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.