You recall correctly about Beattie but it was totally improper to politically interfere with the judicial process.

The height of irrelevance and distraction is smoke screen legal analysis of Street’s non-publically available decision when such a decision was the product of illegitimate political interference.

I am not in a position to analyse his decision for error. However, either way, just because a clever lawyer can make an argument doesn’t mean it is the better view.

”It is not a case of Hurley being clearly not guilty… There is sufficient evidence to suggest that he is most likely guilty.”

I strongly disagree. The fact that the media brand him as guilty does not make him most likely guilty. A more objective approach would be to consider that, given the abundance of witnesses, if he was guilty, it would be amazing that there wasn’t sufficient evidence of his guilt to justify a trial. Only God and Chris Hurley know for sure but realistically it is an extremely remote possibility. Your comment needed a reply but I reiterate that it is not for us to decide.

It is not a case of a trial outside of the courtroom. That only happened in the media. It is legitimate to not charge people if a case can’t reasonably be made against them. People are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty and criminal trials for serious matters are ordeals that people shouldn’t go through without a good reason. There is a world of difference between a legitimate step in the justice system and a show trial.

Have you asked the QPU about Street’s decision? If you want insight on the weight that can be put on the opinion it can only be gleaned from the fact that the weight of legal opinion disagreed.

The outrage was a product of a trial by media.

”What to do in such a situation? Simple. ..”

Uphold justice in all cases so that Chris Hurley and people in the future including indigenous Australians don’t suffer from arbitrary justice. We should move away from breaches of justice not toward them.

I really wish that it would concern you that the media make the DPP look like they erred and Chris Hurley look guilty and the political interference an acceptable occurrence in spite of the facts suggesting that the DPP made a careful and correct decision and Hurley is most likely not guilty and the political interference was unjustifiable. Attention should have been given to totally different issues.

What about the issue of Chris Hurley being investigated by people he knew who had dinner with him during the investigation and the review being conducted by Jessie Street’s son, who visited Mulrunji‘s family for a social visit during his review? The police in their investigation and the government in their review should have ensured that participants looked independent. If this isn’t achieved there should be accountability. The participants themselves may have applied themselves diligently with integrity but the appearance is a problem.

And what about the issue of locking up drunk aboriginal people that puts them at risk and has clearly not been addressed since the Deaths in Custody Inquiry? People in both the Police Department and the Government should be held accountable for allowing that to happen.

There are clear problems with government interference, the appearance of independence and police procedure relating to aboriginal people that should genuinely concern people. However the media have misplaced the focus to tilting at windmills of the DPP and Chris Hurley. The real issues are lost. Now aboriginal people are no better off, the lynch mob gets its way with Chris Hurley, people lose confidence in the DPP, and a dangerous precedent of injustice is set.

Ludwig,

“The height of irrelevance and distraction is smoke screen ...”

I concede that I was biting back with this which I shouldn’t have and concede that my speculation about Street’s motives are irrelevant to Chris Hurley and may not be correct. Many other explanations including the reported income of up to $5000 per day are equally possible. But I definitely think he shouldn’t have done it.

Hopefully from the second post on Tuesday you will see where I was heading. There are serious issues, many irrelevant to the discussion of Chris Hurley, that should have been raised and slipped by with serious consequences.

Further, on the issue of the DPP I’d like to explain further my reasons for considering it a sound decision and the decision to be preferred.

I want to comment on how significant advice from Thomas included in my previous reasons might be. Thomas not only has recent criminal law experience easily verifiable eg.:
http://www.austlii.edu.au//cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/qld/QCA/2001/255.html?query=james%20and%20thomas
http://www.austlii.edu.au//cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/qld/QCA/2001/20.html?query=james%20and%20thomas
http://www.austlii.edu.au//cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/qld/QCA/2001/150.html?query=james%20and%20thomas
http://www.austlii.edu.au//cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/qld/QCA/2001/151.html?query=james%20and%20thomas
http://www.austlii.edu.au//cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/qld/QCA/2001/327.html?query=james%20and%20thomas

and a keen commitment to upholding justice as evidenced by his 1993 law reform paper but he is better suited than many of his colleagues for assessing the Chris Hurley case.

Many members of the judiciary don’t have the life experience to make ideal assessments on things outside of their experience, eg. scuffles, and might not be able to contribute the depth of understanding that an atypical example such as he can. I strongly believe in the jury system where people with broader experience can assess those types of things. I wouldn’t accept a judge substituting for a jury in the trial of serious matters but in his case I’d make an exception.

Strangely, Judge Thomas is an outdoor person and has experience as robust as any member of the jury. He is public school educated and worked a total of 12 months as a builder labourer. With an intellect and qualifications equal to any of his peers he is perfect for considering the Chris Hurley situation. He is the marriage of a brilliant mind and broad experience, recent criminal law experience, and a commitment to justice.

The following concerning Chris Hurley was published in a letter to the editor in the Australian.

"PETER Beattie’s decision not to pay Senior Sergeant Chris Hurley’s legal defence is mean-spirited and shows a poor set of double standards.

Precedent has been set many times over of governments paying for public servants’ legal representations...The Premier didn’t hesitate to pay for Bundaberg Hospital managers Darren Keating’s and Peter Leck’s legal fees and appeals to the Supreme Court to attack the Bundaberg Hospital inquiry.

Sergeant Hurley has every right to feel as though he’s being treated as a second-class citizen. He was on-duty, working in an extraordinarily difficult environment, when the death of Mulrunji ... happened. It should not now fall on serving police officers, through their union, to pay for his legal defence.
Rob Messenger
Queensland shadow minister for police and corrective services"

Chris Hurley misses out again.

The trial has got off to an interesting start.

According to ABC News prosecution witness pathologist Dr Lampe said that his best guess was that the injury may have occurred actually when the pair fell.

Considering the Australian has belittled the fall theory leading many people to comment that it is ridiculous to suggest that the injury could have occurred during a fall and the DPP should be sacked for subscribing to that theory this is very interesting indeed. That newspaper and most segments of the media always held the death out as caused by punching pursuant to the coroner's view that the death was the result of punching by Hurley.

Also interesting was Dr Lampe's response to questioning about whether it was caused by punching "..look I can't exclude that absolutely but there isn't any evidence to support that proposition such as bruising, for instance."

Hopefully the jury are starting to realise that they have been conned by mass media and will look at the evidence objectively.

Aha, I was wondering which one of us was going to jump in first and reinitiate this discussion.

You are only telling us half the story mj.

Dr Guy Lampe ‘admitted that a `knee drop' – deliberate dropping on to a victim with full weight behind the knee – could have caused the damage.’

He said;

"But I am unable to differentiate between an accidental or deliberate action" (http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/)