. Its his legal right.

Rainier & Ludwig,

“It was a one-off extraordinary circumstance.”

Many extraordinary cases go before court because there is sufficient evidence. Many extraordinary cases don’t because there isn’t sufficient evidence. The difference here is media hype and political interference but justice is not a popularity contest. Singling out individuals or groups for unfair treatment is a problem.

”Quite frankly …”

Shouldn’t you preface that with “Yes Minister”?

”Are you willing to accept that this second appraisal was as rigorous and unbiased as the first?”

If you meant the CJC appraisal that was essentially an appraisal of the same thing for the same essential purpose (albeit for disciplinary tribunal rather than criminal court) I’d say yes. It was the second and it found there was insufficient evidence that Hurley caused the death to proceed. However I presume you mean Beattie hiring Street. At the least it doesn’t have the appearance. It did not involve a neutral departmental assessment. A carefully chosen individual was commissioned to do the job.

“...Qld government and directly accuse them of forcing this decision against the evidence?”

I wouldn't use those exact words but who do you think commissioned Street?

”Given …”

I am not from the DPP and don’t have access to those details.

”Now isn’t this next bit interesting……”
No. The rest of the paragraph is there for all to read.

” You really do believe that guilt gets determined outside of the courtroom or formal legal process! “

Just read the whole paragraph and you’ll see what I think. If it isn’t self explanatory please ask more specific questions.

”… it basically means that a magistrate, judge or jury accept a person as guilty, or most likely guilty…”

No the presumption of innocent until proven guilty continues. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt all elements of the offence. Checking if the case has legs first just stops innocent people from being subjected to the burden of criminal trial when possible.

continuation

”...I have a pretty good idea of the case. How could anyone who is interested in it not have, given the level of publicity?”

Media publicity isn’t a good way of familiarizing with facts of a legal case no matter how much you trust it.

”…there has been no shortage of it over this issue.”

I have read descriptions of Hurley as killer cop from people exposed to this balance when experts from both DPP and CJC held that there was insufficient evidence to send him to trial on the relevant issue. Anyway, I thought you said I was presenting the other side to you for the first time?

” don’t have to be trained lawyers to have a good feeling of what is right and wrong in this case ...”

Not on a media hype version. One of the reasons I referred to “criminal lawyer” is that your concept of the legal process is deficient. The other reason is that you were second guessing the independent decisions of experienced criminal lawyers so confidently.

” For goodness sake, stop accusing me … respecting my motives of wanting to see this issue properly sorted out…”

I can respect your motives but I can also see how much damage they can do when misdirected. Isn’t there a saying along the lines that most evil is done with good intentions.

“the acceptance of the proposition of "Aboriginal criminality" as natural, predictable, and thus deserving of anything …”

Unfortunately I expect that that will recur incessantly or be transformed into victimization of some other group. They are the only group I can think of targeted that way so I guess appalling injustices will be rationalized by saying the group have “extraordinary circumstances”.

“Hundred of deaths in custody …”
Hurley is an individual. The facts of the case are the facts of the case. He is not a symbol or something to ease frustrations on. Although investigation got off to a shaky start it has to be one of the best investigated cases around.

Mjpb, so you think that the CJC appraisal, which found very strong reasons to try Hurley (by disciplinary tribunal), was procedurally ok. Interesting! Clearly this must mean that you don’t think there was any significant flaw in their reasoning.

Given that you vehemently disagree with their decision, how can this be? Or is it that you agree Hurley should have gone before a tribunal, but not a court of law? If so, then you must think he is guilty of something quite significant….and if so, how could he not go before an open court, given the grave circumstances??

You clearly think that the Street review was not fully proper. But in what way? What were the critical flaws?

It is all very well to imply that he was a puppet of the Beatty government, which obviously wanted the opposite decision to that of the DPP to prevail. But if you cannot point directly to any particular flaws in the argument then that criticism is hollow.

If there were obvious flaws in his reasoning, then they would have been concentrated on by yourself and the QPU….surely! But instead the whole business is centred around the very act of government intervening and triggering a review!

If you don’t know the details behind these decisions, then just what is it that you know about this case that you think I don’t?

“your concept of the legal process is deficient”.

Well that’s a fine judgement coming from one who thinks that it is fair and reasonable to judge people as guilty outside of the process that is specifically set up to scrutinize and make that judgement, and to allow people who are very likely guilty not to even be charged or subjected to that process!

It is the legal process that is deficient, not my concept of it.

Read the Coroners report here.http://www.justice.qld.gov.au/courts/coroner/findings/mulrunji270906.pdf

If you can cite the DPP report with full details of how she came to her ridiculous finding it would be greatly appreciated.

“Mjpb, so you think that the CJC appraisal, which found very strong reasons to try Hurley (by disciplinary tribunal), was procedurally ok. ...”

The Criminal Misconduct Commission considered that the evidence was not capable of proving before a disciplinary tribunal that Hurley was responsible for Mulrunji’s death. Two independent Departments deciding the same issue, albeit for different purposes, reached the same conclusion. Plus at least two suitably qualified persons at DPP considered it with the same result.

”You clearly think that the Street review was not fully proper…”

What was wrong was the political interference by Beattie in hiring a legal person to second guess DPP and presumably to reach a different conclusion. There can’t be justice unless people in the justice system are treated equally. I doubt there was anything improper about Street’s actions. I expect that he is a man of integrity. Although given his circumstances I don’t think he should have agreed to the role to ensure there was no suggestion of bias.

”It is the legal process that is deficient, not my concept of it.”

Obviously I debate your belief about your concept of it. The legal process would be less deficient if everyone was treated equally.

“Read the Coroners report …”

I read it a long time ago. Can I check some guesses? Would it be fair to say that the concept of scope of coronial inquiries and the scope of admissible evidence is something unfamiliar? Would it be fair to say that you are from a privileged background and have never had a scuffle?

”If you can cite the DPP report with full details of how she came to her ridiculous finding....”

A memo from an experienced prosecutor to Beattie was published whereby the prosecutor was asked to have a look at the original decision and replied that he couldn’t see any reason to change it. The CMC made an identical decision. In other words it was looked at by at least two different people in DPP and other people in the CMC but noone independent could find sufficient evidence to go to trial.

Actually my first "scuffle" at the age of 17 was with two policemen.
I'm Aboriginal, need i say more?

And the two so called independet appraisals you cite can hardly be called independent. A memo from for a prosecutor (unsolicited) and when has the CMC ever been 'independent'. LOL

Many of my legal mates have all declared that many cases have gone to trial with less evidence.

And the DPP Clare ruling on the Volkers, Fingleton and Hanson cases were all overturned because of independent assessment from across the border in NSW.

Or is this not admissable in your kangaroo court?

“I doubt there was anything improper about Street’s actions.”

Well again I say, if you feel this is so, then how can you have a problem with his finding? If you cannot indicate exactly where his critical flaw is in reaching the decision that you so strongly disagree with, then your criticism of Beatty’s ‘interference’ is hollow.

The essential difference in the findings of the DPP and Street seems to be the significance placed on proof of guilt rather than on guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I can see that absolute proof of Hurley’s guilt would probably be impossible, but that a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable would be very likely.

I am of the very strong opinion that absolute proof is not necessary, and that if there is a reasonable chance of reaching a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then that should definitely be sufficient for court proceedings to ensue.

It seems to run totally counter to the intent of the law for the DPP to reach a finding that Hurley should not be tried when there is clearly a strong case to answer and a very good chance of him being found guilty when all the non-proof evidence is presented. This is the great flaw in the DPP’s finding. Surely you’ve got to agree that it fundamentally runs counter to the intent of the law.

The legal process is deficient if it allows such decisions to be reached.

“The legal process would be less deficient if everyone was treated equally.”

Absolutely!

R,

“...my first "scuffle" at ... 17 was with two policemen.
I'm Aboriginal, need i say more?”

I guess not. You don’t sound like someone who would otherwise scuffle with police. I can understand someone ignorant of the facts arguing supporting Ludwig. I was wondering how you could. Your answer isn't the first guess but it helps shed light.

”And the two so called independet appraisals you cite can hardly be called independent... LOL”

Independent in the sense of being unrelated to police or Hurley. (?) Fine one person in the same department looked over the decision of someone else but 3 from 2 departments concurred.

”Many of my legal mates ...”
Talk is cheap (their’s not yours). Did they say which cases?

And the DPP Clare ruling on the Volkers, Fingleton and Hanson cases were all overturned because of independent assessment ...

Fingleton and Hanson appealed. Likewise with Volkers the CMC disagreeing with the DPP was the key and the government didn't interfere at all. Here the CMC agree that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute Hurley and there is interference.

L,

”Well again I say…”

Well again I say people should be treated equally under the justice system. Not being able to dissect the outcome of the product of the political interference is no excuse to dismiss the problem. It is a rather poor excuse.

”I am of the very strong opinion that absolute proof is not necessary, and that if there is a reasonable chance of reaching a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then that should definitely be sufficient for court proceedings ... “

The DPP would probably agree with you so where did you get the idea of this absolute thing?

”… when there is clearly a strong case to answer…”

There is clearly not a strong case to answer. Multiple independent expert assessments concur.

“.. and a very good chance of him being found guilty when all the non-proof evidence is presented.”

Do you mean non-admissable evidence?

”“The legal process would be less deficient if everyone was treated equally.”

Absolutely!”

Now I’m confused.

“Well again I say people should be treated equally under the justice system.”

Mjpb, I respect your genuine desire to see people treated equally. But I can’t for the life of me understand how you can keep on saying it with respect to the current issue. Clearly I have just the same desire, very strongly, and that is why I want to see Hurley have his day in court, and Mulrunji’s family, the Palm Island community, the Australian indigenous community and the entire Australian public get to see via the standard transparent process just whether he is guilty and if so, how guilty.

If the tables had been turned, with Hurley dead on the floor with just the same injuries in Mulrunji’s presence, there would have been no doubt about the process that would have ensued.

“Not being able to dissect the outcome of the product of the political interference is no excuse to dismiss the problem.”

What you have branded totally unacceptable political interference I call a necessary part of the process. That is, for the facility of political intervention to exist to trigger a review, and certainly not for institutions such as the DPP to be unchallengeable. I guess the parallel here is the appeals process in our court system.

It is indeed a very significant point that if you cannot find any fault within the process of this review, let alone the critical thing that caused the opposite conclusion to be reached, then you surely cannot condemn the process itself, or the implementation of the process!

continued

“…so where did you get the idea of this absolute thing?”

Um, from this;

I said; ”Mjpb, by your reasoning guilt must be decided before a legal process is even considered.”

You replied; “Absolutely!”

And from the fact that different conclusions have been reached from analysis of just the same evidence, which immediately suggests that one of those analyses considered weight of evidence as being the fundamentally important criterion, while the other one considered absolute proof of guilt as being the bottom line.

“There is clearly not a strong case to answer.”

You can only say this if you interpret ‘strong’ to mean 'irrefutable', or ‘absolute’ or something similar. Clearly there is a significant case to answer. How can there not be in the circumstances? I mean, can you tell me how Mulrunji could have received his injuries if not from Hurley, or if you concede that they were from Hurley, how he, a trained police officer and a big man, could not have subdued Mulrunji without his death resulting?

It is just beyond belief that anyone can say that there is not a case to answer here.

“Do you mean non-admissable evidence?”

What do you think is non-admissible and why?

“Now I’m confused.”

Now? All along, I would say.

“If the tables had been turned, ...”

Hopefully DPP wouldn’t stoop to doing that. A point is that this situation perpetuates problems of unfairness in the justice system and makes it more likely that you will be right in the future.

”… a necessary part of the process...”

That would be fine if it applied to everyone equally. There have been other cases where DPP decisions were reviewed but none involving this type of political interference.

"You replied; “Absolutely!””

As in absolutely correct (guilt is decided). I went on to explain that it is innocent until proven guilty but investigations may show evidence requiring trial and then innocent until proven guilty until guilty verdict (if any).

”… which immediately suggests …”

Or alternatively a clever lawyer was hired to come up with a counter argument. A talented Barrister could argue anything.

”I mean, can you tell me how Mulrunji could have received his injuries if not from Hurley,…”

One possibility: Various witnesses saw the pair fall downstairs onto a concrete floor. Medical evidence indicated that if they fell in a certain way with someone on top of the other it could cause the fatal injury. Witness Steadman indicates that it looks like Hurley fell on top and if either fell on top of either it would have been that way as witness Bonner said Mulrunji was in front. Hurley figures he fell on top.

The alternative explanation is adapted from witness Bramwell but you aren’t asking for it.

“ or if you concede that they were from Hurley, how he, a trained police officer and a big man, could not have subdued Mulrunji without his death resulting?”

If the non-incriminating explanation was the situation then it would be due to Mulrunji punching him in the jaw and causing him to lose control of Mulrunji and falling down the stairs because Mulrunji fell and he was trying to reestablish control. He had never been punched in the jaw by a prisoner before (big is an understatement) so he would have no reason to anticipate it. That is one possible explanation.

“As in absolutely correct (guilt is decided).”

I am astounded by this. It is the most extraordinary thing for you to feel that guilt has to be decided before formal legal process is even considered!

To then talk about the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ in court is just bizarre! OBVIOUSLY if one has been found guilty before court proceedings are even deemed necessary, the presumption of innocence is a complete FANTASY, to put it politely!

It seems that the police have enormous discretion to judge how guilty they feel someone needs to be before they charge them. They could indeed charge someone on suspicion of guilt with very little evidence if they wanted to, in just the same way as Hurley arrested and charged Mulrunji on the flimsiest of evidence of any wrongdoing.

This enormous discretion facilitates discrimination and bias. It paved the way for Hurley to initially be let off the hook, whereas Mulrunji would definitely have been charged if the tables had been turned under just the same circumstances.

It allowed the enormous reluctance by the police and authorities to charge one of their own to prevail. And it allowed the DPP to find that there was insufficient evidence to convict him.

Isn’t the contrast fascinating. That is: between the extraordinarily scant evidence for charging Mulrunji and the extraordinarily overwhelming evidence that the police and DPP felt they needed before they could charge Hurley!

The bias is extreme, and just so glaringly obvious.

Mjpb, how does this sit with your oft-repeated desire for equality and fairness for all?

Thank goodness publicity and outrage were sufficient on this occasion for common sense and decency to prevail. That is: for this outrageous end-of-the-spectrum interpretation of the grounds for a trial and the abject protectionism of a police officer to be overturned.

You didn’t address my question;

What do you think is non-admissible and why?

“I am astounded by this..."

Ok try substituting "yes" instead of "absolutely" in the original. Do you see what I am saying? Guilt is determined/presumed from the beginning but the determination may be changed depending on evidence gathered/proof.

"...This enormous discretion facilitates discrimination and bias..."

You may be on to something there regarding aboriginal welfare but it is improving and police need discretion. It might make you feel good that people don't go before higher courts without an independent department considering the evidence. It isn't the call of the police.

"...And it allowed the DPP to find that there was insufficient evidence to convict him."

They were allowed to decide either way. It was just a question of expert opinion of evidence available. Given the predictable ramifications I am sure it was a VERY careful decision.

"Isn’t the contrast fascinating."

Again there is something in there. Three things:
How careful the justice system treats someone does relate to how harsh the consequences are.
There was criticism that even if the tragedy hadn't occurred it would have been better not to charge Mulrunji.
The DPP wouldn't require overwhelming evidence - just sufficient.

"Mjpb, how does this sit with your oft-repeated desire for equality and fairness for all?"

I think aborigines can be unfairly treated. Like Hurley's situation there is a history of singling them out. I can also understand the reasoning for more safeguards built in as criminal matters become more serious and trials, sentences, and stigma increase.

"You didn’t address my question;

What do you think is non-admissible and why?"

Sorry I chopped it to fit into the word limit. Anything that isn't likely to be correct. To avoid innocent people getting found guilty.

‘Ok try substituting ‘yes’ instead of ‘absolutely’ in the original. Do you see what I am saying?’

Alright. I presume you are saying that guilt has to be indicated to a pretty significant extent, but does not necessarily have to be condemning. “just sufficient” as you put it.

This brings us into agreement. Yahoo!!

There certainly have to be strong grounds for a trial or charge. We can’t have a situation where people can get committed to trial on flimsy evidence. As you say, we can’t have a system that facilitates witch-hunts!

But how does this sit with the notion of ‘innocent until proven guilty?’

“Guilt is determined/presumed from the beginning…”

Where court action is deemed appropriate and guilt is not determined outright, it is presumed. This makes sense, but again, this flies in the face of the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ principle.

There has to be a presumption of probable guilt for a trial to proceed, but then all those involved in the court process, including the police, have to uphold a presumption of innocence!! Hmmmm!

continued

So if absolute proof of guilt is not necessary to generate charges and a trial, why don’t you support the charging of Hurley?

I said earlier in this thread; “The fact that someone died in his presence and that he could not prove or very strongly indicate his innocence quickly should surely have been sufficient grounds for a trial.”

In reference to the DPP you wrote;

“They were allowed to decide either way.”

Yes. Given that the evidence and the system didn’t commit them to one decision or the other.

“Given the predictable ramifications I am sure it was a VERY careful decision.”

Yeah, very careful inasmuch as they would have made sure that they could make their chosen decision without leaving themselves open to criticism for any infringement of process. But as to whether they thought in their heart of hearts that it was the right decision is another question.

“Like Hurley's situation there is a history of singling them out.”

Yes for indigenous folk. No for Hurley. The circumstances of Hurley’s case are extra ordinary. He certainly hasn’t been singled out from the crowd for doing the same sort of thing that many others have done without repercussion or for being caught up in a common situation. Far from it. I really don’t understand your thinking on the notion that he is being singled out

“This brings us into agreement. Yahoo!! “

I really regret using the word “absolutely”.

”Where court action is deemed appropriate ... guilt is ... presumed. ...this flies in the face of the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ principle.”

It would but guilt isn’t presumed just because there is sufficient evidence to go to trial. Think of evidence as bricks. Prior to a guilty verdict everyone has to presume that a wall won’t be built. The wall represents proof beyond reasonable doubt of guilt. If there are eg. only two bricks lieing around the DPP doesn’t hire a bricklayer and check if a wall can be built. If there is a big pile of bricks laying around the DPP gets someone to try to build a wall just in case. The case gets built brick by brick. If it doesn’t make a wall then the presumption of innocence holds.

”So if absolute proof of guilt is not necessary to generate charges and a trial, why don’t you support the charging of Hurley?”

For a few reasons I don’t believe that the threshold is reached for building the wall.

”I said earlier in this thread; “The fact that someone died in his presence and that he could not prove or very strongly indicate his innocence quickly should surely have been sufficient grounds for a trial.””

Why Hurley? There were a lot of people around. If Hurley is innocent I doubt if any of them would have been able to immediately explain the death and thus prove their innocence either. Noone should have to though. Unless the system presumes innocence rather than guilt we end up with lynch mobs.

”…But as to whether they thought in their heart of hearts that it was the right decision is another question.”

I disagree but it is a possibility. Obviously if you were in the same position that is how you would feel.

Ludwig,

”..The circumstances of Hurley’s case are extra ordinary. He certainly hasn’t been singled out from the crowd for doing the same sort of thing that many others have done without repercussion or for being caught up in a common situation…”

But he has been singled out. Normally premiers don't hire a legal person to overturn the DPP decision. Now there is going to be a private prosecution. I am talking about equal treatment for everyone.

You think I am ignoring the fact that people don't die that way every day of the week. I am not. However your extraordinary circumstance thing is extremely dangerous. Extraordinary circumstances do occur. They recieve more attention (although not normally to the extent of this case 2 post mortems, 2 coroners, 2 departments considering the evidence, a second consideration of the evidence by the first department). But extraordinary cases don't result in political interference except for Hurley's.

A good example (that I bet you won't appreciate) would be Steve Irwin's type of death. Lets hypothetically (as I think an entire camera crew were filming things and police just watched the film thus clearing the other divers) assume that two people went diving and one of them got stabbed in the heart by a stingray. The survivor might have had their back turned and not known what happened. Obviously it would attract attention when the body was recovered with a stab wound to the heart. A post mortem would examine the deceased carefully to work out what caused the death. If the stab wound could have been caused by a sting ray or a fishing spear then evidence would be gathered and a coroner might refer the matter to the DPP. The DPP would then consider whether or not there is sufficient evidence for the other diver to go to trial. The premier would not get involved.

“But he has been singled out.”

We aren’t going to get past our vehement disagreement on this point.

He is now being treated fairly and in accordance with proper process. But I would argue that he certainly was being singled out for a long time, with pretty solid attempts made to see that he escaped being held to account for his actions or for his part in a very unfortunate event.

Extraordinary steps were needed to make sure that he didn’t end up being singled out for special lenient treatment!

The parallel with Steve Irwin is interesting. Yes if the whole incident hadn’t been caught on film, there could well have been suspicion of other divers being involved. And rightly so! Afterall, fatal stingray attacks are extremely rare events.

Similarly, if there had been a camera in the Palm Island watch-house, the whole Hurley/Mulrunji saga would have been settled long ago, in all probability. It comes back to ‘sufficient evidence’, in conjunction with motive and opportunity.

The crux of our disagreement is whether sufficient evidence exists for Hurley to be charged. I guess this is the point that we need to concentrate on now.

“For a few reasons I don’t believe that the threshold is reached for building the wall.”

Just what is it that you think doesn’t make the grade of sufficient evidence?

Well, its pretty simple. They have used their trump card ie go on strike etc to blackmail the government into dropping any charges and it failed. As in Victoria, the Police Union operates on the same principle as the Dockers Union of the 70's and 80's; this decision may mean that their days are numbered.

"We aren’t going to get past ..."

True but will either of us drop it? ( :

"He is now being treated fairly ..."

No he is still facing a serious criminal trial that wouldn't normally happen. He is guaranteed at least a year of stress, suspension from work, and stigma.

"Extraordinary steps were needed ..."

If so those extraordinary steps had well and truly been taken within the usual system. There were two post mortems and a change of coroner before the DPP officially considered it. After the DPP considered it the same practical issue (was there sufficient evidence that Hurley caused the death?) was put before the CMC who made the same official decision. Unofficially an experienced criminal lawyer in the DPP looked over it for Beattie and affirmed the original decision. It was one of the most investigated matters to go before a DPP and one of the most reviewed decisions of the DPP within a proper framework. Thus that was no excuse for political interference.

"And rightly so! Afterall, fatal stingray attacks are extremely rare events."

Exactly! However if by the time evidence had been gathered and the matter went to the DPP there wasn't sufficient evidence to proceed they wouldn't have gone to trial. Here it went to trial due to political interference.

"The crux of our disagreement ...that we need to concentrate ..."

On the face of it but due to the technical nature it is like debating how brain surgery should be conducted. Are you certain that we are qualified?

"“For a few reasons I don’t believe that the threshold is reached for building the wall.”

Just what is it that you think doesn’t make the grade of sufficient evidence?"

Avoiding technical issues ... The fact that the DPP made a particular decision presumably mindful of the ramifications suggests that there isn't sufficient evidence. The fact that the CMC made the same decision suggests that there isn't sufficient evidence. The fact that another qualified person in the DPP considered the matter and affirmed the original decision indicates that there isn't sufficient evidence.

And the fact that Street found that there is sufficient evidence and that not you nor anyone else can point to any legal flaw or particular error of any sort in this decision indicates that there is sufficient evidence.

Mulrunji died in Hurley’s presence for goodness sake! He had injuries of the sort that are extremely unlikely to have been gained from anything other than heavy blows from Hurley. He was then left in a gravely injured state and allowed to die.

I mean, the basis for taking Hurley to trial has surely got to be very strong indeed. It beggars belief that he could not be brought to trial.

What more can I say?

I think we might have reached the end of this discussion.

"And the fact that Street found ...indicates that there is sufficient evidence."

It doesn't change the fact that all the independent experts said there wasn't. Admittedly it is better than nothing from your side but you are putting it a little strongly in the circumstances.

Just to reiterate: DPP, presumably taking it seriously as the Director reportedly obtained advice from the former Supreme Court judge James Thomas, found insufficient evidence. CMC found insufficient evidence. Someone else in DPP found insufficient evidence.

"Mulrunji died in Hurley’s presence for goodness sake!"

Most people die in someone's presence.

"He had injuries of the sort that are extremely unlikely to have been gained from anything other than heavy blows from Hurley."

It sounds like you are disagreeing with the consensus of expert opinion that a fall with Hurley on top could explain it but your comment is sufficiently ambiguous that you might mean due to some circumstance. If you mean medically I'll express my suspicion that that was pulled from part of your anatomy?

"I mean, the basis for taking Hurley to trial has surely got to be very strong indeed."

Obviously not according to all independent people who had both the expertise and the information.

"What more can I say?"

You always think of something.

"I think we might have reached the end of this discussion."

I guess we'll see. I obviously won't be talking to myself if you stop but you normally don't stop no matter what.

Mulrunji’s family, the people of Palm Island, the whole Australian indigenous community and indeed the whole national public need to know what happened, as far as is possible, in the most transparent manner possible, within a system that they can have some confidence in. Confidence in the courts certainly appears to be better than in any other method of judgement.

Their confidence in the DPP has been pretty well shot to pieces. Their confidence in the Qld police has been shattered. Confidence in the Qld court system is not great at least in the eyes of indigenous people. But it has been considerably improved by the acquittal of the Palm Island Four.

Given the double-ups in investigations and the reversals of findings, an open court process has become vital. This is surely much more important than the stress and any interpretation of unfair treatment that Hurley is facing…. or any interpretation of the government’s role in this saga as being inappropriate.

Bring on the court case.

"...Confidence in the courts certainly appears to be better than in any other method of judgement."

Weak excuse. How will the family feel if Hurley is found not guilty? Justice should be done. Everyone needs to be treated equally. Arbitrary justice sets a dangerous precedent particularly for indigenous Australians.

The only reason there are questions is the media beat up. Mulrunji's family, the people of Palm Island, etc. probably think that Hurley is guilty and so it seems okay to screw justice.

Justice is not a popularity contest. People or groups shouldn't have their rights screwed if they are unpopular. We fought wars to avoid this.

"Their confidence in the DPP has been pretty well shot to pieces."

That is both irrelevant to implementing an innocent until proven guilty presumption and not the fault of the DPP in this case. They even sought advice from a judge to make damn sure they made the right decision. The subsequent independent conclusions clearly vindicate the original decision maker. Yet the media would have people believe that they made a reckless incorrect decision. I guess it sells papers ...

"Their confidence in the Qld police has been shattered."

Justice isn't about popularity. I wish your reasoning had been left in the Deep South and Witch Hunts.

"Confidence in the Qld court system is not great at least in the eyes of indigenous people. But it has been considerably improved by the acquittal of the Palm Island Four."

It has nothing to do with that. The media have people thinking Hurley is guilty and DPP stuffed up and they think it is a chance to bring him to justice.

"Given the double-ups in investigations and the reversals of findings, an open court process has become vital."

To the contrary. The overinvestigation means that the initial appearance of underinvestigation could be addressed. The reversal of the finding is a logical corollary of hiring Street to do the job. It doesn't change the fact that all qualified and informed independent people agreed there is insufficient evidence.

“Weak excuse”

What! Not in the slightest!

Confidence in the legal system within the community is of paramount importance.

“The only reason there are questions is the media beatup”

NO!

Questions arose out of the death of a healthy man in custody, the very tardy initial response, the outrage felt by the Palm Island community which led to rioting and the burning of the police station, the outrage felt by the community when the DPP announced that Hurley was not going to be charged while four Palm Island men involved in the riot were, etc. The only significant thing that has happened that hasn’t drawn an appropriately strong reaction is the suicide of Mulrunji’s son.

Crikey, how on earth can you point the finger at the media over this? Just incredible!

"Confidence in the legal system within the community is of paramount importance."

Compromising the legal system for public relations in a particular case is not a valid way of instilling confidence in the system. That is why I label it an excuse. Confidence in the system for the relevant parties would be ensuring that individual justice is always observed and most relevantly in the case of indigenous Australians.

"Crikey, how on earth can you point the finger at the media over this? Just incredible!"

You should ask yourself how people find out about these things and how the information is presented to them and if the media articles have been balanced. How would you expect someone close to Mulrunji to react if they read something like this:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20930231-2702,00.html

Indeed in another edition the Australian actually took credit for having “campaigned vigorously” for something like the review.

How about announcing a national day of protest to get people protesting.
http://abc.net.au/message/news/stories/ms_news_1811914.htm

Even after the political interference when police had their meeting the Courier Mail's 'balanced article' had the heading "A Law Unto Themselves" and the police reason for meeting received a cryptic one line paraphrase tucked at the bottom of the article. It would be reasonable to conclude from the article that the police met because they objected to police being charged not because they were objecting to political interference. I'm sure that wouldn't fire up outrage in the indigenous community (not).
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21156408-3102,00.html

Likewise I bet a lot of people got the impression from the media that the Director of Public Prosecutions had recklessly stuffed up rather than the true situation.

That all said there could be concerns raised about the independent appearance of the initial police investigations and Street's investigation but that doesn't change the relevant fact that all independent decision makers with the information and expertise said there isn't enough evidence.

In the last paragraph I meant to say that those two investigations had the appearance of a lack of independence rather than vice versa.

I observe that you are willing to research this media angle in quite some detail and post a number of links, whereas you have not been willing to research or post any quotes from the reports leading to the decision to charge Hurley.

Surely it would have been much more pertinent to have done that, rather than dismiss the argument for his trial as being inappropriate entirely because of Beatty’s intervention.

As I have said before, the rest of your argument rings hollow if you can’t point directly to any problems with the actual reasoning behind Street’s decision, or Clements’ findings.

This concern about the media is secondary or tertiary to the core issue.

The Australian article that you refer me to; ‘Bloody disgrace: saga is state’s worst injustice’ seems like a fair and reasonable opinion piece to me.

What on earth is wrong with the Message Stick article? It states; ‘activists have called for a national day of protest…’. It fits perfectly well with the nature of the article, which seems totally fair and reasonable.

And what is wrong with the Courier Mail article? How far from the truth is it regarding the motivation of the QPU for taking strong action? Pretty damn close I would think. Besides, they would have the full right of reply. And the CM would be only too willing to print it, would they not?

It seems to me mjpb that you take the view that anything said in the media against the QPU or the decision to charge Hurley is automatically biased and inappropriate.

You can pick out media articles all you want, but the fact remains; a series of awful and quite bizarre steps in this saga have led to the outrage, not an inappropriate media portrayal of them!

“I observe that you are willing to research this media angle in quite some detail and post a number of links, whereas you have not been willing to research or post any quotes from the reports leading to the decision to charge Hurley….”

The report is not publically available.

”As I have said before, the rest of your argument rings hollow if you can’t point directly to any problems with the actual reasoning behind Street’s decision, or Clements’ findings.”

No it doesn’t. Special unfair treatment is unfair to the individual and a dangerous precedent. That treatment happened when Street was commissioned (/political interference). See above for Street’s. Why Clement’s? She was the acting Coroner not DPP, CMC or hired reviewer. Her role was inquirer/investigator. She just referred the matter to the DPP as is her role.

”This concern about the media is secondary or tertiary to the core issue.”

It is the key to the lynch mob situation.

"Pretty damn close I would think."

You don't think that the political interference could have made them just a little tetchy?

"And the CM would be only too willing to print it, would they not?"

That is not the normal slant of their articles. I agree to an extent there was a right of reply because, albeit to a limited audience, I believe they exercised the right of reply in the Police Bulletin.

”You can pick out media articles all you want, but the fact remains; a series of awful and quite bizarre steps in this saga have led to the outrage, not an inappropriate media portrayal of them!”

If that is so why so much fuss in a situation where the police officer is apparently innocent in that there is insufficient evidence of his guilt to warrant prosecution? You think it doesn’t have anything to do with the slant of the publicity? What steps?

Mj, I don’t think the media could have possibly reported the various incidents in this saga in a way that you would not have branded biased and promulgatory to the “lynch mob” mentality.

My impression of the media on the whole subject is one of proper reporting and reasonable opinion pieces. Of course it was going to stir people up. How on earth could it have been reported in anything like a balanced fashion without people getting very strongly stirred up?

Again, it was the nature of the issue, NOT the media.

“I agree to an extent there was a right of reply because, albeit to a limited audience”

No. A full right of reply, to a very wide audience, every bit as wide as that of the initial relevant article.

“I believe they exercised the right of reply in the Police Bulletin.”

Well that’s no good! It needed to be in the same major newspapers and other media that it was initially reported. And of course it easily could have been. All media would be only too willing too listen to the other side of the story, if they hadn’t heard it already, and express it accordingly.

“If that is so why so much fuss in a situation where the police officer is apparently innocent in that there is insufficient evidence of his guilt to warrant prosecution?”

Because sensible straightforward reporting, and opinions, by all sorts of people in full gamut of the media, suggests that Hurley is probably guilty and certainly needed to be charged and that a finding of insufficient evidence seems highly dodgy.

The circumstances don’t match the DPP’s finding. Every Tom, Dick and Harry who is remotely interested in the subject can see that. Hence the enormous pressure exerted on Beatty to do something about that extraordinarily ludicrous and extremely damaging decision.

It was the absurdity of the DPP’s finding that has fuelled the mob mentality, NOT the thousands of independently thinking people in the media.

”How ... could it have been reported in ...a balanced fashion without people ... strongly stirred up?”

Balanced reporting wouldn't stir people up. In a situation where there was insufficient evidence of guilt to go to trial the reporting was hardly a balanced treatment. There were even reports that Mulrunji appeared to have been beaten beyond recognition and comparisons with a South African apparently killed by police. Investigations dispelled many of the rumours reported in the media but by the time that became public Mulrunji's son had already committed suicide after expressing the belief that his father was beaten to death.

”… All media would be only too willing ...if they hadn’t heard it already ...”

I think the key to that is “if they hadn’t heard it already”. The ambiguous comment tucked away at the bottom of the “Law Unto Themselves Article” seems to indicate that the QPU explained themselves but it just wasn’t a major priority for reporting.

”… reporting, … of the media, suggests that Hurley is probably guilty and certainly needed to be charged and that a finding of insufficient evidence seems highly dodgy. “

Exactly! However the reality was that after a shaky start the matter was thoroughly investigated and referred to the DPP. As discussed previously the facts scream that it was carefully considered. The DPP concluded there was insufficient evidence to charge. Ditto for the other independent expert the CMC. Ditto for another qualified person at DPP. This affirms that the reporting strongly suggests something that was the complete opposite of the reality in a situation where many facts are available.

”It was the absurdity of the DPP’s finding that has fuelled the mob mentality...”

The DPP’s finding appears to be correct. It was obviously made carefully and was affirmed by other suitably qualified independent decision makers who considered the evidence. In a private conversation a journalist looked me in the eye and said that it isn’t their job to educate. They just market their product. Unfortunately, at the time, I couldn’t use you as an example of how damaging that attitude is.

BTW It was good money for his legal skills and made him look good but Street should have turned down the appointment.

“Balanced reporting wouldn't stir people up.”

O dear. This is another rather unbelievable statement. Of course balanced reporting, of horrible events, would stir people up as with the Virginia Tech shootings for example.

Once again we will have to agree to completely disagree on this point regarding the media.

The rest of your post is just going over well-trodden ground. I see no point in responding to it again. We thoroughly understand each other’s position now. So I guess that’s about it….unless you have a new angle that you wish to discuss.

““Balanced reporting wouldn't stir people up.”

”O dear. This is another rather unbelievable statement. Of course balanced reporting, of horrible events, would stir people up as with the Virginia Tech shootings for example.”

Of course we aren’t talking about the Virginia Tech shootings are we? Little things like the videotapes the shooter sent to the media, the things he wrote, publically killing people, owning the guns used in the murders, residue on his hands/gloves indicating that he had recently fired a firearm, the nature of his injuries indicating that he shot himself, and his background might have gone against him as evidence. Disagree if you will but just maybe he would have been charged if he survived without any political interference. It was at the opposite end of the spectrum to this case where there was insufficient evidence to charge. The term chalk and cheese come to mind.

”So I guess that’s about it….unless you have a new angle that you wish to discuss.”

I did try and subtly hint that I wanted to explore another angle by doing a separate post as you didn’t comment the first time I mentioned Street. I think Street should have turned down the appointment. Care to express a view?

“I think Street should have turned down the appointment.”

I don’t know! And who cares!

Obviously he had the qualifications and that’s all that matters.

What a total distraction.

Tell us what it is about the basis for his decision that you disagree with. That is the ONLY thing that matters with respect to Street's role or to Beatty’s intervention.

” ...ONLY thing that matters...”
The context indicated that DPP made their decision carefully and it was well vindicated so there was no excuse to undermine it so the political interference was the problem.

“who cares! “

I have a view but the old man’s temptation is understandable. For aboriginal issues this was the opportunity to be perceived as something more than aboriginal activist Jessie Street's son. He must have seen the perception created for aboriginal people (and others) by media. It was an opportunity to have aboriginal people see him decisively and personally as their advocate.

All he had to do was what he was paid to and overturn the DPP decision. He has been called in because the media have suggested that Hurley is probably guilty and that a finding of insufficient evidence seems highly dodgy.

He has the ability to argue anything. Historically he worked as a Barrister prior to working as a Judge in the Equity division of the NSW Supreme Court before following in his father’s footsteps and becoming a Chief Justice. As a Barrister he practiced extensively in Maritime, Commercial, Banking and Insolvency Law and developed the skill to convincingly argue law even if his client’s case is weak. He would presumably have developed specific Criminal Law skills at some stage in his working life or at Uni. He would know he can do this and get a healthy income for a retired man.

But he should have thought it through. The first reason I think he should have declined was the manifest injustice of the political interference. It has real implications for other people and the legal system. The political interference effectively communicated that the Premier considered the DPP decision “dodgy” and in need of review. The DPP are a very significant step in the justice process so undermining them in this way has a real impact on public confidence in the justice system. By not condemning this breach of justice he was facilitating these gritty real life problems. In a huge way it affects Hurley, the DPP, and the entire justice system.

I recall Beatty imploring everyone straight after the DPP's decision was released to accept the decision.

Only after an enormous outcry did he concede to call for the process to be basically repeated. In others; for a second opinion to be sought.

This was absolutely proper in the circumstances.

I’m not going to be drawn into the whys or wherefores of Street’s decision to take up the offer from Beatty to head the review. I consider that to be the height of distraction and irrelevance.

There is apparently no legal error in either the DPP’s decision or Street’s decision. The opposite decisions were both perfectly achievable in this instance.

However, no matter which way you look at it, it appears as though Hurley is probably guilty, or at least possibly guilty. This should surely be sufficient to take him to trial, end of story.

It is not a case of Hurley being clearly not guilty. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that he is most likely guilty.

Evidence to indicate that he is definitely guilty or guilty beyond a reasonable doubt should not be a necessary prerequisite for a trial. If it was, the actual trial process would effectively be conducted outside of the formal trial process, with courtroom proceedings basically amounting to a show trial.

The lack of the QPU’s ability to point to any significant flaw in the reasoning or process leading to Street’s decision says it all – his decision is good.

The outrage expressed over the DPP’s decision by just about everyone with any interest whatsoever in this case, other than the police, also says it all – that decision stunk.

What to do in such a situation? Simple. Have an open court process where every detail is hammered out under the eye of the media and public.

I think that’s it mjpb. As much as I would like to continue discussing this issue, it appears to have reached its natural conclusion. So thanks for your passionate interest and engagement. We’ll cross swords again no doubt.

You recall correctly about Beattie but it was totally improper to politically interfere with the judicial process.

The height of irrelevance and distraction is smoke screen legal analysis of Street’s non-publically available decision when such a decision was the product of illegitimate political interference.

I am not in a position to analyse his decision for error. However, either way, just because a clever lawyer can make an argument doesn’t mean it is the better view.

”It is not a case of Hurley being clearly not guilty… There is sufficient evidence to suggest that he is most likely guilty.”

I strongly disagree. The fact that the media brand him as guilty does not make him most likely guilty. A more objective approach would be to consider that, given the abundance of witnesses, if he was guilty, it would be amazing that there wasn’t sufficient evidence of his guilt to justify a trial. Only God and Chris Hurley know for sure but realistically it is an extremely remote possibility. Your comment needed a reply but I reiterate that it is not for us to decide.

It is not a case of a trial outside of the courtroom. That only happened in the media. It is legitimate to not charge people if a case can’t reasonably be made against them. People are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty and criminal trials for serious matters are ordeals that people shouldn’t go through without a good reason. There is a world of difference between a legitimate step in the justice system and a show trial.

Have you asked the QPU about Street’s decision? If you want insight on the weight that can be put on the opinion it can only be gleaned from the fact that the weight of legal opinion disagreed.

The outrage was a product of a trial by media.

”What to do in such a situation? Simple. ..”

Uphold justice in all cases so that Chris Hurley and people in the future including indigenous Australians don’t suffer from arbitrary justice. We should move away from breaches of justice not toward them.

I really wish that it would concern you that the media make the DPP look like they erred and Chris Hurley look guilty and the political interference an acceptable occurrence in spite of the facts suggesting that the DPP made a careful and correct decision and Hurley is most likely not guilty and the political interference was unjustifiable. Attention should have been given to totally different issues.

What about the issue of Chris Hurley being investigated by people he knew who had dinner with him during the investigation and the review being conducted by Jessie Street’s son, who visited Mulrunji‘s family for a social visit during his review? The police in their investigation and the government in their review should have ensured that participants looked independent. If this isn’t achieved there should be accountability. The participants themselves may have applied themselves diligently with integrity but the appearance is a problem.

And what about the issue of locking up drunk aboriginal people that puts them at risk and has clearly not been addressed since the Deaths in Custody Inquiry? People in both the Police Department and the Government should be held accountable for allowing that to happen.

There are clear problems with government interference, the appearance of independence and police procedure relating to aboriginal people that should genuinely concern people. However the media have misplaced the focus to tilting at windmills of the DPP and Chris Hurley. The real issues are lost. Now aboriginal people are no better off, the lynch mob gets its way with Chris Hurley, people lose confidence in the DPP, and a dangerous precedent of injustice is set.

Ludwig,

“The height of irrelevance and distraction is smoke screen ...”

I concede that I was biting back with this which I shouldn’t have and concede that my speculation about Street’s motives are irrelevant to Chris Hurley and may not be correct. Many other explanations including the reported income of up to $5000 per day are equally possible. But I definitely think he shouldn’t have done it.

Hopefully from the second post on Tuesday you will see where I was heading. There are serious issues, many irrelevant to the discussion of Chris Hurley, that should have been raised and slipped by with serious consequences.

Further, on the issue of the DPP I’d like to explain further my reasons for considering it a sound decision and the decision to be preferred.

I want to comment on how significant advice from Thomas included in my previous reasons might be. Thomas not only has recent criminal law experience easily verifiable eg.:
http://www.austlii.edu.au//cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/qld/QCA/2001/255.html?query=james%20and%20thomas
http://www.austlii.edu.au//cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/qld/QCA/2001/20.html?query=james%20and%20thomas
http://www.austlii.edu.au//cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/qld/QCA/2001/150.html?query=james%20and%20thomas
http://www.austlii.edu.au//cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/qld/QCA/2001/151.html?query=james%20and%20thomas
http://www.austlii.edu.au//cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/qld/QCA/2001/327.html?query=james%20and%20thomas

and a keen commitment to upholding justice as evidenced by his 1993 law reform paper but he is better suited than many of his colleagues for assessing the Chris Hurley case.

Many members of the judiciary don’t have the life experience to make ideal assessments on things outside of their experience, eg. scuffles, and might not be able to contribute the depth of understanding that an atypical example such as he can. I strongly believe in the jury system where people with broader experience can assess those types of things. I wouldn’t accept a judge substituting for a jury in the trial of serious matters but in his case I’d make an exception.

Strangely, Judge Thomas is an outdoor person and has experience as robust as any member of the jury. He is public school educated and worked a total of 12 months as a builder labourer. With an intellect and qualifications equal to any of his peers he is perfect for considering the Chris Hurley situation. He is the marriage of a brilliant mind and broad experience, recent criminal law experience, and a commitment to justice.

The following concerning Chris Hurley was published in a letter to the editor in the Australian.

"PETER Beattie’s decision not to pay Senior Sergeant Chris Hurley’s legal defence is mean-spirited and shows a poor set of double standards.

Precedent has been set many times over of governments paying for public servants’ legal representations...The Premier didn’t hesitate to pay for Bundaberg Hospital managers Darren Keating’s and Peter Leck’s legal fees and appeals to the Supreme Court to attack the Bundaberg Hospital inquiry.

Sergeant Hurley has every right to feel as though he’s being treated as a second-class citizen. He was on-duty, working in an extraordinarily difficult environment, when the death of Mulrunji ... happened. It should not now fall on serving police officers, through their union, to pay for his legal defence.
Rob Messenger
Queensland shadow minister for police and corrective services"

Chris Hurley misses out again.

The trial has got off to an interesting start.

According to ABC News prosecution witness pathologist Dr Lampe said that his best guess was that the injury may have occurred actually when the pair fell.

Considering the Australian has belittled the fall theory leading many people to comment that it is ridiculous to suggest that the injury could have occurred during a fall and the DPP should be sacked for subscribing to that theory this is very interesting indeed. That newspaper and most segments of the media always held the death out as caused by punching pursuant to the coroner's view that the death was the result of punching by Hurley.

Also interesting was Dr Lampe's response to questioning about whether it was caused by punching "..look I can't exclude that absolutely but there isn't any evidence to support that proposition such as bruising, for instance."

Hopefully the jury are starting to realise that they have been conned by mass media and will look at the evidence objectively.

Aha, I was wondering which one of us was going to jump in first and reinitiate this discussion.

You are only telling us half the story mj.

Dr Guy Lampe ‘admitted that a `knee drop' – deliberate dropping on to a victim with full weight behind the knee – could have caused the damage.’

He said;

"But I am unable to differentiate between an accidental or deliberate action" (http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/)

Why hasnt it been said in court or the Media that Mr Doomadgee was in a car accident days before he was in the watch house?

Welcome to the Online Opinion Forum MBABARAM.

Can you give us a bit more information please.

It is a well known fact that Mr Doomagee was in a car accident days before he was in the watch house and this could be the reason for his terrible injuries! There is every chance it may not be aswell but why has it been left out of the media and court?

Well I don’t know how well known it is. I haven’t heard about it, and I’ve been following this business very closely for a long time.

If it is well-known, then it must also be well-known that it is irrelevant to the court case. Otherwise it would have been mentioned in court and highlighted in the media by now.

Well all i know is it did happen and if i was hurleys defence id bring it up because if a car accident days before he was in the watch house isnt relevant then i dont know what is. I remember it being mentioned before by the union but nothing since.

Ludwig just reading james h thread at the top and im no expert in medicine but if he says that a ruptured liver could be caused by a seatbelt in a accident. Not sure if thats fact. Ive meet Chris Hurley through my brother who was a Queensland police officer who told me about the accident im just baffled that its not mentioned.

Ludwig,

I wouldn't call that half the story but you are entitled to your opinion. And what else could the prosecution ask to try to salvage their case? And how could anyone medically differentiate between a deliberate or accidental knee during a fall?

Anyhow I was making a point. The media have gone on about Hurley supposedly punching Mulrunji to death and have belittled the knee hitting during fall thing. Now the first prosecution medical expert says that the death most likely occurred during a fall. The prosecution don't even seem to be dignifying the punching theory that formed the basis of the coroner's decision. They seem to be stringing the bow of Hurley intentionally hitting Mulrunji with his knee (while accelerating at 9.8m/s2) during the fall or alternatively doing a WWF style knee drop in the six or seven seconds after the fall that other people didn't witness. They seem to be taking the DPP theory because it fits the facts and twisting it into something deliberate on Hurley's part to get a prosecution. That is how the newspaper reports make it sound. Maybe the prosecution have something better. You can't trust media reports.

If Hurley did take the WWF approach then his balls are bigger than the rest of him. It is okay for a wrestler to do that on canvas but would you do it on concrete? What if Mulrunji moved and he hit the concrete floor on one knee? Even if you wanted to desperately injure someone would you risk doing that to your knee? Do you weigh 115kg? Remember for the theory to hold Mulrunji would have to be still okay after the fall and there was no reason to think he wouldn't roll over.

Fair enough Ludwig. Oh and i weigh 100 even! haha!

Did you hear about how the jury asked the judge why Roy Bramwell wasn't called?

Their duty is to consider the trial evidence ignoring all they have heard from the media. That is one of the essentials of a fair trial.

The Australian for example described Bramwell as an "independent witness" and suggested that he witnessed Hurley punch Mulrunji to death. In real life he had a motivation to dislike police as he was at the station for questioning after allegedly beating up two women. He said that he saw Hurley punch Mulrunji in the head and then kick him. Medical evidence ruled out the kicking and strongly suggested that punching didn't happen without ruling it out but given the six or seven second time frame it would have been a beauty of a punch. The coroner relied upon his punching allegations but modified it to suit her conclusion.

It was an extremely good prosecution tactic to keep him out as he could only assist with the assault as head injury didn't cause the death and tactically they already had a much more credible Aboriginal to give evidence of assault. Defence would have made the prosecution case look really bad if they had been able to cross examine him. However the defence didn't object. Perhaps they thought the prosecution were struggling anyway. Only they know.

In any case the jury seem to be relying on media reports as they apparently consider him a relevant witness. Although the trial has seemed to generally go quite well for Hurley, if I was Hurley I would be extremely worried. If the jury found Hurley guilty after that it might not be an actual mistrial but those comments suggest something with a similar practical flavour. The jury should only look at the evidence before them. Hell if the prosecutor could get any gain from putting in Bramwell he would jump at the opportunity. The jury seem to be anchored by the media reports.

Mjpb, I found this very interesting;

Crown prosecutor Peter Davis; “Is what you have come to grips with is that you fell on Mr Doomadgee inflicting fatal injuries, but you didn’t notice?”

Chris Hurley; “Yes”

Davis; “Your 100kgs something and there is 70kgs something of Mr Doomadgee, you fall with some force, you do the damage but you just don’t recall it, is that your whole case here?”

Hurley; “Yes it is sir”

(Townsville Bulletin 16 June 07)

So this is the entire issue, apparently. If this is so, everything else is a distraction.

The ONLY question is whether it was possible for Hurley to inadvertently exsert deadly force with his knee while his body essentially fell to the side of Mulrunji… or in a manner that Hurley could reasonably and honestly interpret as being to the side of Mulrunji as per his unequivocal statement given very shortly after the event that he had fallen to the side of Mulrunji.

Ludwig,

That does seem to be an issue for the prosecution albeit worded to suit prosecution. Obviously all medical experts acknowledged that "deadly force" could be just 115kg Hurley's knee hitting. Obviously also rapidly moving huge Hurley would only balance on one knee for a split second and would have ended up on Mulrunji's right or left. He says left.

It is a question to be answered in the context of Hurley the cop who works to help the aboriginal community.

It is also a question to be asked in the context of a witness saying that it looked like he fell on top.

It is a question that needs to be asked in the context where Hurley obviously had no idea how Mulrunji died and did not try to explain his injury.

Finally, it is a question to be looked at practically. Wouldn't it be astounding if Hurley could be guaranteed to remember where his knees were at all times during a downstairs fall (falling objects accelerate at 9.8m/s2 so falls happen fast) after worrying about Mulrunji's head during the fall and the emotions of Mulrunji dying afterwards? What if he had just taken a punch in the jaw?

So what are the alternatives? Hurley deliberately deciding to hit with his knee during the fall? Hurley doing a knee drop in the 6 or 7 seconds after the fall when noone could see what was happening below the floor level above?

Why wouldn't Bramwell dob him in for a knee drop? He made all sorts of allegations to try to make Hurley look like a killer. He said Hurley punched Mulrunji in the head. He said Hurley kicked Mulrunji. He might not have seen what was happening downstairs but he would have seen 200.33cm Hurley do a knee drop. I assume noone would suggest that he was trying to protect Hurley?

I'd suggest that the question has an obvious answer. Will the jury "get it" is probably now the question. We shouldn't have long to wait.

Ludwig,

I wanted to say yesterday that I was impressed with the way you understood that issue however I ran out of words. So many rumours and innuendo's have plagued Chris Hurley and he has been through so much. It was good to finally see some meeting of minds between us toward the end.

Thank you for the long discussion regarding Chris Hurley and Mulrunji. May Mulrunji now rest in peace and people stop using his name for personal gain.

I wanted to respond quickly after the verdict was handed down, but the 5 posts in 24 hours on article threads rule gazumped me.

I’m happy with the outcome. Of course Mulrunji’s family and some Palm Islanders are highly disappointed. But I think the indigenous community can see that this process was as fair, thorough and open as it could have been.

There is still discontent, but much less than there would have been without the trial process.

Negative publicity of this saga had spread around the world. But the trial has gone a long way towards reducing it. All told, I think the implications of the trial are really positive.

It was a desperately needed, following on from the huge negative implications of the death in custody, riots and incredible story involving the CMC, DPP, QPU and Qld Premier’s intervention.

So this amazing story is complete….….we hope.

Thanks mj for this long discussion. Until next time, stay well and passionately humanitarian.