‘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.