“It is crystal clear to me that the circumstances would warrant a trial, no matter who was involved.”

That is because you are wrong.

”I haven’t heard this argument …”

You didn’t notice the police union jumping up and down or read letters to the editor at the relevant time? Perhaps you were out at the backblocks of lower Cape York Peninsula at the time.

“The justice system was derailed by political interference.”

” You surely cannot hold the view that any political action would automatically be inappropriate.”

For a justice system to work it can’t be a political puppet. We aren’t talking about an institution reviewing a DPP decision we are talking about a once off political interference.

”… convincing justification from the DPP for its decision…”

Just because there has been a ‘trial by media’ doesn’t justify a review. Justice isn’t a popularity contest.

”Your driver-hits-child-on-freeway example is irrelevant, as there was no evidence, indication or suspicion that the driver was at fault.”

The hell there wasn’t. Someone is killed in any but the most clearly faultless circumstances and there has to be suspicion/investigation. Like Hurley there wasn’t sufficient evidence to proceed.

”If there is insufficient evidence to alleviate strong suspicion…”

That depends on what you call strong suspicion. Yes if you meant evidence admissible in court to make out a prima facie case and evidence that a reasonable, properly instructed, jury could convict on. No if you mean the opinion of the guy at the pub who isn’t familiar with the evidence and gets his facts from the media sensationalism.

“ 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.”

I explained above when to proceed when discussing strong suspicion. Innocence until proven guilty is presumed not vice versa.

”We should definitely not pre-empt a court judgement by not committing someone to trial who is under significant suspicion of grave wrong-doing.”

Justice isn’t a popularity contest. It is about hard facts not your beliefs about something you know nothing about.

”Mjpb, by your reasoning guilt must be decided before a legal process is even considered.”

Absolutely! No lynch mobs! People are innocent until proven guilty. However suspicion/investigation can be appropriate and if there is sufficient evidence of guilt they go to trial. If found guilty at trial then they are considered guilty and punished.

“… not face a formal and transparent analysis of the situation at all! That doesn’t sound like justice to me!”

I agree and it is totally irrelevant to the current situation. There was a formal analysis. Both the DPP and the CJC decided that there was insufficient evidence to send Hurley to trial or to disciplinary tribunal respectively for causing the death of Mulrunji. That is completely formal and transparent. The only way it could be more transparent is if every time the media whipped up a sensation every citizen was trained up to the level of an experienced Criminal Lawyer and were provided with all the facts of the case and an explanation of the DPP’s decision. Of course that would be pretty expensive and totally stupid.

” You can’t just harangue people over some suspicion without a fairly strong indication of guilt.”

Yes! That is why the DPP makes those decisions.

”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.”

For good reason:.
(a) You have no idea of the case.
(b) You have less than no idea as it is from media stories aimed at sensationalism.
(c) You are not experienced criminal lawyers and thus would struggle to make the requisite determinations.
(d) Your lack of knowledge and expertise doesn’t seem to bother you. You are prepared to screw around with someone’s life regardless.

“We aren’t talking about an institution reviewing a DPP decision we are talking about a once off political interference.”

Exactly! It was a one-off extraordinary circumstance. If it happened on anything like a regular basis, you might have some credence in your arguments about political interference.

Quite frankly, the argument that this political action was in any way inappropriate just completely doesn’t hold up. Afterall, the government requested that the decision be reviewed in a fully proper and rigorous manner. They didn’t just overturn the decision. And if the same decision had been reached, that would presumably have been the end of the issue.

Are you willing to accept that this second appraisal was as rigorous and unbiased as the first? If not, what do see wrong with it – what do you see as the critical flaw in their reasoning? Do you point your finger straight at the Qld government and directly accuse them of forcing this decision against the evidence?

Given that you are apparently much closer to the issue than I am, can you provide the nitty gritty on why the initial decision was made not to charge Hurley, and just what it was that the second examination found that they thought didn’t justify that decision.

Now isn’t this next bit interesting……

I wrote; ”Mjpb, by your reasoning guilt must be decided before a legal process is even considered.”

You replied; “Absolutely!”

Holy snort! You really do believe that guilt gets determined outside of the courtroom or formal legal process! How can you?? What is the purpose of the courts then? Simply to determine sentencing?

If this applies as a general rule, it basically means that a magistrate, judge or jury accept a person as guilty, or most likely guilty, due to the very fact that they have been charged and are in court! They are not starting from a neutral position, .....

continued

...let alone one of a presumption of innocence! Thus the person in question really is in a position of having to prove their innocence in court, rather than the fundamental legal premise of guilt having to be proved or shown beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution.

This issue of the police effectively being judge and jury is truly incredible. It explains a great deal in the Hurley case.

And finally, you wrote;

“(a) You have no idea of the case.
(b) You have less than no idea as it is from media stories aimed at sensationalism.
(c) You are not experienced criminal lawyers and thus would struggle to make the requisite determinations.
(d) Your lack of knowledge and expertise doesn’t seem to bother you. You are prepared to screw around with someone’s life regardless.”

a. Excuse me, I have a pretty good idea of the case. How could anyone who is interested in it not have, given the level of publicity?

b. Not all media is sensationalist. There is a lot of good balanced reporting and debate, and there has been no shortage of it over this issue.

c. Are you an experienced criminal lawyer? We don’t have to be trained lawyers to have a good feeling of what is right and wrong in this case and what the intent of the law is, without knowing the minute detail of it.

d. This is an open forum for ordinary members of the community. You don’t have to be an expert to partake in it. Are you an expert in this subject? For goodness sake, stop accusing me of screwing around with someone’s life and start respecting my motives of wanting to see this issue properly sorted out, with Hurley, the police, courts and government held accountable for their actions, and the principle of law upheld in such a manner as to be fair for the white and indigenous communities and for all individuals.

my sentiments exactly Ludwig, well put,
the acceptance of the proposition of "Aboriginal criminality" as natural, predictable, and thus deserving of anything police and the criminal justice system deal out as an acceptable level of justice is key to this whole issue.

Hundred of deaths in custody whereby no cause for suspicion was ever expressed bu the public or police is symptomatic of not just a criminal justice system gone wrong, but also a of a public blindness and compliance to this anomaly.

It took this long for people to realise that David Hicks deserves a fair trail.

I too hope Hurley gets the same. Its his legal right.

Rainier & Ludwig,

“It was a one-off extraordinary circumstance.”

Many extraordinary cases go before court because there is sufficient evidence. Many extraordinary cases don’t because there isn’t sufficient evidence. The difference here is media hype and political interference but justice is not a popularity contest. Singling out individuals or groups for unfair treatment is a problem.

”Quite frankly …”

Shouldn’t you preface that with “Yes Minister”?

”Are you willing to accept that this second appraisal was as rigorous and unbiased as the first?”

If you meant the CJC appraisal that was essentially an appraisal of the same thing for the same essential purpose (albeit for disciplinary tribunal rather than criminal court) I’d say yes. It was the second and it found there was insufficient evidence that Hurley caused the death to proceed. However I presume you mean Beattie hiring Street. At the least it doesn’t have the appearance. It did not involve a neutral departmental assessment. A carefully chosen individual was commissioned to do the job.

“...Qld government and directly accuse them of forcing this decision against the evidence?”

I wouldn't use those exact words but who do you think commissioned Street?

”Given …”

I am not from the DPP and don’t have access to those details.

”Now isn’t this next bit interesting……”
No. The rest of the paragraph is there for all to read.

” You really do believe that guilt gets determined outside of the courtroom or formal legal process! “

Just read the whole paragraph and you’ll see what I think. If it isn’t self explanatory please ask more specific questions.

”… it basically means that a magistrate, judge or jury accept a person as guilty, or most likely guilty…”

No the presumption of innocent until proven guilty continues. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt all elements of the offence. Checking if the case has legs first just stops innocent people from being subjected to the burden of criminal trial when possible.