"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.