From today’s Crikey:
The reaction of Queensland police and their Union to the decision by Attorney-General Kerry Shine to charge Senior Sergeant Chris Hurley following Sir Lawrence Streetâs review of the DPPâs decision can only be described as intimidatory.
Police in Brisbane voted yesterday to march on Parliament House, following similar decisions by meetings at Townsville and the Gold Coast earlier in the week.
The rhetoric of the Police Union refers to âpolitical interferenceâ? with the DPP and the government bowing to âthe reaction from minority groupsâ?.
The Police Union has developed a new and surprising interest in the implementation of the Royal Commission into Black Deaths in Custody recommendations, but refuses to be placated by a promise that the Crime and Misconduct Commission will investigate resourcing and other issues in Indigenous policing.
But itâs obvious that the real source of police and union anger is the fact that charges have been laid for the first time over an Indigenous death in custody.
The response of Police Minister Judy Spence has been bizarre and contradictory.
Known for acceding to almost every request the Police Union ever makes in order to neutralise law and order as an electoral issue, the Minister sat silently in the front row of the Brisbane meeting while speakers denounced the government.
She justified her presence as signalling attention to their concerns, and claimed some political virtue through pointing out that street marches and public protest had been authorised by a Labor government after the Fitzgerald Inquiry.
Fitzgeraldâs report, of course, was an object lesson in demonstrating the dangers of governments and police using each other as political tools.
Many Labor members are frustrated by the Ministerâs tactics, and the inability of Premier Beattie to ensure that the carnival of errors that followed the findings of the Deputy Coroner into Mulrinjiâs death stops.
Beattie needs to grasp the nettle and resist the attempts of the Police Union to deter any serious investigation and prosecution arising over future incidents. Thatâs what this issue is all about, and Beattie is displaying anything but his usual sure political touch in its handling.
Mark, what do you make of the combination of:
(a) Attorney-General Kerry Shine’s initial response to the DPP’s finding that there were no grounds for a successful prosecution of Sgt. Hurley i.e. a call for Murris to basically let bygones be bygones and let’s now move on to look at the underlying causes; and
(b) a number of articles by pro-Labor commentators such as Dennis Atkins and Terry Sweetman defending the DPP’s finding and urging a shift of focus to more general issues relating to deaths in custody rather than persisting with the Mulrunji case?
My impression-cum-intuition is that the government was hoping the DPP’s finding would be the end of the matter and avert unpleasantness with the Police Union, and that Sir Laurence Street’s subsequent finding that Hurley has a case to answer is, for the government, what we AFL types refer to as a “hospital handpass”.
I find some dusted-off old articles by Janet Allbrechtson work very well in these situations. After all we have ‘the most corrupt organization in Australia’ right here in Victoria. The Victoria police. Just copy to notepad and add ‘ police’ before every mention of corrupt union scumbags, bullies, thugs, liars, goons, goombahs and no-hopers holding the countryside to ransom.
Works the same in any country.
Paul, I think you’re right. But I think the dynamics of the situation have changed now and we’re seeing a very dangerous situation where essentially the police are planning to march in the streets to demonstrate against someone being charged with an offence. Beattie needs to get off the fence!
So much for outlaw bikie gangs, the Qld police seem intent to steal their mantle.
Makes you wonder if the police believe that the courts can be trusted to come to the right decision, based on the evidence presented. It’s a sobering thought either way.
Isn’t it grand, the finest representatives of her majesty’s ever vigilant and watchful constabulary will march on Parliament House in Brisbane. Mulrinji’s death was just another unfortunate case of an accidental Black Death In Custody. Happens all the time. Participating police should carry large banners of facsimiles of Terry Lewis and Jack Herbert to bolster their claims that the integrity of Queensland coppers is above reproach.
What’s the point of a culture war on the QPU? Unions aren’t always in the right and sometimes their internal politics can play to the most retrograde elements, public meetings are not always the most rational forum. Its the ‘tactics’ of Queensland Labor in government that deserve a hard look.
Members of the Police service have the right to march the same as anyone else should (despite the irony), although I wonder who will control the traffic and marshall the marchers and be on hand in case unruly behaviour breaks out?
Whilst I agree with the comments about the over-reaction of the Union and its members to the situation, it does once again divert attention from where the ongoing public pressure for action really needs to be directed, which is the state government.
Who the far king heh’ll do the Qld police think they are?
Someone who has captive a belligerent and recalcitrant person, manhandles that person, and is charged with manslaughter when that person dies in camera from violent injuries. And the problem is….? (with the charges I mean)
So there is political “interference” in the justice system? Not before time. The political interference is not of a corrupt nature, to influence a verdict. It is merely to kick-start the judicial process.
Every day police officers make similar discretionary decisions on whether to charge someone, or which charges to lay.
The police union objects to such decisions being subject to possibly scrutiny by someone (the public) who has the power to reverse such decisions.
They have been a law unto themselves, and will kick & roar no end at having this taken from them. There will be scant sympathy from the public.
Well Senator, if you agree to ride one of those cool dirt bikes and stop traffic for the march, I’ll take photos and videos of everyone who turns up and put them on the ‘known subversive’ file
But seriously, what do people think has caused this new situation? I said publically when the Street review was announced how suspicious I was of it (even though Sam Watson, one of the local indigenous leaders, was quoted as being very pleased).
Now that it turns out I was wrong, I’m not sure what to think.
The Government and the Courier-Mail are both being strongly criticised by police. Although I’d seen the website, it was only when I went to Coles today that I saw the C-M’s front page story: a picture of the assembled police at the union meeting, with ‘A Law Unto Themselves’ in what must have been at least 72-point type.
Is the public mood, out among the people who generally don’t care about politics, on the right side on this issue? I heard some very nasty remarks as I passed bystanders at the Invasion Day march last Friday: “Are they serious?” My cynical side assumes that the majority of the population think like that.
Perhaps I am wrong, and Beattie and the C-M are reacting to a changed public mood.
It can’t be just because the ‘usual suspects’ like me are protesting.
I remember when I moved to Qld 4 years ago thinking just how much the cops up here strutted around like they owned the joint. I also remember, in 1998, seeing (on TV) one of those Wilderness-Society-koala-costumed people crashing Borbidge’s environment policy launch and being roughly shoved to the ground on camera by a cop or security guard. The roughness didn’t shock me, but the fact that the security detail appeared to have no second thoughts about doing such a thing on camera did.
So, are things changing? Are all my fellow southern immigrants to Qld bringing up different ideas about how police should behave, along with a taste for AFL? Are ‘native’ Queenslanders changing their opinions on their own?
Actually, David, when I heard the Sir Laurence Street had been appointed to review the Mulrinji case I was completely assured and knew that the Queensland government was taking the matter seriously. The man has a reputation for independence and probity that is second to none.
Perhaps this is, in part, because his mother was Jessie Street. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessie_Street
Thanks for that link GregM, goes to show I should have looked more at Street’s record, and heritage and less at my own suspicions.
Just had a note in my email saying there will be a community meeting on Tuesday, at which all are welcome, at Jagara Arts Hall, Musgrave Park, South Brisbane to discuss how to respond to the police union’s planned march.
Meeting is from 1pm-2.30, and please bring a plate to share.
The police union is doing more than march. Its near electioneering-style ‘Mr Beattie’ radio ads, which demonstrate, inter alia, the QPU’s “new and surprising interest in the implementation of the Royal Commission into Black Deaths in Custody recommendations” are on the QPU web site here
http://www.qpu.asn.au/
I heard these ads broadcast on radio today.
Senator Bartlett’s comments about protest management were amusing and ironic, and it is to be hoped that there will be no marbles thrown under the horses hooves in the course of the march (How dare they stop us exercising our democratic rights!).
More seriously, this appears to be a case of the union jumping to the defence of its constituency without regard to the prima facie aspects of the case. The sheer disparity between the findings of the Deputy Coroner and the DPP in my view clearly warranted a review, despite Beattie’s initial calls for Mulrunji’s people to accept ‘the umpire’s decision’.
If the union were truly concerned to protect the integrity of the Queensland police service, and ultimately the interests of its members, it should welcome full testing of any claims of wrongdoing.
Mulrunji died in the name of enforcing the law of at best petty (and unproven) crimes. His loss is a tragedy and the police, as the wielders of significant power, must be called to account. And, by the way, I’m a staunch supporter of unions.
If the Police union really is determined to play hardball, perhaps the Government could review their decision to allow them to turn up armed at demonstrations – something the public was promised they would not do when pistols weree first issued to them. Are they planning on turning up armed to the teeth when they march on parliament?
The use of capsicum spray, high speed chases,move on powers and the ubiquitious pressure point tactics which police apply to suspects could be scrubbed. Stress leave and the earning of extra income by doing roadwork shifts after hours could also be reduced.
A little bit of pressure from the Government and they will soon back off but I just wonder when is the next vote for positions within the union – it must be soon by the way they are behaving!
I forgot to mention strip – searching which has always been their favorite form of voyeurism for police union members that would take the fun out of the job for them!
Egads! Not unions doing what unions do best? Who’d a thunk it eh?
I do think the only point obby can offer these days is the one at the top of his head.
Obby at least you are consistent. I would expect nothing but exclusive support for the rich and powerful members of unions, balanced of course by your dismissal of other unions and support for the unfair Workchoices legislation.
Unfortunately the Police Union has painted themselves into a corner and will now have to pay for their stupidity.
Unions not doing what unions do best.
The Qld Police union should concentrate on remuneration for its members like they do in Bracksland Nabs http://origin.www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21160959-661,00.html
Can you believe the nerve of those Vic coppers? Bracks off the top of his head, appoints light bulb Christine to wean the bastards off Robocop and Terminator and onto Moore Gore and the trogs won’t wear it.
I really will have to try peyote one of these days.
Make sure you’ve had a lot of sleep, anthony, and that you’re not particularly stressed or anxious. I’d recommend having a mate on hand.
Avoid occultist authors and journalists.
When the state government took the decision to charge Sgt Hurley with the death of Mulrungi the Police union must have been mortified.
I mean,to go from the union expecting the state government to bestow high honours on”one of theirs”for doing battle with the traditional enemy,my God and the government has the unmitigated gall to have this warrior for law and order charged!
What we have here folks is a Police culture that goes back over a hundred years,they have the authority, or so it would seem, from the point of view of the Public to do as they please.No matter your status in society,if you are not a Police officer you are not to be trusted,you are in essence a potential criminal.The Police Force unfortunately are a necessary evil,and slowly but surely they are becoming our masters and not our servants.
It is this culture that killed Murungi and not Sgt Hurley,and for that we must all share the guilt.
“It is this culture that killed Murungi and not Sgt Hurley,and for that we must all share the guilt.”
Speak for yourself white Dreamtimer. Personally I don’t know anyone who was going peaceably about their daily, law abiding business, being beaten up or murdered by coppers, but then I must live in another dimension to you. True, it could be just another State.
“Speak for yourself white Dreamtimer. Personally I don’t know anyone who was going peaceably about their daily, law abiding business, being beaten up or murdered by coppers, but then I must live in another dimension to you”
At last Obs,you have admitted to what others have suspected for some time.
Oh and by the way, save me the speak for your self ” white Dreamtimer” Obs your thoughts and motivation on idigenous affairs need no examination on this blog.
Sound advice Devil sir, but I don’t think I’m up for the interdimensional travel.
Did I read this correctly? Good grief.
I think it’s true. I have heard there has been one other case of police being charged for violence towards an Aboriginal person (in WA?), but I think that was for assault.
Rhetoric that I heard from the Qld police union was along the lines of “it’s not just noisy minorities that can march on parliament”. Let’s just hope that they get the same indifference from pollies and medja that we who protested against involvement in Iraq and various other minority and unimportant issues.
The other interesting thing is that there is so much bitching and whinging about how tough the job is now while police numbers have doubled in recent years and the population of Queensland certainly isn’t keeping up with the rate of growth of the police service.
If I was Beattie I wouldn’t even bother walking outside parliament to meet these armed cowboys who are an insult to the citizenry it is in theory supposed to protect. The Palm Island fiasco seems to tell us we are safer when not in the custody of these protectors.
I must admit that, even as a non-lawyer, after I read the full coroner’s report, and before the DPP announced her decision, I thought “Yeah, he committed manslaughter but there’s no way you could convict him of it – most of the evidence wouldn’t be admissible.”
But :
1) That doesn’t excuse the extraordinary hypocrisy of the QPU.
2) Hurley should surely face disciplinary charges for his undeniable failure in duty of care after the incident. The coroner went about as far as she could in pointing this out
After all, IMO that is also the morally worst thing – a square-up in the heat of the moment after being punched is maybe understandable, if unprofessional and illegal. But not looking after someone obviously in agony far beyond that you’d expect from a few bruises isn’t forgiveable. That he hasn’t been disciplined for this, along with the way his mates looked after him in the initial investigation, leaves you with the worst suspicions about the competence and honesty of the Qld cops.
People are right to be angry. As they say, you’re not tough on crime if you’re not tough on official crime.
I think people are missing the point. The actions of the QPU and the Queensland Police have one intention only – that is to ensure that Hurley is found not guilty. That is, they are deliberately acting in contempt of court. They can get away with this because the charge has not yet been laid! It might never be laid. But in case it is, the QPU wants to ensure that no sane citizen will be game enough to go on a jury and vote for a guilty verdict.
Mind you overkill has always been the great weakness of autocracies.
I do keep having to remind people that 5 police officers were charged with manslaughter of John Pat at Roeburne and. following their acquittal, the RCDIC was established. Indeed, this wasn’t the first time that police in W.A. were charged with murder or manslaughter – 2 officers were charged with murder following the Forrest River Massacres in 1926 – and acquitted following a similar public outcry. Mind you they murdered up to a 100 people (although they were only charged with the murder of half a dozen. Plus ca change…
“But in case it is, the QPU wants to ensure that no sane citizen will be game enough to go on a jury and vote for a guilty verdict.”
Good point kyangadac. Maybe ‘juries without borders’ are needed for indigenous Australians to get a fair go.
Everyone seems to be thinking that police union outrage is because ‘Mr Beatty’ has had the gall to charge one of their own. I think the real point here is the implications of the decision to bypass the DPPs decision not to prosecute Hurley, and also to do it in such an underhanded and political haymaking way – The decision, by no accident, was announced on the morning of Australia (aka Invasion) Day and announced to Andrew Boe, acting on behalf of the Aboriginal community before any of Chris Hurley’s legal advisors, and where it could be broadcast to a waiting protest of aboriginal community members.
I wonder what Street hoped to accomplish by his visit to Palm Island in his role as reviewer of the legally admissable evidence against Hurley? Visit the scene of the crime? Nope – that was burnt down and destroyed. Get a version from the witnesses involved? Already done by numerous investigators from the CMC and other investigative agencies. If he decided to not accept those versions, he had nowhere near enough time to speak properly to all of the people who could give their account of events. Placate activists, and through seeing the seriously deficient living conditions there, emotionally prejudice his own judgement – What do you think?
What this means to the non-police community of Queensland is should you become involved in an incident where you are investigated for a serious offence and it is decided by the DPP (the organisation independent to the government whose role it is to make this decision) and this doesn’t suit the government, they will second guess this decision and throw you to the meat grinder, just to suit their own agenda.
If he is acquitted, and it results in post Rodney King LA style riots,will they decide upon another charge to throw up against Hurley? Inciting a riot? Or will they just placate the mob and lynch him to sate their cries for ‘justice’.
So much for separation of the courts and parliament?
Bit late to be arguing that line Trent as the case is now before the courts. Give it a break and just wait to see what happens. Don’t want to see you losing all your cattle stations,racehorses and prime movers, now do we?
My mistake Steve, I thought this discussion was about trying to understand why the Police Union is reacting in the radical way it is.
Fair enough but this thing is so high powered that it pays to know when the game is over for the General public. Once the case is before the courts leave discussion of the facts of the case to those with legal advice or those who are prepared to lose all.
My my, it seems that people here have the knickers in a twist, How dare those dirty cops have their say? How dare they profess support for a colleague? How dare they! Just so that they are back at work tomorrow morning keeping me safe, investigating the usual murders, rapes, assaults, kiddie porn rings, frauds, drug deals, drug trafficking, drug producing, traffic accidents, suicides, street disturbances, hoons aka street racing and rolling blockades unexplained, reportable deaths, break and enters, shop stealings, domestics and general public nuisances….oh and get that drunken drug affected party goer off the street…he makes the place look messy.
Just so they do that while they under resourced, answerable to everyone who feels like making a complaint at the drop of a hat (or because they caught me speeding/talking on my mobile phone/driving through that annoying red light and I was most indignant/rude!)what with Police Ethical Standards Command and the CMC watching their every move (More accountable that ever since the Fitzgerald Inquiry)oh and make sure they are subject to random drug and alcohol testing. In the meantime make sure they don’t chase anyone or catch any one, but in just in case they do let’s have that ridiculous judicial system in place where the magistrates and the lawyers all lunch together at the pub over a few beers and all agree on that “Ten or Fifteen strikes and your out” policy before we actually jail anyone for something silly like running over someone in the street while driving drug/alcohol affected (again) in an unregistered /uninsured car whilst disqualified from driving!
And make sure they don’t dare disturb those nice bikies in their cute leather chaps and waist coats as they go about their business distributing their ecstasy/amphetamines/heroin/illegal steroids whilst extorting the local businesses. And….make sure they get around to my noisy neighbour, first thing on Friday night (when it’s really busy)and tell him to turn down his stereo and to stop yelling at his wife and kids because he has had too much chardonnay and I’m more important than most and I need my sleep.
Questions. Where will they find a jury? 12 jurors who are his peers? Worse still, what happens if the find him NOT guilty? Another white man’s cover up?
Have a listen to yourselves.
.. Jim, you left out something:-
For heaven’s sake don’t disrupt the police being a law unto themselves.
Steve,
They don’t have the time to be law unto themselves. Don’t forget this is all the Governments doing. The CMC and the DPP have already decided not to take action. And the good lord knows how officious the CMC are. The DPP, well she has had a bad year/s……The government had to shop this around until some one gave them the answer they wanted…you know …the one that was suppossed to make good press, you know, on Invasion Day…..
I see that everyone is already planning to confront the cops if and when they march. Why can’t everyone simply wait their turn?
So….stay at the pub.
A counter-protest, claiming that the police are trying to intimidate the Parliament (which is what is planned, I was at the meeting) is hardly ‘confronting’ the cops.
I also don’t see how putting someone in front of a jury, with all the protection of rules of evidence etc, is the same as throwing someone into the meat grinder.
The very difficult job that the police do does not mean they should be above the law, and immune to charges of violence. And the fact the job is very hard does not mean that we civilians need to keep our mouths shut when we think an injustice has been committed.
It would be wise for civilians to find out more about the realities of policing. But there should be no back-down on charging S/Sgt Hurley.
David
Do not believed what was discussed at your ‘meeting’ A counter strike…oopps protest? This is the chance for all the professional agitators and the rest of the great unwashed to have a go at the cops. What would be better, attack the police and disrupt their protest.
Just look at how the M1 protest were ‘hi-jacked’ down south and in other countries around the world.
Have a look at some of the ‘extremist’ websites, they already calling for volunteers to come to Queensland on free buses!
Most people don’t want to know about real policing…they just don’t want speed cameras. Most people would be appalled if they realized the depth of depravity out there.
And if they find S/Sgt HURLEY NOT Guilty, what then. Will you accept the verdict? I think not.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Professional agitators who go against the line that was laid down by the Aboriginal leadership of the campaign will definitely not be welcome.
The idea of physically attacking the cops was not even discussed, because it is clearly insane.
Perhaps you could provide a link to these ‘extremist’ websites so I can actually check your claim?
I’ll let you know what I think of the verdict after the trial, because I am keen not to prejudice it.
As I read some of these previous comments I am sickened of some people’s perceptions of police. Do you honestly believe everything that is printed in the media? These are just attention grabbing headlines which sell papers. Most of the guys and girls of the police service are hard working members of the community that are trying to do their best to keep the community safe. I can see why so many officers are resigning every week because of various reasons.
Do people realise that a watch house is used as a last resort. Often attempts are made to off load persons in custody to family members , however their attempts are rejected by the family because of the violent behaviour of the person. They are dammed if they do and they are dammed if they don’t.
There is no doubt that Chris Hurley is going to trial, the wheels are already in motion. That’s fine, but what happens if he is found not guilty. Is there going to be a riot because the desired result of a small minority was not achieved. The problem now is that the government has set a precedent in not accepting the view of the DPP simply to appease a noisy minority group. What credibility do the DPP or the CMC for that matter have now? To be honest, if anybody out there cares enough to educate themselves on the topic of the Cameron Doomagee death they will see that there is simply not enough evidence to support the charge of manslaughter. This will be evident in the trial because evidence just can’t be fabricated. A lot of evidence in a coroner’s court is not admissible in a criminal trial.
Who fits the bill for the trial when Chris Hurley’s solicitors ask for costs.(Not to mention the cost of the prosecutions and the bill to pay for Street’s opinion) I will tell you, the poor old tax payer which I happen to be.
The only problem with this whole situation is that everyone has an opinion but very few have the facts before them.
Actually it is Chris Hurley who has to foot the bill for his solicitors. Costs cannot be claimed for a criminal defence. The taxpayers don’t have to find a cent for him.
My guess is that anyone who fears repercussions in the event of an acquittal had better start taking precautions now.
Begging your pardon Chris, but evidence CAN be fabricated, it HAS been done before, by police. Including photographs of the “scene of the crime”.
I am unfortunately all too aware of the police propensity to drive home disorderly & violent street offenders, instead of locking them up & charging them. I see this as something which the police should be ashamed of, NOT something for supporters to be jerking their thumb as if it is a positive policing tactic.
What is is precisely which sickens you Chris?
First of all, I have acknowledged the difficulty of the police’s job in this thread:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/02/07/cops-take-to-the-airwaves/#comment-345895
The difficulty of that job does not meant that police should never be charged, if they committ an offence in the course of their duties.
I don’t know. I doubt it. Why would you focus on that? It would be just as legitimate to ask if the police actually plan to defy the government and refuse to serve in remote aboriginal communities.
So what are the police, if not a ‘noisy minority group’, who get to wear uniforms and guns?
What would you suggest a political system should do if a DPP makes highly questionable decisions four times in her term of office?
I refer to Volkers, Hanson, Fingleton and now Hurley/Mulrunji.
In the Mulrunji case, why did Ms Clare claim that the death was an ‘accident’? What evidence could she have possibly seen that would allow her to draw that conclusion? That is a lot different from merely saying “I don’t think a conviction can be obtained”. She claimed to be able to make a decision on the facts, which was not her role.
Do you say there should be no way to re-assess a prosecutor’s decision, however flawed? Or is justice to be measured by a majority vote?
The coroner’s report is here. People may wish to read it before accepting your assertion.
I won’t go into details for fear of prejudicing the case, but I note that Sir Laurence Street disagrees with you. As far as I can see, there is enough evidence that would be admissible in a court of law to make a prima facie case against S/Sgt Hurley.
(Very roughly translated, prima facie means ‘at first glance’)
Why on earth should Hurley’s costs be paid by the state? Are you assuming he will be found innocent?
It rather weakens your case when you seem to imply that you can live in a modern society, with all the benefits that are paid for by taxes, but you resent the cost of one trial.
Since you have mentioned very few facts in your post, what ‘facts’ – as opposed to unsupported assertions – to you refer to?
Steve:
“I am unfortunately all too aware of the police propensity to drive home disorderly & violent street offenders, instead of locking them up & charging them. I see this as something which the police should be ashamed of, NOT something for supporters to be jerking their thumb as if it is a positive policing tactic”
What the ….?
I am not aware of any situations where police ‘drive’ violent offenders home. I think you may be confused with Magistrates that keep giving these ‘violent & disorderly street offenders’ Bail and solicitors who keep telling sob stories about there clients and their drug habit/bad upbringing/molested by a parent background. Give em bail and a bit of community service and release them into drug rehab. In other words, put them back out on the street.
Or maybe you may be confused because police drive the odd intoxicated youth home to mum or the odd drunk home as an alternative to the watch house?
Let’s face it, it costs a lot of money to keep someone in our jails. so the crims are better off out in the streets. Nevermind about the associated crime…that’s what insurance companies are for.
One of the problems with our judicial system is that, having had a labour government for so long now, the courts are now full of weak ineffectual magistrates, mostly fron a defence background, that have been put there by the labour government. How many ex-prosecuters do see on the bench?
Why is hard to find good prosecutors?….because there is no money in it. If your a good/clever laywer then your a criminal defense lawyer, that’s where the money is. Only for the rich and infamous….and for everyone else we have soft magistrates.
Now I realize that I will ruffle a few feather here…but I ask you this:
Name five top defence lawyers and the names will just rattle off your toungue..Nyst, Potts, Gorman etc etc….now name one famous Prosecutor…..Clare? She is only known for her great decisions like…HURLEY, FINGLETON…..
Let’s be real here…..HURLEY has been set up to take the fall, no matter what. Sure he may actually be guilty, I can accept that. But look at how they have charged him…manslaughter and assault…ah the good old back up charge…the one that will be easy to slip in…a little double jeopardy if he was a normal member of the public.
So when a conviction is recorded for the assault after the Manslaughter charge gets thrown out…HURLEY can still be dismissed from the Service and that should make some, if not most of the disgruntled public feel better about the whole sorry affair.
As for the police union, they will have a few wins along the way. Who knows, HURLEY may get off. But the police do a very difficult and demanding job with little or no respect or appreciation from most sectors of the community. Police are told by magistrates in the courts that they should be more patient and that they should expect to be treated like dirt by the public, that they have to take the abuse and the violence, that they should be used to being spat on.
It’s not double jeopardy. Double jeopardy is being tried for an offence after you have been found not guilty of it.
It’s quite normal for the police to charge offenders with as many offences as fit the alleged actions. Do you think that the police’s difficult job means they should get treated differently in court if they are accused of an offence?
David,
Police already are treated differently in the courts…they always get harsher penalties….in the guise of” being a policeman is a responsability and should know better yada yada “…just look at the cops who get done for normal everyday drink driving….three time the usual penalty and disqualification….and that is before they get disciplned by the police service…loss of pay & rank/seniority etc etc.
If HURLEY gets off, they will come back with more charges..even if it just to get him removed from the police service.
I believe the criminal code has a bit to say about two (2) bites at the cherry.
As for “the courts are now full of weak ineffectual magistrates, mostly fron a defence background” have a look at the front page of the Saturday’s Gold Coast BULLETIN.
Lord, help us all………………
No doubt you have evidence to back up your assertions?
Meaningless guesswork. Unless you have a time machine, in which case I’d like to borrow it to get a few bets on.
And that would be…?
And are you certain that the charge of assault does not refer to these alleged actions:
(Coroner’s report, linked above, p4)
If you are indeed certain, please say why.
Jim, I am not confused. I know what is street violence. I know what is driving someone home. I have steadily expanding digital video files and signed incident reports which back up my statement. This will have ramifications for the career & promotion prospects of the local senior sergeant.
I know the difference between harmless intoxication & street violence. I have never seen the police drive home to mum an intoxicated youth.
I am unfortunately all too well aware of the limp wristedness of magistrates. I have tried very hard on two occassions to get a magistrate sacked. It is not possible until there is a law change.
The only way I know of for a magistrate to become effective is if that magistrate has been the victim of a violent street offence. Suddenly they transform into a hanging judge.
Until prosecuting becomes a prestige post, prosecting will continue to attract only the most inept.
Perhaps if prosecutors were elected, in the manner of local councillors. & had to justify to the public their re-election every 3 years, things would change.
The same method of public election, if applied to magistrates & police town commanders, would improve both services out of sight.
Steve,
You seem to be very critical of police etc. What do you suggest?
To quote you.
Steve:
âI am unfortunately all too aware of the police propensity to drive home disorderly & violent street offenders, instead of locking them up & charging them. I see this as something which the police should be ashamed of, NOT something for supporters to be jerking their thumb as if it is a positive policing tacticâ?
“Ashamed of”. Are you joking. It is written in police orders. Even the coroner has made a recommendation (# 11 if you care to read) that a further diversionary centre be established on Palm island to avoid taking people into custody. Now you are just being critical of police when they are doing the right thing. Are they ever going to be doing the right thing when you are the judge?
As for never having seen an intoxicated youth being driven home, well, this actually happens quite regularly. It just doesn’t make the papers for you to read on a Sunday morning with your latte’.
To David Jackmanson,
To answer where the DPP got the notion of “accident”.
The coroner found that the fall of the two men was unlikely to cause the fatal injury. (This means it’s possble though. It could have been an accident. Have you ever stopped to think about this before you became critical of the DPP decision) She (coroner-Christine Clements) went on further to say that the application of a knee or elbow (during or after the fall) was a possible means by which the injury occurred.
It is also possible that this wasn’t the case.
David,
In answer to your first question:
Yes, I do. It would be a matter of public record. I believe the latest one was the idiot copper who drove home drunk and crashed his car…in Brisbane. As for the discipline issue…all police are governed by the Police Service Administration Act 1990 which governs the disciplining and any subsequent fines/penalties of police officers etc amongst other things.
The time machine is almost finishedâ¦I have not yet decided on a colour for the paint. Any ideas?
As for the criminal code. Section 16 of Criminal code relates to ‘Person not to be twice punished for same offence’ I am only guessing, buts lets say the assault is a âcommon assaultâ which is a simple offence and can be dealt with in a Magistrates court.
Soâ¦â¦â¦â¦ IF HURLEY gets found not guilty of the manslaughter charge, they can take HURLEY back to the Magistrates court for the same offence? ie; The assault.
Now letâs hypothesize: Milrunji punches HURLEY in the face and HURLEY, before there is time for ‘passions to cool’, lashes back in self defense…
‘She said she saw the Senior Sergeant
hit Mulrunji â â¦in the side, or the ribâ?.’
How hard? Chuck NORRIS hard? Is this the blow? or maybe a possible knee during the fall?
Itâs possible that HURLEY may have a defence? I am not his lawyer, but I am guessing he is no dill.
From Chris:
âThe coroner found that the fall of the two men was unlikely to cause the fatal injury. (This means itâs possible though. It could have been an accident. Have you ever stopped to think about this before you became critical of the DPP decision) She (coroner-Christine Clements) went on further to say that the application of a knee or elbow (during or after the fall) was a possible means by which the injury occurred.â?
Now forgive me for being ignorant, but the alleged âaccidentâ or âassaultâ was all part of one continuous incident resulting in the subsequent death of Mr. Mulrunji and a manslaughter charge AND a assault charge against Hurleyâ¦Am I missing something? Was this not th one incident?
I am also led to believe that Mulrunji may have suffered injuries from a car accident a day or so before the incident? Can anyone confirm this?
No matter what happens now. This will be one for the book/s.
Steve. I agree with you on some things. There is always the CMC if what you say is true, as for the magistratesâ¦.I was thinking about a system where they get paid on a commission basis….say for the amount of crims jailed for their actual crimes in a given time period.
Just a thought:)
“The same method of public election, if applied to magistrates & police town commanders, would improve both services out of sight.”
Gee, and I thought you only believed the rule of law .308.
Though there is something to be said for have a local judiciary that’s plugged into the community a la the old Brit Magistrate’s Bench system.
On the other hand does anyone really want more election hooha in their muncipality? It’s basically adding a fourth level of government.
Nabakov,
I think the notion of having an eleted magistrate may have it’s merits but what happens around election time. Will they just try and chase the votes?
Same goes for police commanders at the local level. It would be like political interefernce at a local level every election time.
Police “commanders” or District officers as they are known in Queensland need experience in policing to carry out their duties. They are the officers that declare emergency situations etc under the Pubic Safety Preservaton Act, I don’t know if getting civilians in who are elected would be a positive move for operational policing and the community.
Chris, I wasn’t suggesting voting for police district officers, a remote figure on the coast or down south.
It is the sergeant in charge of the town whose job would be up for re-election every 3 years.
The most immediate effect would be the sudden ability of the police to crack down on street violence, hooliganism, and an easing off of booking middle class housewives for not wearing their seat belt in the car park of Woolworths.
Steve,
I actually think we may agree on something. There should be a push towards increasing public safety/decreasing street violence etc and police should limit action against Mr & Mrs Smith who may commit the odd minor traffic offence. Perhaps by using their discretion more often. I back this 100%.
The problem at the moment is that everyone taints police with the same brush. Every job has the good and the bad. Perhaps we should introduce a different system similar to New Zealand where they have real police and then traffic police with limited powers (i.e Department of Transport). Then they wouldn’t spread the budget out to cover overtime in their speed camera.
As for the local town perhaps they should turn over the Officer in charge every 3-5 years or so so they don’t become stale. Not bad food for thought.
Peter Black, Associate Lecturer in Law at the Queensland University of Technology compiled the below blog. His comments succinctly appraise the concerns raised by the Queensland Police Union and Commissioned Officers Union. The Police Service is constantly looking for qualified persons to join their ranks. Perhaps a few of the above learned bloggers who appear to be experts in policing may wish to join and make their valued contributions. Or is it simply easier to sit on the sidelines and pass judgement in an arena in which you display little if any experience.
http://www.freedomtodiffer.com/freedom_to_differ/2007/01/why_it_is_wrong.html
The below letter further explains the Queensland Police Unions exasperation at political interference.
http://www.thepremier.qld.gov.au/library/pdf/palmisland.pdf
Ben Bolbin, I am glad S/Sgt Hurley has been charged, but I said here that those who oppose police violence must also have a realistic understanding of just how hard it must be to police a remote community.
I reject the idea that civilians have no right to comment on police affairs, but civilians must be willing to listen carefully to police about the reality of the job.
The letter that you link to is a fairly academic explanation by the Queensland Solicitor-General, talking about the difference between the coroner and the DPP.
I have not yet seen anyone taking the side of the Police Union who has successfully answered these points:
1) Why was it appropriate for DPP Clare to definitively state that Hurley’s death was a ‘terrible accident’?
2) What pattern do DPP Clare’s decisions in the Hanson, Fingleton, Volkers and Mulrunji cases reveal? I suggest a pattern of refusing to use the law to prosecute people who are powerful or influential, and to jail in an absurd and vicious way those with no power who have stepped out of line.
That suggests that a political remedy may be required to get around someone whose actions in office damage justice.
Thankyou David for responding to my comments. I will answer both questions. 1) I am unable to comment on Clare’s comments.
2) There is no pattern in DPP Clare’s decision in the Hanson, Fingleton, Volkers and Mulrunji cases. She prosecuted Hanson and Fingleton based on the evidence. The justice system worked beautifully in these instances and both were found not to be guilty of their respective allegations.
You must remember, in the case of Fingleton, an investigation was commenced by the CMC and evidence gathered and provided to the DPP. Clare considered there was sufficient evidence and she was prosecuted on two occasions. In Fingleton’s own words, “because everybody missed the immunity, as I say, including myself. I feel pretty stupid, I have to say.” Everybody missed the immunity issue, the CMC, DPP, Defence, Magistrate, presiding Supreme Court Judge. This is the Chief Magistrate who is in charge of the Magistrates Act!!!!!!! Even she did not know her own Act. It was only when it reached the High Court that she was admonished. Thankfully, that is the justice system at work, and on this occasion they got it right. The DPP cannot be critised for that.
The DPP decided not to prosecute Volkers. They claimed they did not have the evidence. The reason it was such an outcry was because it was a high profile case and the media turned it into a circus, crucifying Volkers in the process. Had it have been Joe Blow swim trainer no one would have cared.
Again with Hanson. A high profile case. She won on appeal, the system worked beautifully.
And now we have Hurley. Hell, let’s crucify this bugger as well. He’ll do, he’ll be the scapegoat we’ve all been looking for for 200 years of aboriginal opression. The DPP stated he did not have a case to answer. That should be it. Done, finalised. But no. Because it is a political issue and The Australian and The Courier Mail are raising hell the government has to ‘make ammends’ to the aboriginal community and the people of Queensland. As a consequence to hell with what the DPP decides. We’ll shop around and get our own opinion, one that will appease the masses, to hell with the law. We’ll simply make it up as we go along. Joh didn’t know what the Separation of Powers meant. Beattie simply chooses to ignore them. And you call that justice?
I am not opposed to the concept that a decision by one person in the DPPs office can be brought under scrutiny, publicly discussed & possibly reversed.
Absolute tosh.
Hanson was prosecuted for, at worst, a breach of a technicality. There is no rule in the electoral act that says that political parties must be internally democratic, and it is not at all clear that having dual classes of members – one class who makes decisions, and one who is relegated to a ‘supporters group’ – means you have committed fraud in claiming all those people as members of your party.
I could write a party constitution that does exactly the same thing and stays within the letter of the law.
As for Fingleton, the written letter of the law specifically excused her from being prosecuted under the very offence she was charged with.
They both went to jail. The justice system failed in both cases. DPP Clare was the principal agent of that failure in both cases, which raises doubts about her ability to be DPP.
Rubbish. Hurley is being prosecuted for alleged offences he committed against one particular Aboriginal person.
When a DPP’s decision goes against the evidence that is obvious to everyone, then that DPP’s decision should be reviewed. Or do you think that there should never be a way for a DPP’s decision, no matter how bad, to be reviewed?
You obviously don’t know what the separation of powers means either. It comes from Montesquieu, and the prime example is in American political theory, which states that the legislature, the executive and the judicial powers should be separated.
In Australia, we already have a breach of the separation of powers, because Ministers and Heads of Government must be members of a Parliament. This is opposed to a pure separation of power, such as in the USA, where Executive officers and Presidents or Governors may NOT be members of the various congresses.
Also, the DPP is part of the executive branch, NOT the judicial branch. The Premier is the functional head of the executive branch. It is not a breach of the separation of powers for the head of the executive branch to intervene in an executive decision.
It would be a breach of the separation of powers if the Premier intervened to change the decision of a judge. NOT a prosecutor.
The separation of powers is NOT, in itself, a legal principle in Australia.
And even if it were, I would argue that to put an abstract theory before the interests of justice is a rotten way to run a justice system.
David, in response to your comments.
“Rubbish. Hurley is being prosecuted for alleged offences he committed against one particular Aboriginal person. When a DPP’s decision goes against the evidence that is obvious to everyone, then that DPP’s decision should be reviewed. ”
You refer to the ‘evidence that is obvious to everyone’. What evidence would that be? Are you referring to the evidence in the Coroners Report? The evidence the DPP relies upon must be admissable.
You further talk about the ‘interests of justice’. Out criminal courts are not about justice. They are about the law. That is the crutch of this whole debate – THE LAW.
The charging of Hurley in this instance is unprecedented in our states legal history.
Update: Hurley acquitted.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/palm-island-officer-not-guilty/2007/06/20/1182019160877.html