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!