Ludwig,

”My goodness! ...is comparable ... is it?”

I chose it as an extreme example to show the implausibility of your principle.

"You are virtually saying the same thing that I am ...”

What I am saying is that all principles should be applied equally. However I am also saying that there is no such principle so it shouldn’t be applied.

”“For most people the principle of innocent until proven guilty applies”

But not for police eh?”

Certainly not for Hurley it would seem. He has incurred the wrath of the lynch mob.

”“You charge people if there is sufficient evidence that they are guilty not because they haven’t proven their innocence”

For goodness sake no!... “

Ironically you overstated the threshold in the first half but just seem muddled in the second.

” Why would you think it isn’t?”
People are normally entitled to a presumption of innocence. Thus there are more steps involved as people's lives aren't interfered with without good reason. The situation you described attracts attention. In this case there were at least two separate investigations. The latter investigation was an extremely broad coronial enquiry. From there it would go to trial if the DPP determined there was sufficient evidence. Do you see how things are a little more sophisticated than you assume?

”You seem to be really struggling ....”

Perhaps I am struggling to see why it isn’t obvious to you that no justification is necessary. I am trying to work out why you don’t get it. The QPU simply criticized a breach of due legal process.

The Criminal Misconduct Commission said the evidence was not capable of proving before any disciplinary tribunal that Hurley was responsible for the death. The DPP determined the evidence was not capable of supporting a manslaughter charge. It seems patently obvious. Only a hired gun and a lynch mob argue otherwise. What is the go?

outhouse jack, you're not worth the effort..

Young Dan, the reason that the Union rage over the prosecution has gone quiet is because it is now before the Court and stirrers like yourself and Hagan should also respect this. It is disgraceful that Hagan has raised this issue at this late stage despite it being sub judice. The same goes for the other two officers you have mentioned that were charged in conformance with normal convention. No police officer would dispute the law taking its course as opposed to the Hurley matter.

Hypothetically, can you imagine Hagan going off his brain if an aboriginal was adversely mentioned in a Coroners Report, the DPP failed to prosecute and then the government indicted that person anyway? You can bet there’d be more than marches on parliament

Mjpb, we are obviously going to get nowhere in this discussion. I’ve said all that I need to say. I’m not going to start repeating myself. So We’ll just have to leave it for others to judge.

I’ll just reiterate the most important things; the police need to be as accountable and to be seen to be as accountable as anyone else. When there are grave circumstances, as there are in this case, then charges and court proceedings must surely be seen as mandatory. The police should be upholding this fundamental principle. They can’t let this principle be violated and then express outrage at some lesser principle. That does not compute – unless they really are motivated primarily by the desire to keep Hurley and hence all police above the law.

"Mjpb, we are obviously going to get nowhere in this discussion."

Well at least we have reached a point of agreement.

"the police need to be as accountable and to be seen to be as accountable as anyone else."

I can see how that might be relevant. Was my mistake that I assumed your concept of being seen as accountable was concerned with civilized justice systems that support human society and uphold principles such as innocent until proven guilty? Are you being totally literal? Do you consider justice a popularity contest? If someone is made to look bad then they and their family should face a criminal trial for a year and be suspended from work during that time until they can prove their innocence? The DPPs findings regarding sufficiency of evidence is just an annoying detail to address?

"When there are grave circumstances, as there are in this case, then charges and court proceedings must surely be seen as mandatory."

I'm grateful that you are not in a position to rejig the legal system or we would be stuck with the 'lock up doctors' principal where anyone in the vicinity of a deceased person would get locked up until a jury decided whether they were guilty or innocent. I would consider that barbarism. You would consider it applying a higher principle.

"The police should be upholding this fundamental principle. They can’t let this principle be violated and then express outrage at some lesser principle."

It would be deliberately obtuse to pretend to assume that you are referring to innocent until proven guilty as "some lesser principle" beneath your 'lock up doctor' principle. I assume you are trivialising political interference due to a lack of understanding of the big picture.

"That does not compute – unless they really are motivated primarily by the desire to keep Hurley and hence all police above the law."

Then what needs to be said to make you compute the fact that the 'lock up a doctor' principle is neither a part of our justice system nor a workable idea.

Ludwig,

Sorry if I was too short with you yesterday. A human being is involved so I felt pretty strongly about your mix up. Many seem to see him as a symbol of something and want the poor guy to hurt whether he is innocent or guilty. To them it doesn't matter. Cops have to be taught a lesson. I have read your posts after reading all that and the posts do attempt to rationalise pretty shabby treatment of this man. Hence my reaction.