Citizen,

Wow! that was some real original thought there!

I've never read something like that before, so informed and educated it blew me away.

Which chapter of the KKK do you belong to??

Citizen, you are wasting your time. Rainier has a built in set of blinkers which prevents him from seeing anything that is posted about aboriginals as perhaps having some relevance. The death of Doomadgee was certainly an outrage, as is the failure of the DPP to presecute the perpetrator, but so are the deaths of all the other aboriginies at the hands of their fellows which never get reported. Rainier, find someone in Alice Springs and see if you can get a handle on the aboriginal homicide problem before you make any more postings.

Well I was disgusted with Leigh and his outright racist venom.

But Citizen's pretend acknowlegement of the problems faced by indigenous people followed by a kick to the guts was even worse.

I have heard the argument before that aborigines, despite "every effort" we make to help them, drink it all and laze their lives away. There is something to be said for individual responsibility, however the reality is that it is a social problem for the whole of our society. Throwing money and programs at them and telling them to smarten up is of little use if they have limited opportunities. Considering many white people have limited opportunities, aborigines are going to find it even harder.

Aborigines have particular problems relating to relatively recent attempts to annihalate them, destroy their families, deprive them of their land, and erase their culture and assimilate them into a culture completely foreign to them. It is so patronising to say that we have made "every effort" to help them so they should be able to get on with it by now. Who the hell are we to judge what is right for them and whether they should be over it by now?

Even white people who have suffered trauma in their lives, or even in their family history, can have problems such as acoholism, drug abuse, emotional problems etc.

This refusal to even go through the motions of charging Hurley reveals the contempt the ruling classes hold for indigenous people and working class people generally. It is undertandable that Aboriginal people feel helpless and frustrated. As a white person I am sickened.

You can't make a decision to prosecute just based on an emotional or political reaction. It has to be a decision made on the facts. One cannot say that because the Coroner decided that Hurley caused Mulrunji's death, then the DPP must also decide Hurley should stand trial. The standards of proof and the evidence which would be admissible are different in an Inquest and in a criminal trial. As I have argued in my post on this topic, the DPP had certain factors to take into account.
http://legalsoapbox.blogspot.com/2006/12/palm-tree-justice.html

As a lawyer, from what I know of the facts of this case, I personally would have decided to prosecute Hurley. However, that is not to say that it is an easy decision.

The reason why I think that there is a case against Hurley is because in his initial statements of interview with police, he said he did not fall on Mulrunji. Therefore, the injury must have been caused in some other way. The autopsies disclosed that severe compressive force would be needed to cause such an injury. Mulrunji seemed to be fine but intoxicated when taken from the police van and could not walk by the time he was deposited in his cell. If Hurley did not fall on Mulrunji, then an inference can be drawn that he applied severe compressive force in another way (ie, by hitting him) during the time Mulrunji was taken from van to cell.

That's my 10 cents worth.

Legal Eagle

It is very hard to comprehend why there is such an issue about deciding whether to prosecute Hurley or not. In just about every situation, if the police think that there is a case to be answered, charges get laid and the matters get sorted out in court. Obviously there is a case to answer here.

Surely in a matter this serious, an extensive open examination of the matter in a court of law should be seen as essential.

As you say, there is considerable evidence, or compelling hearsay, or conflicting accounts, that are well and truly sufficient for Hurley to be charged. As to whether this evidence holds up in a court of law is another thing. But surely the only circumstances where he shouldn’t be charged would be where he is patently not at fault.

The Director of Public Prosecutions decides whether to prosecute based on;

The evidence being deemed to be sufficient to justify proceedings and

The level of public interest in getting a prosecution or an acquittal, or in short to have the matter formally and transparently sorted out.

Clearly there is a prima facie case here. Clearly the evidence is sufficient to justify proceedings. A jury could well reach a guilty verdict based on the nature of Mr Doomadgee’s injuries and expert testimony as to how they could have been caused, even in the absence of hard evidence as to Hurley’s actions or lack of actions in this regard.

And it is patently obvious to all that there is a huge public interest component.

So, how on earth Leanne Clare reached the conclusion that she did is beyond me.

I hope to goodness that the review comes to the opposite conclusion.

Please read this article if you want to understand Palm Island and it's history.
http://www.faira.org.au/lrq/archives/199901/stories/shameful-white-history.html

I don't think most people understand the circumstances leading up to the death of Mulrunji.
1. He did not have a criminal record.
2. He was not a violent person.
3. He was a well respected leader in his community.

He did not fit the stereotype that most non-aboriginal people have of Aboriginal men.