|
December 21, 2006
Chloe Hooper has an op-ed in The Australian on the way the law works in relation to indigenous people at Palm Island in the deep north of the state of Queensland. As we know Mulrunji Doomadgee died in 2004 within 45 minutes of his arrest, with a liver almost cleaved in two, four broken ribs, a ruptured portal vein, a haemorrhaging pancreas and a black eye. Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions Leanne Clare SC had stated that she had reviewed all the evidence regarding Mulrunji Doomadgee's 2004 death in a Palm Island police station, finding it the result of a "complicated fall".
Leahy
'All' the evidence? If so, what does 'review' mean? What is the basis for judging the importance and significance of the evidence? How come we had "fall" not "assault"? Clare explicitly says that the death of Mulrunji Doomadgee was an accident, which is quite different from saying that that there is not sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction, in could be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the fatal blow was struck by Sergeant Hurley.
An editorial in The Australian puts the political context this way:
The extent of dysfunction [in Palm Island] was underlined by yesterday's visit by Queensland Premier Peter Beattie to explain how a local man in custody could die in a scuffle with a policeman, and nothing happen as a result. Two plane-loads of police were flown into Palm Island to safeguard Mr Beattie, while another police boat remained offshore.....Doomadgee was arrested for questioning police authority. He had done nothing wrong and had never been in trouble with the law. His death has highlighted uncomfortable facts about policing in Queensland and the treatment of the state's Aboriginal citizens. The facts of Palm Island and the Doomadgee case are scandalous and Mr Beattie should have more to offer than a brave face backed up by heavy police protection.
Questions arise because something is amiss in Clare's judgement. She came to a conclusion as to the cause of death which is not a prosecutory function, and she did not indicate what evidence proves that the death was an accident. As Chloe Hooper points out:
Clare says she has based her decision not to charge Hurley on "the evidence, not emotion". She can't mean the evidence given by the three forensic pathologists who appeared at the inquest. These doctors, including one commissioned by Hurley's lawyers, were in little doubt Doomadgee's injuries were caused by a good deal more than a fall on to a flat surface...This forensic evidence would all be admissible and compelling were Hurley to be charged.
If we turn to the report of the Queensland Deputy State Coroner Christine Clements we find this account of the medical evidence:
The consensus of expert medical opinion was that a simple fall through the doorway, even in an uncontrolled and accelerated fashion, was unlikely to have caused the particular injuries...[One of the pathologists claimed] This kind of injury is usually associated with an application of very severe force such as in a high-speed motor vehicle trauma.
In a 40-page report, Clements finds Hurley became angry and assaulted Doomadgee. She also claims the subsequent investigation, conducted by Hurley's friends in the police force, was "wilfully blind" and "reprehensible".
So why did Clare say "fall" not "assault"? Can we infer that the police are above the law, as Hooper suggests? It sure looks like there is one law for th epolice and one for indigenous people at this point in time. An independent review of Clare's decision is the minimum that is required. Disciplinary action against Sergeant Hurley is also necessary, as he both failed in his duty to a prisoner to take reasonable care for his or her safety and he compromised the investigation.
|
I can not see a resolution to this.
If something is to come good of this whole thing I would hope that it unifies the people of Palm Island.