|
Just a few things: Firstly,your comments about Hurley misrepresent the facts. According to reports of peers Hurley did volunteer to work in Aboriginal communities and was keen to assist the aboriginal community. "Cameron Doomadgee was arrested and died in custody after a scuffle with the Senior Sergent." This does not automatically mean that Doomadgee was murdered. The facts provide another explanation. "And any decision about what do do with Sergent Hurley was also going to be made on political grounds. Like the decision to not charge Sergent Hurley..." Why? It fits the facts and was made by an independent department based on the advice of a retired judge. There is no indication it is political. "It's difficult not to sympathize with someone who has so obviously been charged due to political reasons, but he was a policeman, and that's the system he agreed to when he signed up." He couldn't have known there would be this type of political interference in the judicial process. It is unprecedented. "There will be a trial, and there will be process ('due process' is what they like to call it in some circles)." Due process would have been the normal process followed which would mean the DPP decision would have been the end of the line. That is the way it is with everyone else. "Anyone who voluntarily becomes a police officer is giving up their own morality and replacing it with the morality of the law. The morality of the government. The morality of the masses. The morality of the mob." That is a bit lateral don't you reckon. It is a bit of a stretch as an excuse for Hurley to be hung out and dried. "Morality and justice are replaced by 'due process'." But due process wasn't followed. There was political interference. Again in spite of your lateral stretch he may have signed up for due process not a breach of due process. It was unprecedented until it happened to him. Secondly news reports have been a bit misleading. It is often quoted that: "In her detailed 35-page report, Clements found that Hurley “hit Mulrunji whilst he was on the floor a number of times”. An Aboriginal witness saw Hurley “bending over” the prostrate Mulrunji, with Hurley’s “elbow going up and down three times,” and Hurley saying, “Have you had enough, Mr Doomadgee? Do you want more, Mr Doomadgee? Do you want more?... " This fails to mention that the witness said that the punches were to the head and were followed by kicks. Medical evidence ruled out kicks. This left the punches as a possibility. The coroner said it was open to her to rule that the punches were to the body to explain the fatal liver injury because she believed that the witness didn't have a good view. They also often quote: "On the basis of expert medical evidence, Clements specifically rejected the police suggestion that Mulrunji’s shocking injuries—his liver was broken in two, his spleen ruptured and four ribs broken—were caused when the two men initially fell to the floor together. “All the expert evidence also concurred that a fall together, side-by-side, of the two men onto a flat surface was unlikely to have caused the injury that occurred.” " This fails to mention that the three medical experts were unanimous that if 115kg Hurley had fallen on top that would explain the injuries. The quote is based on her decision that the men fell side by side rather than on top like the police witness believed that he observed and Hurley has indicated that he accepts happened. Also, contrary to the impression given by media generally, it needs to be clarified that Coroners do not make decisions about charging or not charging. They run an inquiry and are not a second DPP. They take in any evidence they find and try to work out what happened. If they think there could be a potential Criminal Law issue they refer things to the DPP. If someone said that an alien arrived and strangled Mulrunji they are entitled to include that in their report and form a conclusion based on that fact. Their concern is not guilt or innocence but simply an attempt to get some idea of what happened and gather evidence. Contrast this with the evidence that can be used in court. For a fair trial the evidence allowed in court is more restrictive. The DPP is the actual decision maker as to whether or not there is sufficient evidence to warrant a trial. They look at evidence that can be used in court and make their decision. They are concerned with whether or not a case can be made against someone. Although not widely emphasised in the media it is worth noting that in this case the DPP reportedly got advice from retired Supreme Court Judge Thomas. This indicates it was a careful decision. It is also worth noting that Thomas retired recently and had recent criminal law experience as a judge. He also has broad life experience having had a public school education and worked a total of 12 months as a builder's labourer. This contrasts with the elite background typical of the judiciary and would assist him to make sound assessments when issues like scuffles are involved. The above factors indicating the merits of the DPP decision probably explains why the CMC later made an identical decision (something not emphasised in the media). In response to a complaint (second bite at Hurley) they had to consider whether or not there is sufficient evidence that Hurley caused the death to proceed to a disciplinary tribunal. Their concurrance with the earlier decision by the DPP affirms the soundness of the DPP decision. This is not surprising given the care with which it was made and the calibre of advice that was taken into account in making it. Finally, since the article and previous comments, aboriginal activist Jessie Street's son, Sir Lawrence Street, headed a review of the DPP decision. He worked as a Barrister practicising extensively in Maritime, Commercial, Banking and Insolvency Law before entering the Equity Division of the NSW Supreme Court. This deals with probate/deceased estate matters, commercial matters, admiralty matters, and protective matters. The Common Law division deals with Criminal Law. He was then appointed Chief Justice of the NSW Supreme Court. Since his retirement in 1988 he has worked as a mediator in commercial matters. Street quickly advised that there was sufficient evidence to proceed to Criminal trial. Hurley has now been charged and is facing the stigma and stress of a trial for manslaughter. A verdict will probably be produced within about a year.
| 
