Racist horror on Palm Island?

The whole thing is extraordinarily difficult.

One assumes the deceased frequently drank too much? I do wonder if his liver was more susceptible to injury than a healthy person's?

One thing I found very disturbing in the Police Association's response to the charges being laid is their having said something like "If the Palm Island community do not want policing, we can just leave them to it."

I do not think that not wanting community members to be killed by police is the same as not wanting policing!!!!!

I know that Oz police have, in the past, frequently grossly racist towards Aboriginal people.....and I would be very surprised if this attitude had been extirpated.

I also can imagine that fairly and effectively policing a community as violent and dysfunctional as Palm Island, and a lot of other Aboriginal communities, must be a task to tax the abilities of any officer. I am also aware that the officer concerned appears to have been committed to that task.

I was speaking to a copper friend, a detective in major crime here, last night, and was very distressed for him as to how burned out and unsupported he is feeling right now. Two colleagues of his suicided in the last week....one so disturbed that he shot himself in the head in his children's bedroom, where his eldest, an eight year old, found him, and kept the other kids away until their mother arrived home FOUR HOURS later.

Not the same state....but the police are constantly at a nexus of opposing interests and views, and appear to have very little preparation for, or support in, such an intensely emotive and political job.

Their management appears to swing between tolerance for corruption and appalling practices, and clamping down on it, almost in overkill........

I also look at the coppers we work with in child protection, and what a short time they last, in general, and how little support I see them getting for dealing with the horrors they see....and cops who now appear to me as almost babies deal with horror on the roads and in homes from the first time their little pimply faces are let loose on the streets...

I only hope that, somehow, justice gets done....where the copper concerned is neither hung out to dry as a political scapegoat, nor wrongly protected by the powers that be.

0 Replies

Hi Dlowan

A well balanced post. Hopefully the jury will be as open minded.

Just a couple of comments

Quote:

I know that Oz police have, in the past, frequently grossly racist towards Aboriginal people.....and I would be very surprised if this attitude had been extirpated.

All police officers are also everyday Australian Citizens (many people seem to forget this). The level of racism that exists in the police force will be almost identical to the level of racism in Australia.

What many people think of as Police Racism, is in fact what is called 'selective targetting', without which it is impossible to do policing efficiently or effectively - there is nothing 'personal' in the use of such a technique. Selective targetting is proven to work for other policing type jobs also - English Customs use it to screen airline passengers in order to prevent terrosism/hijackings on their international flights. It is not 'picking on' a group because of their race, colour, socio-economics, or religious beliefs, but rather, identifying that certain groups are responsible for a larger porportion of crime, and using that 'intelligence' to more efficiently/effectively perform policing duties - most of which revolves around first talking to people (for most 'crooks' will give themselves away while talking).

Ask your detective friend.

Quote:

I only hope that, somehow, justice gets done....where the copper concerned is neither hung out to dry as a political scapegoat, nor wrongly protected by the powers that be.

Well, the justice system in Queensland has already been abandoned. As I said in my previous post, this is the first time in Qld History that the once (ie pre Hurley) independent DPP has had it's ruling overturned by a politician. The separation of powers effectively no longer exists (hopefully it can be rectified).

Further, after the government said it would not reveal the contents of the retired justices ruling, because it would prejudice the court hearing, the government then 'leaked' the retired Justices views on the case to the press ...in retaliation for the Police Unions criticism of the Govt. It will never be investigated as contempt of court, because it is a politician that has done this.

Also, the amount of publicity over this case appears to have dramatically polarised many peoples opinions.

I'm not sure that Hurley can get a fair trial in Qld (but, he can't be trialled anywhere else).

Either way, the case is going to cause further uproar in queensland.

0 Replies

That is a horror. 90% unemployment? Shocked

A post-mortem examination revealed Mulrunji had four broken ribs, a ruptured spleen and a liver almost split in half. This is too much damage for the cop to be innocent. A single cracked rib will make it damned near impossible to move or sit still without pain. 4 broken ribs and the man is utterly incapable of putting up a fight. If the cop was powerful enough (and the man weak enough) to bust 4 ribs with a single punch, then it clearly wasn't necessary anyway. Dude sure didn't look that fragile. If it was multiple blows (much easier to imagine), then he sure didn't stop when dude was done. I don't see any way around it being excessive force. That's just too much damage.

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

Hi Dlowan

A well balanced post. Hopefully the jury will be as open minded.

Just a couple of comments

Quote:
I know that Oz police have, in the past, frequently grossly racist towards Aboriginal people.....and I would be very surprised if this attitude had been extirpated.

All police officers are also everyday Australian Citizens (many people seem to forget this). The level of racism that exists in the police force will be almost identical to the level of racism in Australia.

What many people think of as Police Racism, is in fact what is called 'selective targetting', without which it is impossible to do policing efficiently or effectively - there is nothing 'personal' in the use of such a technique. Selective targetting is proven to work for other policing type jobs also - English Customs use it to screen airline passengers in order to prevent terrosism/hijackings on their international flights. It is not 'picking on' a group because of their race, colour, socio-economics, or religious beliefs, but rather, identifying that certain groups are responsible for a larger porportion of crime, and using that 'intelligence' to more efficiently/effectively perform policing duties - most of which revolves around first talking to people (for most 'crooks' will give themselves away while talking).

Ask your detective friend.

Quote:
I only hope that, somehow, justice gets done....where the copper concerned is neither hung out to dry as a political scapegoat, nor wrongly protected by the powers that be.

Well, the justice system in Queensland has already been abandoned. As I said in my previous post, this is the first time in Qld History that the once (ie pre Hurley) independent DPP has had it's ruling overturned by a politician. The separation of powers effectively no longer exists (hopefully it can be rectified).

Further, after the government said it would not reveal the contents of the retired justices ruling, because it would prejudice the court hearing, the government then 'leaked' the retired Justices views on the case to the press ...in retaliation for the Police Unions criticism of the Govt. It will never be investigated as contempt of court, because it is a politician that has done this.

Also, the amount of publicity over this case appears to have dramatically polarised many peoples opinions.

I'm not sure that Hurley can get a fair trial in Qld (but, he can't be trialled anywhere else).

Either way, the case is going to cause further uproar in queensland.

"All police officers are also everyday Australian Citizens (many people seem to forget this). The level of racism that exists in the police force will be almost identical to the level of racism in Australia."

Hmmmm...two comments re this.

a. I think the police, at least in the past, (and I do have extensive experience of having worked with them), have an over representation of very rigid, conservative folk, and I would see them as having been more judgmental than the average ozzian. (I do think they have changed, though, since last time I worked with them frequently)

I think, for instance, their level of violence towards Aboriginal people, used to be extraordinary and appalling. Something my detective friends who have been around for a while would not deny. (Not that it was restricted to Aboriginal people.)

The attitudes may or may not be reflective of community values in general...but the extra power brings with it extra responsibility to put any attitudes aside, and be scrupulously fair.

Not, as I said, that I do not have empathy for the difficulty of the job and the damage it does....and the awfulness of what that fela would have been dealing with day to day, and the abuse he woud have received in the course of his work.

b. The DPP thing has happened here (South Australia) recently as well, and not over an aboriginal issue.

I would have thought it an appalling violation of separation of powers, but to my amazement the government interference was upheld as being fair and legal in the High Court!

To be honest, I have forgotten the Queensand DPP's reasoning for not opening a case against the police officer involved...can you recall it?

Can you also recall the mechanism by which the overturn was done? Here, it involved the Solicitor General's advice.

I remain very concerned here about political interference with the judicial process, though...but I can only think that the High Court decision in the SA case I referred to means that in that case it did not violate separation of powers? Is that enshrined in the constitution, or simply a custom and practice issue?

Of course, as you will recall no doubt, Joh BP did not even know what it was, so perhaps things in Queensland are "special" to this day!

Is the legal siblinghood in Queensland reacting as you are to the reversal of the DPP decision?

Looks like I need to read up on it more fully.

Do you have any good articles on it?

0 Replies

Quote:

The attitudes may or may not be reflective of community values in general...but the extra power brings with it extra responsibility to put any attitudes aside, and be scrupulously fair.

Oh I quite agree. The only downfall of that is that you are asking people to stop being people. A reasonable ask in the circumstances, but something that is almost impossible to prevent (people from being people that is).

Quote:

To be honest, I have forgotten the Queensand DPP's reasoning for not opening a case against the police officer involved...can you recall it?

Quote:

Can you also recall the mechanism by which the overturn was done? Here, it involved the Solicitor General's advice.

Queenslands legislation does allow the Attorney General to indict (though it is a power that has never previously been used, for obvious reasons). The government ordered the file handed over, and gave it to a retired NSW judge for his opinion. His opinion was that Hurley had a case to answer, and so the Attorney General presented the indictment to the Supreme Court of Qld. As the DPP will not prosecute this matter (having already formed the opinion there is not enough evidence to charge), the government is handing the matter over to a private solicitor/barrister to prosecute.

Quote:

I remain very concerned here about political interference with the judicial process, though...but I can only think that the High Court decision in the SA case I referred to means that in that case it did not violate separation of powers? Is that enshrined in the constitution, or simply a custom and practice issue?

I believe that the separation of powers is purely a tradition/logic thing. I doubt it's enshrined in the constitution.

Quote:

Is the legal siblinghood in Queensland reacting as you are to the reversal of the DPP decision?

Quote:

Do you have any good articles on it?

Quote:

Mr Beattie said it would be a breach of the separation of powers for him to put pressure on the DPP to take any action, and it was "politically immature" for anyone to suggest he could.

A further note on a comment made in The Australian in relation to previous decisions by the DPP. A case involving swim coach Scott Volkers, was dropped by the DPP's assistant (can't remember his name) while the DPP, Leanne Clare, was on holidays.

0 Replies

Quote:

The attitudes may or may not be reflective of community values in general...but the extra power brings with it extra responsibility to put any attitudes aside, and be scrupulously fair.

Oh I quite agree. The only downfall of that is that you are asking people to stop being people. A reasonable ask in the circumstances, but something that at times will be impossible to prevent (as people are not robots - even the best will sometimes react in the wrong way).

Quote:

To be honest, I have forgotten the Queensand DPP's reasoning for not opening a case against the police officer involved...can you recall it?

Quote:

Can you also recall the mechanism by which the overturn was done? Here, it involved the Solicitor General's advice.

Queenslands legislation does allow the Attorney General to indict (though it is a power that has never previously been used, for obvious reasons). The government ordered the file handed over, and gave it to a retired NSW judge for his opinion. His opinion was that Hurley had a case to answer, and so the Attorney General presented the indictment to the Supreme Court of Qld. As the DPP will not prosecute this matter (having already formed the opinion there is not enough evidence to charge), the government is handing the matter over to a private solicitor/barrister to prosecute.

Quote:

I remain very concerned here about political interference with the judicial process, though...but I can only think that the High Court decision in the SA case I referred to means that in that case it did not violate separation of powers? Is that enshrined in the constitution, or simply a custom and practice issue?

I believe that the separation of powers is purely a tradition/logic thing. I doubt it's enshrined in the constitution.

Quote:

Is the legal siblinghood in Queensland reacting as you are to the reversal of the DPP decision?

Quote:

Do you have any good articles on it?

Quote:

Mr Beattie said it would be a breach of the separation of powers for him to put pressure on the DPP to take any action, and it was "politically immature" for anyone to suggest he could.

A further note on a comment made in The Australian in relation to previous decisions by the DPP. A case involving swim coach Scott Volkers, was dropped by the DPP's assistant (can't remember his name) while the DPP, Leanne Clare, was on holidays.

0 Replies

Quote:

The attitudes may or may not be reflective of community values in general...but the extra power brings with it extra responsibility to put any attitudes aside, and be scrupulously fair.

Oh I quite agree. The only downfall of that is that you are asking people to stop being people. A reasonable ask in the circumstances, but something that at times will be impossible to prevent (as people are not robots - even the best will sometimes react in the wrong way).

Quote:

To be honest, I have forgotten the Queensand DPP's reasoning for not opening a case against the police officer involved...can you recall it?

Quote:

Can you also recall the mechanism by which the overturn was done? Here, it involved the Solicitor General's advice.

Queenslands legislation does allow the Attorney General to indict (though it is a power that has never previously been used, for obvious reasons). The government ordered the file handed over, and gave it to a retired NSW judge for his opinion. His opinion was that Hurley had a case to answer, and so the Attorney General presented the indictment to the Supreme Court of Qld. As the DPP will not prosecute this matter (having already formed the opinion there is not enough evidence to charge), the government is handing the matter over to a private solicitor/barrister to prosecute.

Quote:

I remain very concerned here about political interference with the judicial process, though...but I can only think that the High Court decision in the SA case I referred to means that in that case it did not violate separation of powers? Is that enshrined in the constitution, or simply a custom and practice issue?

I believe that the separation of powers is purely a tradition/logic thing. I doubt it's enshrined in the constitution.

Quote:

Is the legal siblinghood in Queensland reacting as you are to the reversal of the DPP decision?

Quote:

Do you have any good articles on it?

Quote:

Mr Beattie said it would be a breach of the separation of powers for him to put pressure on the DPP to take any action, and it was "politically immature" for anyone to suggest he could.

A further note on a comment made in The Australian in relation to previous decisions by the DPP. A case involving swim coach Scott Volkers, was dropped by the DPP's assistant (can't remember his name) while the DPP, Leanne Clare, was on holidays.

0 Replies

Racist horror on Palm Island?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know