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.