i

|
|
|
|
|
|

current focus

 

federal government policy in indigenous communities

 

"The Children of the Sunrise", Address by Jeff McMullen to the Australian Catholic University, Sydney, 25 June 2007

 

palm island

 

Palm Island, Australia’s largest Indigenous community, sits 65 kilometres north-east off the Townsville Coast in Queensland. In 1918, the Queensland Government designated the island as a reserve for Indigenous people. Its purpose was to operate as a penal settlement and it quickly earned a reputation as a ‘gulag’, a tropical version of the sort established in the former Soviet Union. Families from over 50 different indigenous families, each with distinctly different languages and culture, were forcibly relocated to the island, premised upon findings of resistance to white Authority dictates in their own communities. Many of the ‘stolen generation’ were brought here. The subsequent treatment of these families is well documented. Rules and regulations governed almost all aspects of everyday life, and extended to wage management, compulsory labour, arbitrary imprisonment, sub-standard housing and healthcare and the prohibition of speaking in languages other than English.

While such discriminatory polices are no longer in place today, their legacy remains. A Queensland Department of Public Works Director-General’s briefing note recorded that in an eight month period in 2003, there were 16 youth suicides and eight domestic murders on the island.  The community of 3,500 indigenous people were living in about 220 houses, averaging 17 people to a house.  The rates of violence - in particular alcohol fuelled conduct - are disproportionately high.  The report also recorded that the unemployment rate on the island was around 95%.

On 19 November 2004, an Aboriginal man Cameron Doomadgee (referred to in the media as ‘mulrunji’) died in police custody, after being arrested an hour earlier for allegedly swearing at an indigenous police liaison officer. Senior Sergeant Chris Hurley affected this arrest, during the course of which Cameron sustained a fatal injury to his liver. A forensic pathologist later described the injuries as ‘comparable to those of a road trauma victim’ – his spleen had been cleaved almost in half due to the force of the pressure exacted upon his abdomen. The following timeline encapsulates the events following his death, in particular the coronial investigation.

 

26 November 2004  |

The results of the autopsy are announced. An interim report citing a government pathologist’s view that the fatal injuries could have been sustained during a ‘fall’ in the police station is read out to the community. A number of community leaders address the gathered community. Many people become enraged by the possibility that this death will not be properly examined and the police station, courthouse and the residence of Senior Sergeant Chris Hurley are each razed to the ground.

The Premier declares a State of Emergency and brigades of heavily armed riot police land on the island and arrest 43 palm islanders, remove them from the island and place most of them in custody in Townsville.

28 February 2005  | A coronial inquest into Cameron’s death commences on Palm Island. Four days later, the State Coroner Michael Barnes stands down.
1 August 2005  | The inquest recommences under the Deputy State Coroner, Christine Clements.
27 September 2006  | Clements finds Senior Sergeant Chris Hurley responsible for inflicting fatal injuries on Cameron Doomadgee (See findings). She recommends that the then Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions, Leanne Clare SC, consider bringing criminal charges against Hurley.
14 December 2006  | Clare announces that Hurley will not be charged, claiming the death was a tragic accident.
23 December 2006  | Attorney-General Kerry Shine announces an independent review of the case’s evidence.
26 January 2007  | Shine announces that a review of the evidence undertaken by former NSW chief justice Sir Laurence Street, and independent barrister Peter Davis SC, determined that there is enough evidence to prosecute Hurley for charges of assault and manslaughter.
March 22 2007  | In separate proceedings four men charged over the 2004 Palm Island riot are found not guilty by a Brisbane court.
12 June 2007  | Hurley’s two week trial begins in the Townsville Supreme Court.
20 June 2007  | Hurley is acquitted.
2 November 2007  | A civil claim is filed against Chris Hurley by members of the Doomadgee family
28 May 2008  | Hurley receives $100,000 in compensation from the Queensland government, for property lost during the riot.
27 October 2008  | Queensland Police Commissioner Bob Atkinson announces that bravery awards will be presented to 22 officers present on Palm Island during the riot.
7 November 2008  | Lex Wotton is sentenced to six years imprisonment for his involvement in the Palm Island riots.

 

For further information on Palm Island, see:

Throughout this unfortunate process B O E L A W Y E R S provided legal assistance and representation to the Palm Island Aboriginal Council (and members of the community) in their dealings with government and at the coronial inquest. Despite former Premier Peter Beattie’s accusations that lawyers in the firm were “white leeches” to the community, a "pack of thugs" and "hangers on" (see Hansard 23 February 2005 ), the Queensland Law Society and Bar Association have given considerable support to the firm in respect to our involvement which was openly provided on a pro bono basis. Several other lawyers including interstate counsel Dr Sarah Pritchard, Elizabeth Fullerton SC and Bret Walker SC similarly involved themselves.

B O E L A W Y E R S also represented John Clumpoint who was charged with being involved in the riots. With the pro bono assistance of Bret Walker SC the ‘banishment condition’ that was initially imposed on Clumpoint by the chief magistrate, and kept in place by Muir J, was finally removed by the Court of Appeal on 2 March 2005. See: | Clumpoint v DPP [2005] QCA 43.

The commitment taken by this firm was premised upon our view that what was happening on Palm Island was very wrong at many levels. The State government’s jackboot approach towards this community added to the woes faced by them: the ‘dysfunction’ said to exist on the island was the obvious and direct product of many years of mismanagement by successive State and Federal governments.  See (attach something is very wrong)

Some media publications follow:

 

The Courier Mail, 23 March 2007

 

Following are some of the legal documents associated with our involvement.

 
Coronial Inquest

|
Final Submissions on behalf of the Council 16 August 2006, Townsville
|
Final Submissions on behalf of the Council 16 August 2006, Townsville - Attachment A
|
Final Submissions on behalf of the Council 16 August 2006, Townsville - Attachment B
|
Submissions regarding the venue of the inquest
|
Submissions regarding the taking of evidence from Aboriginal witnesses
|

Submissions at Directions hearing 29-30 March 2005, Brisbane


Bail

|
Submissions before the Supreme Court
|
Judgement of Muir J
|
Submissions before the Court of Appeal
|
Judgement of Court of Appeal (Qld)


Government Engagement

|
Letter 6 December 2004
|
Letter 13 December 2004
|
Letter 20 December 2004
|
Letter 17 February 2005
|
Article: "Something is wrong" 11 March 2005
 | Article: "Something is very wrong"  28 September 2005

 

 

the criminal proceeds legislation

The Criminal Proceeds Act 2002 commenced operation in January 2003. Its objects proclaim an intention to recover illegally acquired property from criminals, which could not be an improper legislative motivation. However the question is whether the legislature went inappropriately too far in its zeal. The Act has been described as Draconian by at least 3 justices of the Supreme Court of Queensland in litigation conducted by B O E L A W Y E R S. Most notably in Re Criminal Proceeds Act 2002 [2003] QCA 249, the Queensland Court of Appeal declared one section of the Act (section 30) to be constitutionally invalid.

"The Parliament was not prepared to allow the normal judicial process to operate at the stage of the making of the restraining order where the State elected to apply for such an order without notice to the person to whom it related. That clearly abrogated the audi alteram partem rule where an order was sought in those circumstances despite the fact that the making of such an order had, at least, serious property ramifications for the affected citizen. The question now for the court is whether that interference with the exercise of judicial power by the Supreme Court of this State is valid, given constitutional issues peculiar to Australia."

Before concluding:

"Given the reasoning in, and in particular the passages quoted from, Kable, Bachrach and Nicholas, I have come to the conclusion that the direction or command to the judge hearing the application to proceed in the absence of any party affected by the order to be made is such an interference with the exercise of the judicial process as to be repugnant to or incompatible with the exercise of the judicial power of the Commonwealth. Then, because the Supreme Court of Queensland is part of an integrated Australian judicial system for the exercise of the judicial power of the Commonwealth, such a provision is constitutionally invalid."


B O E L A W Y E R S and several counsel from the Queensland and NSW Bar are continuing to look at the Act and its clearly oppressive potential. It is complex legislation but for example, on the construction foreshadowed by the State’s lawyers and the Crime & Misconduct Commission, a citizen with no criminal history could be suspected by an ‘authorized officer’ of having assaulted another and broken the victim’s nose or driven a car dangerously and have all of their property, including house, car and their children’s clothes restrained by the State until the person can discharge the onus of establishing that the property was not illegally acquired by them. You need never be charged, and, if you are charged yet found not guilty, it does not matter, the restraining orders and forfeiture to the State will be unaffected. The State need never prove that there is any relationship between the suspect criminal conduct and the property. This turnaround in onus offends many established legal principles of fairness and the rights of the individual. Also, once the property is restrained you are not allowed access to it even to engage legal representation of your choice for the purpose of responding to the State’s applications or even in respect of the defence of any charges that might be brought.

The current leading decisions under this Act have been litigated by B O E L A W Y E R S and counsel retained by us. See for example: | Re Criminal Proceeds Act 2002 [2003] QCA 249 and | State of Queensland v McGarry [2003] QSC 195   | State of Queensland v Meredith [2006] QCA

 

 

high court challenge to queensland vagrancy legislation

We have been pursuing the issues raised by legislation passed by the Queensland Parliament in 1931 - Vagrants Gaming & Other Offences Act 1931 - which, according to statistics held by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and other government agencies, result in the over representation of indigenous people in the criminal justice system. The offences provided by that legislation include disorderly behaviour and ‘insulting’ words. Our client is an itinerant 31 year old Aboriginal woman who was sentenced to 3 weeks gaol for uttering the words “fuck you cunt” at 4 am in a deserted inner city street in the presence of several police officers.  However in December 2004 the High Court of Australia refused the applicant special leave. This matter was pursued with the pro bono assistance of several other lawyers and support from the Griffith University Innocence Project.

B O E L A W Y E R S are continuing to agitate these issues in further litigation involving new legislation that the State government has used to replace the Vagrants Gaming & Other Offences Act 1931 viz, the Summary Offences Act 2005.


Before the Queensland Court of Appeal

|
Applicant’s Submissions
|
Crown Submissions
|
Transcript of Proceedings
|
Judgment


Before the High Court of Australia

|
Applicant’s Submissions
|
Summary of Statistics
|
Applicant’s Supplementary Submissions
|
Crown Reply
|
Crown Supplementary Reply
   | Special leave argument

constitutional challenge to s 100 Corrective Services Act 2000 (Qld)


B O E L A W Y E R S has provided support to independent film maker Anne Delaney, who has been prosecuted for infringing s 100 of the Corrective Services Act 2000 (Qld). Ms Delaney was seeking to ascertain whether she ought to produce an independent film about a possible miscarriage of justice.  She had developed a connection with a female prisoner (Louise Macphee) who had been convicted of the unlawful killing of one of her 8 week old triplets and was arrested on the first occasion they met to discuss her case.

Through the support of a number of lawyers led by Mr PDT Applegarth SC, Ms Susan Anderson, Ms Elizabeth Beal from the Communication Law Centre (Melb) and Mr Sean Brennan from the University of New South Wales, and with some support from the MEAA, Ms Delaney raised constitutional questions about the section's apparent infringement of "free speech".

Evidence was called from notable intellectuals including Professor Robert Manne, Mr David Marr, Dr Janet Ransley, Ms Anne Warner, Ms Janne Jensen, Mr Chris Warren, Dr Tamara Walsh and the Honourable Mr William Carter QC.

|
Defendant's Constitutional Submissions
   | Defendant's Supplementary Submissions
   | Prosecution's Constitutional Submissions
   | Defendant's Reply

 

Incidentally, B O E L A W Y E R S acted for Ms Maphee in her unsuccessful application for special leave to appeal her conviction in the High Court. Mr Bret Walker SC (Syd) and Mr Peter Callaghan SC (Bris) were retained to present oral argument before the High Court.

 

 

 


|
|
|
|
|
|