"I think that the fact that Mulrunji ended up dead from horrific injuries while in the custody of the law enforcement officer Chis Hurley, needs to be bought before a court of law."

AKA You are entitled to your opinion. However fortunately those types of decisions are made by the DPP. If you started running the justice system like that it will be anarchy. People should only go before a court of law if evidence indicates that they might be guilty of a crime.

"If Chris Hurley did nothing wrong then why and how did Mulrunji die and how did he get such terrifying injuries?"

I'm sure if you set your mind to it you could generate many possibilities. The answer seems pretty obvious from the coroner's report so I'm not as open to brainstorming. Perhaps someone else can assist you.

"The case just keeps going around and around - Hurley did nothing wrong but Mulrunji died in his custody."

It is a bit more specific than that. How perfect Hurley is is not the issue. For example the acting coroner pointed out that he should have been better trained in first aid and provided better monitoring of the prisoner. I suspect the acting coroner was correct. However the issue is whether or not there is sufficient evidence that he committed the crime that he has been charged with.

"The police force is made up from a cross section of society and there are some fine and honest police, but the inference by the union is that the union wants immunity from the law."

You obviously didn't get past the courier mail headline.

"It is about time that the union is reminded that they are supposed to protect citizens and up hold the law, even if that means against one of their colleagues."

That is what they did. They protested when there was political interference in the normal process. Your comment makes no sense.

In response to mjpb of 12 March;

“Your posts in other threads are anti-cop…”

You’ve made this point before on those other threads that we have exchanged views. I’ll say again, I am NOT anti-police. Not at all. In fact it seems that I am the strongest advocate on this forum for a more effective police force. The blame for problems with the policing regime in many areas of our society needs to be shared amongst the police, politicians and general community. The blame by no means rests entirely with the police. So please, don’t brand me as anti-cop again.

OK, so the PU was outraged by political interference. I can understand that. But I repeat from my last post;

“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.”

Don’t you think this is true mjpb? Don’t you think this principle needs to apply to police just as fully as it does to the rest us? I would love to know how you may think that this principle should not apply in this case or could be compromised or overridden by any other factors.

Things went off-track at a level below this all-important principle. Clearly the DPP decision went awry. Clearly it needed to be corrected. And the best (or only) way of doing that was government intervention. The PU should see things in this hierarchical manner, with due recognition given to the most important things.

It just makes no sense to make a stand about a particular principle being violated while completely ignoring the blatant violation of more important principle. In doing so, the PU is very strong being seen to be trying to protect one of its own from even being subjected to due legal process and thus of the whole police force being above the law! This is enormously damaging.

“I love reading these forums, particularly when it comes to cop bashing. And a few of the reliable bashers always turn up, namely AKA, and Ludwig.”

Deary deary me Dtrain. If you have really read even a small number of my copious posts on this forum regarding police and law, you would not be saying that. You would be appreciating my desire to see that the police effectively protect life and property and that they get the resources they need to do the job.

If there had been a camera in the watch-house, there wouldn’t be an issue here. Surely the police and government realise this, and should have acted on the Fitzgerald recommendation! Especially in a watch-house in a troubled place like Palm Island!! The mind boggles as to why such a simple safeguard wasn’t installed.

“Does anyone think that it is funny that the only person charged over this matter for contempt of court has been the Police Union Executive. No one else.”

Gary Wilkinson made the statements. So he copped the rap, pure and simple. Mind you, I think a more basic principle has been breached here – that of freedom of speech. He should have been entitled to say exactly what he said. There really is something fundamentally wrong with the whole system if contempt of court breaches prevent people from giving their honest and forthright opinion on the relevant issue. Magistrates’ decisions and indeed anything that happens in a courtroom or in any other institution should be completely open to public comment and scrutiny.

“Hurley will be proven innocent but what then”

Neutrality please! Wait for the court to make its finding. Don’t pre-empt the outcome!

“I'm sure Aka and Ludwig will be saying how it was rigged or whatever.”

The issue won’t end with the verdict, as one side or the other will be outraged. But the proceedings will be as thorough and as well-founded as any case could be, given the high profile and implications for police and indigenous community.

What will you do if Hurley is found guilty? Simply accept the verdict?

What I find so shocking about this whole dreadful episode is that it has taken over 2 years. It is quite unbelievable that with such a sensitive issue as an allegedly violent death in police custody the powers to be did not only do everything possible to get to the bottom of this, but where also very publicly and openly seen to be doing so.
Justice should not only be done, but also seen to be done.

For both parties concerned it is truly a nightmare beyond belief. And what is also shocking, but not surprising anymore, is why nobody, but nobody with ministerial responsibility and within the police hierarchy has had to resign over this abysmal handling of this affair.

The responsibility for the culture at the coalface, so to speak, of attitude and the management of crisis situations surely lays with those who get the higher pay for their increased responsibilities. It is their attitude and (mis)management that trickles down to affect the day to day operations.

Ludwig,

“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.”

Don’t you think this is true mjpb?

No. People die in the presence of doctors all the time without trials.

“Don’t you think this principle needs to apply to police just as fully as it does to the rest us?"

Yes and no. Yes equally fully. No it shouldn’t be applied. For most people the principal 'innocent until proven guilty applies'. You charge people if there is sufficient evidence that they are guilty not because they haven’t proved their innocence. I think your 'principle' should be overriden by fundamental tried and tested notions of justice.

”Things went off-track at a level below this all-important principle.”
It isn’t a principle in the legal system.

“Clearly the DPP decision went awry.”
I really don’t think that DPP went awry. Indeed, as someone suggested to me, it is a safe bet that they made the decision very carefully due to the circumstances. Further, I have lost sleep trying to get my head around how Beattie’s hired ex-judge could work around things and have still not figured it out.

There is no point discussing your subsequent comments because they flow from the faulty premise discussed above.

Are people missing the point because they think that trials result from opinions alone? If it helps I’ll emphasize that the starting point and finishing point is innocence until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In that context, if something happens that someone could be criminally responsible for, evidence is gathered and a determination must be made if there is sufficient evidence before charges are laid. It is not the case that if you suspect that someone did something wrong you leap on them, lock them up, send them in court and let the jury sort it out.

I have worked in remote Aboriginal communities on and off for over 12 years. The role of the police is a very difficult job that alot of people who have plenty to say about it are far removed from the reality of being a Policeman in such a community.
To begin with the majority of Police who work in such communities do so by choice and even enjoy the work, but having seen the role alcohol can have in Indigenous communities I think the problem lies directly at the feet of ATSI people. It appears to be a cultural trait within ATSI people that they can not accept responsibility for there actions relying on an idealistic past and a chip on there shoulders blaming the white man for all of there problems.
What happened on Palm Island was very unfortunate and the Courts will provide Justice either way but what needs to be remerbed here is the fact that it is a two way street, something the bleeding heart left wingers forget.