TRTL, I can’t understand why you are supporting the police union.

The PU should surely have upheld the principle that Hurley needed to be tried. 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.

This basic principle takes precedence. The DPP decision clearly ran counter to this. If the PU really stood for the principles of law, morality and equality, THEY should have been the first ones to denounce the DPP’s decision not to charge Hurley.

The basic principles here are much more important than a show of solidarity for a police officer that has not been shown to be innocent in a court of law.

As for political interference in the legal system, yes we have to be very careful about it. But no system should be beyond reproach. In this case the public outcry was so strong that the government really was compelled to act. If the circumstance had been such that the government had acted against the tide of community outrage, then there would have been cause for the PU to cry foul. It is afterall part of the government’s role to represent the peoples’ wishes, and when community outrage is expressed very strongly, the government is pretty much compelled to act. That’s democracy.

There’s no doubt about it – it was difficult stuff to reconcile. But I certainly cannot go along with the notion that the DPP’s word should have been final and that the state government was wrong to interfere.

And there are certainly NO grounds for the PU to take the course of action that they have.

I agree TRTL that the DPP needs some pretty major reforms. It has basically had its credibility skittled.

It isn't that I am supporting the police union per se.
I don't like the idea of the police rallying to protect someone who appears to have caused a death in custody.

But should there be opposition to what the government has done? To that I say yes... perhaps it would be better if it wasn't the police union doing so, though for various reasons, they are the ones who are doing so.

The government has reacted to a public outcry to order a trial - okay, but here's the rub. Effectively they've caved to public pressure to step in and correct a problem in the judicial system.

We're both agreed there is a problem in the judiciary, but somehow the pressure needs to be applied to the DPP - but not via the government.

Consider this - there was a huge amount of public support for Schapelle Corby, yet there was never all that much evidence supporting her story. It could however, have proved a popular election tactic to try and interfere in the process. While there may be some justifications based on differing standards between Indonesia and Australia, this isn't applicable for Hurley - it's about the facts of the case.

In our system of law, the facts of the case weren't sufficient for the DPP to prosecute.
This is a politically charged case - instead of having the government intervene in this particular instance, the judiciary should be treating the problem, rather than allowing the government to treat this symptom.

Without referring to the subject case it is a cause for concern that the mob with the support of a media addicted to sensationalism, can cause political interference in the legal system.

One only has to look at the Schapelle Corby case to see how the media and activists savvy in using the media, can hijack the political process even at federal level.

The Hurley case has been a godsend to activists and the death of this poor unfortunate man allowed a futher opportunity to galvanise opinion against independent scrutiny and change that could improve the lot of the Palm Island community.

We should not forget that in any dysfunctional system there are those with a vested interest in maintaining the systemic corruption that always exists. Perpetrators have a very strong motivation to undermine police and the legal process. Arguably, if Palm Island did not have the culture of lawlessness, mob rule and alcohol abuse this death would not have happened in the first place. It reflects very poorly on the self management of Palm Island.

There was a Police Union article in the paper commenting on its concern about political interference in the legal system. To me this seems a reasonable issue for it to take up. Equally, others might look at whether positive discrimination in public service recruitment and selection reduces public confidence that the best people are selected for government positions.

In the Hurley matter there have been intemperate voices heard from both sides and this is to be expected given the preference of the media for sensationalism and the skill of activists in manipulating the media.

So why shouldn't the Police Union try to ensure that one of its members gets a fair hearing? A cursory look at the recent happenings on Palm Island would show that activists are prepared to go much further than that in their protests. As a community we should think very carefully and soberly before we lend support to mob rule.

It is a cause for alarm that the mob with the support of a media addicted to sensationalism, can cause political interference in the legal system.

One only has to look at the Schapelle Corby case to see how the media and activists savvy in using the media, can hijack the political process even at federal level.

The Hurley case was a godsend to activists who capitalised on the death to galvanise opinion and a rabble against independent scrutiny and change that could improve the lot of the Palm Island community.

In any dysfunctional system there are always those with a vested interest in maintaining the systemic corruption that exists. Perpetrators have a very strong motivation to undermine police and the legal process. Arguably, if Palm Island did not have a culture of lawlessness, mob rule and alcohol abuse this death would not have happened in the first place. It reflects very poorly on the self management of Palm Island, not on the police service.

There was a Police Union article in the paper outlining its concern about political interference in the legal system. That was an eminently reasonable position for it to take. Equally, others might look at whether positive discrimination in public service recruitment and selection reduces public confidence that the best people are selected for government positions.

In the Hurley matter there have been intemperate voices reported from both sides and this is to be expected given the preference of the media for sensationalism and the skill of activists in manipulating the media.

A cursory look at the recent happenings on Palm Island would show that activists are prepared to go much further than that in their protests. As a community we should think very carefully and soberly before we lend support to mob rule. So why shouldn't the Police Union try to ensure that one of its members gets a fair hearing?

JamesH,

Get your hand off it! Expert opinion said the fall could cause that damage but you say it can't. Care to volunteer to have a solidly built 200.66cm cop fall on top of you downstairs to prove your point?

Ludwig,

Your posts in other threads are anti-cop but don't let your perspective mix you up. The QPU were the ones upset that the normal course of legal procedure was not followed not trying to put themselves above the law. You need to read more than Courier Mail headlines. If the DPP had determined that there is not enough evidence for trial then in the normal course of events there would have been no trial. The government interference resulted in the trial.

"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 this country it is innocent until proven guilty. I know most posters on the subject advocate a lynch mob approach but legally you have it back to front.

David Jackmanson,

DPP biased. Paid ex-judge unbiased? Why would DPP be biased? That makes no sense.

TRTL

I agree that it is irrelevant to the issue of government interference in the judicial process but if you think that Hurley did it you really need to read the coroner's report.

What a load of sanctimonious crap these latest posts are.

The facts are that the Coroner and the DPP findings were totally opposite.

So logically a third opinion was sought.

The police union aren't asking for a fair trial - they are objecting to one of their own being charged at all. It give the impression that they demand that they are above the law and can act in whatever way they want with total immunity.

It was not mob rule that sought the changes, but some significant people from all walks of life cried foul.

Chris Hurley will face the court and the legal mob from both sides with argue the fine details.

All this sanctimonious bs is just aimed to beat the race drum once again.

If you don't like it so what - get over it.

It is 2007 and maybe, just maybe, Australia is ready to demand justice for all its citizens.