his wholiness the rev drjon ([info]drjon) wrote,
@ 2006-12-14 22:19:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
It would appear that the Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions Leanne Clare believes that she is a better medical coroner than Christine Clements, the Deputy state coroner, and a better forensic pathologist than Dr Guy Lampe, Associate Professor David Ranson, Professor Anthony Ansford and Dr Byron Collins.
Ms Clare said the evidence was not capable of proving Snr Sgt Hurley was criminally responsible for Mulrunji's death, and said it was "a terrible accident''.
This is starkly contradicted by the Coroner's Report. Although it is probably better english to state that Leanne Clare flatly and starkly contradicts all medical investigative findings in this case.

And I am startled that the Premier, Peter Beattie, seems of the very strange opinion that folks should 'respect the umpire's decision'. The plain implication is that the Director of Public Prosecutions is an Umpire, an impartial, independent judge.

No, Mr Beattie. You're a bit wrong there. You'd be thinking of the person we call a "Judge" (well, we hope they're impartial, anyway), not the person charged with trying to persuade Judges that someone's guilty.

I'd go so far as to imply that you might be a bit more interested in trying to dampen down an obvious injustice than of seeing that justice is done in this case.

There's a rally next Wednesday, December 20th, 2006, at midday in Queens Park, Brisbane City, marching to Parliament House. The rally will demand that Director of Public Prosecutions Leanne Clare be dismissed immediately, because she has compromised the integrity of her office, which will cause enormous damage to the confidence of the Queensland community in the DPP.

That rally link is a good source of information, too. It includes the information that it's Mulrunji's family's custom and strongly-held wish that he not be refered to by the name he was called when alive, which fits with my understanding of the cultural practices being dealt with here. I find it facinating that the Coroner was willing to grant this courtesy, but that the Director of Public Prosecutions refuses to. Adding insult to injury there, I guess.

(Thanks to [info]beeefcake for the heads-up.)

ED: Interesting comments continue to flow at Senator Andrew Bartlett's 'blog.

(13 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]captainflux
2006-12-14 02:48 pm UTC (link)
I was pretty pissed off when I heard this, but not particularly surprised. Then I went back and carefully read the Coroner's report, and the statement from the DPP.

Unfortunately, I think it's likely that there isn't sufficient admissible evidence of the strength required to obtain a conviction. It's doubtful that it would even go to trial without an ex officio indictment.

It's pretty obvious to all of us - including, I have no doubt, the Director of Public Prosecutions - that the dead man was fatally assaulted by the police officer in question. I simply can't see it ever being proven beyond the legal definition of reasonable doubt in a court of law. Any competent criminal defence lawyer would be able to get even a charge of assault thrown out at committal, never mind perjury, manslaughter or murder.

There is no conclusive forensic evidence that Mulrunji's injuries were inflicted deliberately - it's the best explanation, but that's not enough for a conviction. The only witness who is willing to testify that he saw Mulrunji being assaulted, was by his own admission blind drunk at the time, so unfortunately, his testimony is worth pretty much fuck all in a court of law. The only other potential witnesses claim they witnessed nothing.

Senior police officers understand the rules of evidence and the protocols of a criminal trial very well. Given half a chance to cover up the evidence of their own criminality, they'll generally do a pretty good job of it. Senior Sergeant Hurley had quite a bit more than half a chance, and was a friend and former colleague of the officers charged with investigating him.

The whole sorry affair has been a clusterfuck ever since Mulrunji's unnecessary arrest. I don't think baying for the blood of the Director of Public Prosecutions is particularly useful, though.

From the DPP statement: “The evidence suggests that in this case, this could only be the result of a complicated fall (...) On the evidence, the fall is the only satisfactory explanation for the injuries (...) In other words, the admissible evidence suggests that Mr Doomadgee’s death was a terrible accident.”

Or, as Pricey O'Defence, Q.C., might put it in his summing up: "I put it to you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that the evidence you have seen suggests that this was nothing other than a terrible, tragic accident".

We all know how Mulrunji died, the difficulty for the prosecution is proving it. A criminal trial has much tighter rules of evidence than a coronial inquest.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Interesting response - I disagree, respectfully
[info]beeefcake
2006-12-14 03:23 pm UTC (link)
Thanks for your take on this, captainflux.

I suspect that you may not be far off when you say "there is no conclusive forensic evidence" that Mulrunji's injuries were inflicted deliberately.

But I think that a jury should be asked to decide if the evidence is conclusive or not. The evidence of the autopsy seems to at least be consistent with physical assault by Hurley, and surely the fact that Hurley has changed his story about the fall is admissible if you were to subpoena the original investigating detectives?

Pile up all the evidence you can against Hurley, building pressure for him to take the stand. Then cross examine him.

In my cynical heart, I can understand Premier Peter Beattie not wanting to pick a fight with the Queensland Police. But I do think this is a political decision, made to look like a legal one.

Thanks.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]drjon
2006-12-14 09:41 pm UTC (link)
I agree with you. But I think this issue lies, not with the evidence, but with the DPP's response.

Sadly, I'm not sure a fair and just outcome is likely--or even possible--in the situation. But that should not stop us making it clear that attempts to obscure the facts of the incident will be seen for what they are.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]minus9
2006-12-14 09:05 pm UTC (link)
Re Beattie, he also thinks that our smoking laws don't apply to people for whom it is a part of their deameanour. (Or who have lots of money.)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200612/s1811945.htm

I guess misdemeanours could be excused that way in court, now that there's precedent.

Not.

(Reply to this)


[info]araquel
2006-12-15 02:01 am UTC (link)
And I am startled that the Premier, Peter Beattie, seems of the very strange opinion that folks should 'respect the umpire's decision'. The plain implication is that the Director of Public Prosecutions is an Umpire, an impartial, independent judge.

Actually Beattie is probably correct here - my understanding of the DPP's role is that they determine what prosecutions can stand up to legal challenge. In that case, Clare very much *is* the Umpire. Which doesn't mean her judgment might not be flawed or subject to challenge and/or independant review - and I think this ruling urgently needs that - but I don't believe it's any more desirable for the DPP to allow their decisions to be influenced by public expectations than by political ones.

By and large, I'm in agreement with captainflux on yesterday's ruling. I don't think justice is being done, but I'm not sure there's anything to be gained by railing against the DPP for not subverting or breaking the legal system to reach the "right" answer.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]drjon
2006-12-15 02:17 am UTC (link)
Well, I agree and I disagree...

Beattie is dead flat wrong. Indeed, part of the DPP's role is to gauge likeliness of success in a prosecution, but if you want a comparative role, it's of a coach, gauging if a team member is fit to play. The DPP in no way has any comparison with the role of an Umpire. To assert otherwise is disingenuous, deceitful and damaging.

There is a truth in captainflux's comment, and in yours. That truth is that a prosecution might not succeed.

The problem is not the unlikelihood of a successful prosecution.

The problem is in the DPP's statement that it was "a terrible accident", in direct contradiction of the coroner and the attending forensic investigators.

There's a word for that.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]drjon
2006-12-15 02:22 am UTC (link)
(By "To assert otherwise...", I am referring to Beattie's assertion, btw.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]araquel
2006-12-15 03:49 am UTC (link)
Well, I think we're splitting hairs on Beattie, umpires and coaches, but arguing that point scarcely seems worth the cost in pixels...

I agree the DPP's statement was handled very poorly in a number of ways, but a number of the reactions I've seen (not necessarily yours, although even on multiple re-readings it's still possible to read your post this way) *are* focussing on the result rather than the language in which it was couched. And while I'm sure there are several words for the contradiction with the coroner's statement, I'm also wondering about the ethics, wisdom, and desirability of the DPP publicly branding someone a murderer (or a crime as murder or manslaughter) when they know they can't produce evidence to prove that.

If a DPP can't put their prosecutorial money where their mouth is, I'm not sure they can (professionally) or should (ethically) go on public record making claims of murder or manslaughter (which is what Mulrunju's death will almost certainly go to trial as, if it ever does), however accurate those claims are ... and if they can't call the crime by what it is (or in this case what the coroner concluded it was most likely to be), then I'm really not sure how else they'd describe Mulrunji's death without compromosing the integrity of their office as surely as if they came out and said "we're not going to prosecute him because he's white and a cop".

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]drjon
2006-12-15 04:18 am UTC (link)
I don't think it's splitting hairs to point out that Beattie's doing the pocket-piss.

And I think you might miss my point (that's okay, I might not have spelled it out well enough): for the DPP to not pursue a case for lack of evidence is a qualititively different beastie to the DPP publically implying that the Senior Sergeant is innocent.

There was no call for the DPP to be making assertions about the case in contradiction to the evidence. This is what they did: in fact, they went on public record making claims that in effect the Police Officer was innocent of possible charges of murder or manslaughter. There's a word for this.

In combination with the attitude of the DPP to the victim's family, this spells one thing alone.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]araquel
2006-12-15 05:40 am UTC (link)
I didn't miss your point, but If the DPP can't say he's guilty, what else are they supposed to say? If Murunji's death can't be called a murder or manslaughter, what can it be called? While the DPP *could* certainly have conceded every point you may have wanted them to make, after this has passed the office of the DPP still has to retain credibility and integrity for future prosecutions and I don't think that's possible if they issue public statements that say "_____ is a murderer/rapist/terrorist/pedophile but we can't charge him". That's reprehensible enough when politicians do it; it's arguably even more dangerous when the DPP does it.

I disagree that the DPP claimed Hurley's innocence even implicitly. Reading the DPP media release, I find it difficult to see how anyone could read this without coming away with a palpable sense of Hurley's guilt in circumstances that can't be proven in court. If a more comprehensive version of the ruling is online, though, I'd be happy to read it and stand corrected as to what the DPP actually said in full.

I also have to disagree - although less strongly - that there was no call for the DPP to making assertions that contradicted the coroner's report. The DPP ruling and the laws and precedents behind it create a legal reality that by its very existence contradicts the coroner's. I can certainly see why the DPP, knowing that, felt the need to address the conflicting outcomes of the two reports.

That the DPP bollocksed that up and then added insult to injury with its insensitivity to Murunji's name is unquestionable, and they certainly deserve some stick over that. But to allow that to become the major focus of people's anger and dismay is a mistake at best, and just plain misguided at worst.

That energy could be used far more productively in bringing pressure to bear on Beattie, Spence, and Shine into a review of or appeal against the DPP decision; in keeping the media inflamed so that instead of covering Beattie paying Robbie Williams' smoking fine, they're asking him about justice and aboriginal deaths in custory; in making sure that a week from now, the Queensland public haven't just forgotten the whole squalid Palm Island situation because they're behind on their Christmas shopping.

I believe - and I'm aware this makes me look naive in the current climate - that the DPP's ruling was made in good faith and in accordance with the law and legal precedent. I *don't* believe the matter couldn't have been handled better, that it should now be considered closed, or that urgent and intense pressure shouldn't be applied to the government and the police service (and police union) to ensure real and meaningful measures are put in place to stop this from happening again, and to make sure an angry thug in a uniform isn't allowed to get away with beating to death the very people he's supposed to be protecting with the complicity of fellow angry thugs.

But the DPP's part in this is over for the moment. The focus - the pursuit of the prospect of justice - needs to shift to the people and groups who have the power, if not the immediate political will, to push the issue further. It's not in anyone's interest to let Murunji's death go unanswered - not even the government's or police service's - but people have to be made to recognise this, and that can only be done by pressing forward. If *that* happens, then there'll be time and opportunity to come back to the DPP for those who still feel something needs to be done at that level.

If I could ask one thing, though - please, instead of repeating "there's a word for this" or "this spells one thing alone", just say what you mean. Continuing to do otherwise is to do yourself a disservice.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]drjon
2006-12-15 06:49 am UTC (link)
I do think that a fair reading of the DPP's "verdict" is one of exhoneration, and I think (for instance) if further evidence comes to light, it may be prejudiced by that.

That would be the bone of contention between us, I would say. I'm guessing we're not going to agree, as it's prolly more a matter of interpretation than anything else.

I think some doubt can be fairly cast on the DPP's "good faith", as demonstrated by the name issue.

And I think that there are some things I'm not prepared to say explicitly in a public forum. There's disservice to oneself, and then there's self-harm. Keep in mind we're discussing legal matters.

Without the political will, there will not be any progress in this issue. And without a continued public outcry, there won't be any political will. So I certainly agree with you there.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]araquel
2006-12-15 07:18 am UTC (link)
That would be the bone of contention between us, I would say. I'm guessing we're not going to agree, as it's prolly more a matter of interpretation than anything else.

Apparently so. Despite the "tragic accident" clunker, I just can't see exhoneration in there but, as you say, interpretaion...

I think some doubt can be fairly cast on the DPP's "good faith", as demonstrated by the name issue.

Perhaps. That's the kind of bureaucratic insensitivity I tend to expect from government machinery, though, which is why I'm not inclined to see it as being deliberately malign. Deliberate displays of contempt just seem counter-intuitive if the greater goal is to whitewash and forget ... although stupidity and ham-fistedness are a fine government tradition, too, which is why I can't dismiss the possibility of bad faith out of hand.

As an interesting and belated sidenote, Beattie's stated the DPP has the authority to order an independant review of her own decision (but I can't find where I read it, dammit). Terry O'Gorman is recommending a review by the NSW DPP (who reviewed a previous case that Clare decided not to pursue), which certainly seems like a good sstart if the NSW DPP lives up to his reputation.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]catdraco
2006-12-17 07:14 am UTC (link)
Interesting and pertinent link.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(13 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…