"What do you suggest should have happened in the wake of a man dying in custody, from injuries he sustained while in police custody?"
Hurley should have been dealt with like any other Australian regardless of occupation or skin colour. If after an investigation the DPP concluded that there was insufficient evidence to proceed that should have been the end of it. The fact that the CMC made an identical decision and the fact that the DPP got advice from Judge Thomas scream that the DPP got it right.
They shouldn't have hired Jessie Street's boy to find something else. At the very least they should have got someone with more recent experience than someone who retired as a judge in 1988 so that irrespective of bias at least they would be qualified. But in any case the DPP decision should have ended it. Hurley's fundamental civil rights should not have been breached.
"And yes, the court decided that there was no *proof* that the fatal injuries were maliciously caused by Hurley, but it was always a court that should have decided this, not an internal investigation by the police themselves - hardly an impartial investigation!"
Neither a coroner nor a police officer are in a position to decide on someone's guilty or innocence. They may have views but their job is to investigate. The DPP decided not to proceed. That was obviously an impartial decision.
"And just because it was never a guarenteed conviction doesn't mean it shouldn't have proceeded. Using your logic, no cases would be ever be prosecuted unless there is unequivocal CC-TV footage, or the criminal themselves sign affadavits admitting to their crimes!"
It wasn't a case of whether or not there was a guaranteed conviction. There was insufficient evidence to proceed. A reasonable jury could not return a guilty verdict.
Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the facts of the case. After the $7million investigation and prosecution it is fair to say that Hurley has been proved innocent beyond reasonable doubt.
Hurley should have been dealt with like any other Australian regardless of occupation or skin colour. If after an investigation the DPP concluded that there was insufficient evidence to proceed that should have been the end of it. The fact that the CMC made an identical decision and the fact that the DPP got advice from Judge Thomas scream that the DPP got it right.
They shouldn't have hired Jessie Street's boy to find something else. At the very least they should have got someone with more recent experience than someone who retired as a judge in 1988 so that irrespective of bias at least they would be qualified. But in any case the DPP decision should have ended it. Hurley's fundamental civil rights should not have been breached.
"And yes, the court decided that there was no *proof* that the fatal injuries were maliciously caused by Hurley, but it was always a court that should have decided this, not an internal investigation by the police themselves - hardly an impartial investigation!"
Neither a coroner nor a police officer are in a position to decide on someone's guilty or innocence. They may have views but their job is to investigate. The DPP decided not to proceed. That was obviously an impartial decision.
"And just because it was never a guarenteed conviction doesn't mean it shouldn't have proceeded. Using your logic, no cases would be ever be prosecuted unless there is unequivocal CC-TV footage, or the criminal themselves sign affadavits admitting to their crimes!"
It wasn't a case of whether or not there was a guaranteed conviction. There was insufficient evidence to proceed. A reasonable jury could not return a guilty verdict.
Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the facts of the case. After the $7million investigation and prosecution it is fair to say that Hurley has been proved innocent beyond reasonable doubt.
