“ ‘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.”

MIGHT be relevant?? In some circumstances… perhaps…maybe??

I’ve found your position on this issue to be highly confusing. But suddenly it seems a whole lot clearer – apparently you really don’t consider this most important premise to be very important at all!

I just don’t get how you can keep on referring to the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ principle. That’s a solid part of my argument. It doesn’t seem to fit with yours at all.

How on earth can you advocate this principle and then not advocate a transparent determination of guilt or innocence? How can you say that Hurley should not be tried in the circumstances??

What you really seem to be advocating here is ‘innocent, end of story’.

You feel very strongly about the treatment of Hurley. But you don’t at any stage seem to feel anything about the treatment of Mulrunji.

With respect (and I have a lot of respect for you and your concerns over this issue and others that we have debated on this forum), everything that you have said appears to be a rationalization to this end – protect Hurley at all costs, as you are an ex-police officer and continue to feel impassioned solidarity with the police.

It is certainly not coming across to me as a balanced perspective

“ ‘the police need to be as accountable ..."

”MIGHT be relevant?? …??”

The issue is political interference in the judicial process for one individual. Police accountability seems irrelevant unless you think a different system should apply to police. However I had a theory as to why you might say it.

”...apparently you really don’t consider this most important premise to be very important at all!”

It is not a premise. It is a unique theory that I am suggesting is not practical or fair.

”How on earth can you advocate this principle (innocent until proven guilty) and then not advocate a transparent determination of guilt or innocence?”

The principle prevents lynch mobs and innocent people being punished (as much as possible). Transparency ensures reliability and inspires confidence. Two different issues. If you think it isn’t transparent why make an exception for Hurley then go back to business as usual?

“ How can you say that Hurley should not be tried in the circumstances?? “

Because it is a bastard of a thing to do to a human being to put them through a year of suspension and criminal trial when anyone else in their position would have it all behind them.

”What you really seem to be advocating here is ‘innocent, end of story’.”

What I am advocating is equal treatment for all.

”You feel very strongly about the treatment of Hurley. But you don’t at any stage seem to feel anything about the treatment of Mulrunji.”

If you don’t feel you can support your position without resorting to that you need to ask yourself why? You realize for that to make sense requires a guilty until proven innocent assumption? In case it is not just a nasty diversion I need to point out that noone is arguing that Mulrunji should die but you are arguing that Hurley gets shafted. Hence the topic of my comments.

”With respect ...”

I need to clarify that my employment history is part of your assumption. Other people may not realize. It is not clear in that comment.

I can’t make any sense out of that at all mjpb. So I’ll just have to stick to what I said two posts back and leave it for others to judge.

No problem Ludwig and I’ll comment on it again in case it helps.

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

A man (police officer) is in going to trial in circumstances where people would not normally go to trial. The justice system was derailed by political interference. It makes no sense to talk about police accountability in a situation where a police officer is more accountable than the rest of the community. If it were the other way around and the DPP decided to send a police officer to trial but Beattie interfered and there was no trial than the issue of police being accountable and being seen to be accountable would be relevant.

The justice system shouldn't be based on lych mob rule and reputation from Courier Mail reporting with people needing to go to trial to prove his innocence if the Courier Mail doesn't favour them.

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

There are grave circumstances every day of the week. For example a little child wandered onto the gateway highway during the night and was killed by a driver. Obviously it was investigated as drivers often do the wrong thing and if the kid would have been alive if they hadn't done the wrong thing then they should go to trial. There was no indication that the driver was at fault and no charges were laid. If there is any suspicion and if the grave circumstances are irregular then the situation gets examined and if there is sufficient evidence to send someone to trial then they go to trial.

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

The higher principle is innocent until proven guilty. Sufficient evidence of guilty = trial. Insufficient evidence of guilt = no trial.

“That does not compute…”

Of course not because (fortunately) your principle doesn’t exist.

Oh no, you’ve sucked me back in to the discussion. Hwaww!!

“A man (police officer) is in going to trial in circumstances where people would not normally go to trial”

Why do you say this? It is crystal clear to me that the circumstances would warrant a trial, no matter who was involved.

I haven’t heard this argument from anyone else mjpb; that in being committed to trial Hurley is being treated in an unfair manner, that the general public would not be subjected to under similar circumstances.

“The justice system was derailed by political interference.”

No! You surely cannot hold the view that any political action would automatically be inappropriate. Obviously the government was within its powers to have the DPP’s decision reviewed. This sort of check and balance is essential. The DPP (nor any other authority) should have total autonomy in decision-making. There surely must be provision for scrutiny and review.

The government represented the feelings of outrage expressed not only in the indigenous community, but the whole community across Queensland, and Australia. In these circumstances, and with a lack of strong and convincing justification from the DPP for its decision, the issue was rightly reviewed.

Your driver-hits-child-on-freeway example is irrelevant, as there was no evidence, indication or suspicion that the driver was at fault. Obviously the Hurley-Mulrunji situation is completely different.

“If there is any suspicion and if the grave circumstances are irregular then the situation gets examined…”

Absolutely.

“…and if there is sufficient evidence to send someone to trial then they go to trial.”

Well, what do you call sufficient evidence? If there is insufficient evidence to alleviate strong suspicion, then the matter should go to trial, especially if it is unlikely that more evidence will emerge. If there is a feeling that more evidence could come to light, then it is reasonable for the police or relevant authority to hold off, if there are not likely to be adverse consequences in not dealing with the relevant person quickly. It can get very difficult. There are lots of things to consider in many cases.

continued

If there is insufficient hard evidence, an acquittal may well result, although that would depend on the development of a total perspective of the whole affair and how it is viewed by a jury or judge. This holistic and intricate overview is simply not gained in initial inquiries, in all but very simple cases. So a decision not to proceed with legal action needs to be taken only if one is pretty sure of innocence, overriding mitigating factors or lack of indictable evidence.

We should definitely not pre-empt a court judgement by not committing someone to trial who is under significant suspicion of grave wrong-doing. You would essentially be judging them to be innocent if you did that. And you can’t judge them to be innocent if there is a strong suspicion of guilt, until the issue has been properly examined.

Mjpb, by your reasoning guilt must be decided before a legal process is even considered. Also by this reasoning it can be acceptable for someone to remain under deep suspicion but not face a formal and transparent analysis of the situation at all! That doesn’t sound like justice to me!

In fact this has been something that has worried me for a long time – police effectively acting as judge and jury, and the courts basically rubber-stamping their decisions. I think this happens a lot of the time, especially with minor issues. But that’s another story.

It becomes very difficult to know how much evidence is enough. You can’t just harangue people over some suspicion without a fairly strong indication of guilt. I sympathise with the police and other regulatory authorities over the difficulty in deciding just what course of action to take in many cases.

But neither I nor thousands of disgusted people across the country can see how there could be a lack of rather compelling hard or circumstantial evidence in the Hurley case.