Please read the following extracts taken from the Coroners Report into the Mulrunji Inquest released on the 14th May 2010. ANTaR member and community campaigner, Monique Bond, has been following the Inquests closely. You can contact Monique to find out more through the ANTaR Qld office on 3844 9800 or office@antarqld.org.au.

 

p5     The Coroner’s role

9. The primary focus of coronial investigations is not on whether someone should face criminal or disciplinary charges in connection with the death, although that may be an eventual outcome in some cases. Rather, the focus is on identifying the root cause of the incident that precipitated the death with a view to uncovering systemic failures that contributed to the death and designing remedial responses.4

 

10. This focus is made clear in section 3 of the Act:

The object of this Act is to—

………………………..

(d help to prevent deaths from similar causes happening in the future by allowing coroners at inquests to comment on matters connected with deaths, including matters related to--

public health or safety; or

the administration of justice.

 

p6      5 Ruddock v Taylor par [27]

14. Deaths in custody warrant particular attention because of the responsibility of the State to protect and care for people it incarcerates, the vulnerability of people deprived of the ability to care for themselves, the need to ensure the natural suspicion of the deceased’s family is allayed, and to ensure public confidence in

 

state institutions is maintained. Further, a thorough and impartial investigation is in the best interests of the custodial officers.

 

p22 25 Hurley v Clements & Ors [2009] QCA 167 para [27]

Propensity Evidence

57. Evidence had been led at the DSC inquest (after a favourable ruling by Muir J in Doomadgee & Anor v Deputy State Coroner Clements & Ors [2005] QSC 357) from which it was maintained by the family of the deceased and the Palm Island Aboriginal Council that the Court could conclude that Senior Sergeant Hurley had assaulted other persons in the course of or after arresting them on Palm Island and placing them in the watch house, thereby assisting the Court in determining what happened when Mulrunji was arrested and placed into custody. This evidence became known as the ‘propensity evidence’.

 

58. On 14 January 2010, the persons granted leave to appear in the re-opened inquest [which I will refer to as ‘the parties’ for the sake of convenience] were forwarded a letter from the Office of the State Coroner advising that, subject to the consideration of submissions to the contrary, Counsel Assisting would request the Court to accept the evidence given at the original Inquests in respect to the “propensity evidence” complaints of Noel Cannon, Barbara Pilot, Douglas Clay and Alfred Bonner pursuant to section 50(8) of the Act.

 

p 23 59. To facilitate the parties’ consideration of this issue, the Court arranged for all relevant QPS and CMC holdings to be available for inspection by the legal representatives of the parties. To assist the parties in their consideration of this material, the letter attached a copy of a ‘Schedule of Complaints against Senior Sergeant Hurley’ (Exhibit B22 at the original Inquest) and a Complaints List which identified the complainants referred to in the CMC’s alphabetical code of its material.

 

p32    The assistance of the CMC

90. From the date that the CMC became involved directly in the investigation of this matter, namely 24 November 2004, the CMC and, in particular, Detective Inspector Webster, have provided full and ongoing assistance to all Coroners who investigated the death of Mulrunji, and to all Counsel Assisting each Coroner. I wish to place on record my gratitude for this assistance.

 

p33      I have concentrated, wherever possible, on the first or initial responses of witnesses as likely to be the most accurate and most uncontaminated accounts of what has occurred, in particular, given the effluxion of so much time and the unsatisfactory history of the investigation of this matter.

 

p34    The Crucial Time

94. The crucial time from when Mulrunji was extracted from the back of the police van to the time that he was dragged away from inside the doorway of the police station to the cells was only a matter of tens of seconds. The evidence establishes that there was a backhanded punch thrown by Mulrunji which struck Hurley upon Mulrunji exiting the police van. This was followed by a fairly violent struggle during the number of steps it took to proceed the length of the police van in the confined area, estimated by Sgt Leafe to be one to one and a half meters wide between the police van and the wall of the police station. This struggle culminated in a sudden stumbling fall into the police station. Whilst I recognise that these actions were fast and confusing for the witnesses, my fact finding task has been made more difficult by the fact that not one of the witnesses has maintained a consistent version when interviewed or when giving evidence over the intervening years.

 

p49    The Central Issue

120. On 19 November 2004 Mulrunji was drunk as he was walking down Dee Street, Palm Island.

 

121. Senior Sergeant Hurley arrived in Dee Street in a police van to protect Gladys Nugent, the complainant in a domestic violence matter, while she retrieved medication from her house. Hurley was accompanied by PLO Lloyd Bengaroo [Bengaroo]. Mr Hurley arrested Patrick Nugent aka Bramwell [Nugent] for disorderly conduct at a residence in Dee Street, and placed him in the back of the van. Nugent was heavily intoxicated.

 

p50122. Mulrunji was walking past at the time. After a verbal exchange, initially with Bengaroo, he was arrested by Hurley. Mulrunji resisted the arrest and Hurley forcibly placed him in the back of the police van with Nugent.

 

123. The police van was driven to the police station, although not directly. Gladys Nugent was given a lift in the police van and dropped off at her sister’s house on the way to the police station. The police van was stopped in the garage area at the police station. Hurley attempted to take Mulrunji into the police station but Mulrunji again resisted.

 

124. It seems clear that Mulrunji struck Hurley as Hurley tried to extract him from the police van. According to eye witnesses, Penny Sibley and Alfred Bonner, a struggle ensued as Mulrunji was being taken into the police station and Hurley was seen to strike Murlrunji, although Hurley has repeatedly denied that he did so.

 

125. Mulrunji continued to resist and Hurley and Mulrunji struggled while Mulrunji was being taken towards the door of the police station. At the door of the police station there was a step. It seems likely that one or both of them tripped on the step and fell through the doorway into a corridor to the right of the doorway.

 

126. Something occurred at that point that eventually killed Mulrunji. It was either through:

the force imparted by Hurley falling on Mulrunji in a violent struggle with a knee, hip, shoulder or elbow protruding, or

through Hurley administering some deliberate force, most probably with his knee, with such violence as to cause Mulrunji's liver to be virtually cleaved in two across his spine.

 

p51    50 T 788.5

127. Hurley strongly denied that he had fallen on Mulrunji and maintained that he had fallen beside him. He later conceded, when advised of the autopsy report on the medical cause of death that he must have fallen on Mulrunji.

 

128. As noted above, the deceased suffered a ruptured portal vein which leads from the digestive tract to the liver. He died of internal blood loss. Mulrunji suffered other injuries, namely, four broken ribs on the right side of his rib cage, an injury over his right eye and some bruising to his jaw and scalp.

 

129. The medical evidence is to the effect that the fatal injuries were caused by a massive compressive force to the front of Mulrunji's body while Mulrunji's back was immobilised on a hard surface, probably the floor. The force that was administered not only cleaved Mulrunji’s liver almost in two, but it also immobilised him.

 

130. There is no dispute about the medical cause of death.

 

131. Hurley, and another police officer, Sergeant Leafe, together then dragged a now limp Mulrunji down the corridor and into a cell. Nugent was also taken from the police van and placed in the same cell. Mulrunji died in the cells after a period of approximately a little under an hour from internal bleeding

 

The two possibilities

132. At the inquest held by the DSC, Senior Sergeant Hurley conceded through his Counsel Mr Zillman50:

 

“The evidence to this point in the inquest has quite starkly revealed only two possibilities. That is, my client accidentally came into contact with Mulrunji just inside the entrance to the Police Station and accidentally the injury was sustained which led to his death. The only other possibility is that he applied deliberate force to Mulrunji thereby causing the injury, thereby causing death.”

Determining which possibility represents the truth is the task of this Inquest.

p 52 Did Hurley react to provocation?

133. The medical evidence squarely raises the possibility of an accidental cause for the fatal injuries suffered by Mulrunji. Is there countervailing evidence that Mr Hurley may have been provoked into applying deliberate force that resulted in the injuries?

 

Note:  134 – 177 all continue to  examine what the witnesses said at various times about the arrival at the garage and events until Mulrunji was lying on the floor and before he was dragged away/

 

p66    177. Mrs Sibley’s evidence, when taken with the evidence of Mr Bonner, and assessed in the light of the credible demeanour of both witnesses, enables the Court to be satisfied that Hurley did, in all probability, grab Mulrunji very forcefully by the shirt and pull him toward him during their struggle between the police van and the police station. I am satisfied that his action caused Mulrunji to cry out.

 

178. As noted above, Leafe remembered Hurley yelling out “he’s hit me, he’s hit me”. He said Hurley was shocked - it was a surprise to him. Steadman recalled that Hurley yelled at Mulrunji after the fall. Regardless of his denials, it is clear that Hurley was shocked and upset at being struck by Mulrunji, an attitude which could only have been exacerbated by the ensuing struggle to get Mulrunji into the police station, and the heavy fall to the floor at the door. The evidence firmly establishes that Hurley was upset and angry with Mulrunji, and likely to retaliate.

 

179. I am re-enforced in my view that Hurley is likely to have retaliated by striking Mulrunji, by what has been termed ‘the propensity evidence’.

The Propensity Evidence

180. As noted above, evidence had been led at the original inquest (after a ruling by Muir J in Doomadgee & Anor v Deputy State Coroner Clements & Ors [2005] QSC 357) from which it was maintained by counsel for the family of the deceased, and counsel for the Palm Island Aboriginal Council, that the Court could conclude that Senior Sergeant Hurley had assaulted other persons in the course of or after arresting them on Palm Island and placing them in the watch house, thereby assisting the Court in determining what happened on this occasion when Mulrunji was arrested and placed into custody.

P 67

181. In making his ruling Muir J said at paragraph 51:

The Propensity Evidence, if accepted, is “logically probative” of the fact or one of the facts in issue. It is thus relevant and potentially available for use by the Coroner together with all the other evidence before her. Consequently, the conclusion that it is “impermissible” to receive that evidence for the purpose of s 45 is erroneous.

182. In this context, this Court incorporated the evidence given at the original Inquest in respect to the “propensity evidence” complaints of Noel Cannon, Barbara Pilot, Douglas Clay and Neville Bonner pursuant to section 50(8) of the Act. It was open to counsel in the re-opened inquest to raise these, and other prior complaint matters, in cross-examination of Mr Hurley if they were relevant and logically probative of a fact in issue.

 

183. As a result, there is uncontested evidence before the Court of previous instances during the two years Senior Sergeant Hurley was stationed on Palm Island in which he accepted in evidence that he responded physically when he was confronted physically or with verbal disrespect.

 

Conway

184. In September 2003, some 14 months prior to Mulrunji’s death, Ivan Conway, a young indigenous man with a mental disorder [unknown to Hurley at the time] who was drinking with companions and was drunk, had called Hurley’s female companion a “bitch” after he had been refused a cigarette by Hurley who was off-

67

81 Transcript page 5-27 – 12.03.10.

82 Transcript pages 5-27 to 5-29 – 11.03.10.

83 Transcript page 5-29 – 12.03.10).

84 DSC Inquest Transcript page 1193.

85 Transcript pages 5-30 to 5-31.50 – 12.03.10); 1211 to 1212 – 02.03.06); 1172.30 (Clay –2.03.06);

 

 

P68 duty at the time. Hurley considered that this insult was not to be “tolerated”81, and went to arrest Conway. When Conway swung his arm in an outward motion Hurley placed Conway in a headlock, brought him to the ground and a wrestle ensued. Hurley placed his hand on Conway’s neck, before lifting him up off the ground, arresting him and placing him in the watch house. Conway was later found to have suffered a hairline fracture to his foot.82 Hurley recalls seeing Conway limp when leaving the police station, but disputes that this injury occurred during the struggle.83

 

 

 

Hurley was cross-examined about this, on March 11th this year. It was clearly a very violent reaction, mainly to a perceived insult. Hurley stated that he was completely justified in his reaction and that he could not stand by and have a lady in his company insulted. He would react in a similar way again.  Palm Islanders told me that Hurley stomped on Conway, and that there were many witnesses but they did not want to get into trouble This is the incident which the Court was told was suppressed and that anyone who had heard the discussion was not allowed to repeat it, on threat of legal sanctions

I guess that  if a resident of Palm had behaved in that way in front of Hurley, in reaction to a perceived insult, how Hurley would have arrested him. MB.

 

Clay

185. In August 2004, three months prior to Mulrunji’s death, Douglas Clay, a young indigenous person who was also suffering from a mental disorder, approached a group of police officers inside the Palm Island police station. Hurley was with them. Clay was drunk. Hurley said that when Clay made a move towards him, his “instinctive” response was to strike Clay in the face and “drive him away”. He said “I mean a man’s first instinct is survival”.84 He did so with such force that Clay ended up against the wall and hit a whiteboard. This caused Clay to bleed, probably in his mouth.85

 

186. The investigation which followed Mulrunji’s death led to the discovery of Clay’s blood in the cell at the police station. There is no explanation for its presence other than as a consequence of the injury caused to him by Hurley. I accept that as Clay was drinking out of a VB Can and yelling at the police officers and was acting in an aggressive manner before lunging at Snr. Sgt Hurley, on his evidence to give him a head butt, that it may have been an instinctive reaction and not unreasonable in the circumstances.

p70

190. Bramwell’s evidence on the point of falling (not punching) may not necessarily be in complete conflict with the other testimony. It is possible that Bramwell may have perceived that the struggle and fall through the doorway with Hurley holding Mulrunji close and falling on top of him to be Hurley ‘laying Mulrunji down’. Hurley when interviewed on 8 December 2004 said the he had hold of Mulrunji “the whole way down until we hit the floor”.87 The explanation may also be that Bramwell’s attention was drawn to the fall by the noise of the impact and only saw the direct aftermath of the fall.

 

Senior Sergeant Hurley’s accounts

191. Hurley has always claimed, and maintained on oath, that he fell and landed to the left side of Mulrunji88. On four separate occasions prior to giving evidence at the original inquest, and again on oath in the original inquest and at the re-opened inquest, Hurley affirmed his belief that he did not fall on top, but to the left, of Mulrunji. Further, immediately after the event he said to his colleague Sergeant Leafe, who was on duty with him, that he fell next to Mulrunji89. If Hurley is right, it follows that the fall cannot have caused the fatal injury.

 

192. The medical evidence unequivocally establishes that the fatal injury could not have occurred in the fall described by Hurley90. For example, Dr Ranson said, inter alia:

 

A simple fall on to a flat surface from a standing position in my opinion would not cause the liver laceration seen in this man.91

p7087 Exhibit 17.5, line 940.

88 DSC Inquest Transcript pages 605, 606.

89 DSC Inquest Transcript page 697  90 DSC Inquest Transcript pages 625,

p71 & 72

87 Exhibit 17.5, line 940.

88 DSC Inquest Transcript pages 605, 606.

89 DSC Inquest Transcript page 697

90 DSC Inquest Transcript pages 625, T 628 (Dr Lampe); T 647 (Dr Lynch); T 652 (Dr Ranson).

91 DSC Inquest Transcript page 652

191. Hurley has always claimed, and maintained on oath, that he fell and landed to the left side of Mulrunji88. On four separate occasions prior to giving evidence at the original inquest, and again on oath in the original inquest and at the re-opened inquest, Hurley affirmed his belief that he did not fall on top, but to the left, of Mulrunji. Further, immediately after the event he said to his colleague Sergeant Leafe, who was on duty with him, that he fell next to Mulrunji89. If Hurley is right, it follows that the fall cannot have caused the fatal injury.

 

192. The medical evidence unequivocally establishes that the fatal injury could not have occurred in the fall described by Hurley90. For example, Dr Ranson said, inter alia:

 

A simple fall on to a flat surface from a standing position in my opinion would not cause the liver laceration seen in this man.91                                                                      70

92 ROI [Exhibit 17.1] lines 188, 326-327.

93 ROI [Exhibit 17.1] line 419

94 ROI [Exhibit 17.5] line 940

193. The difference in the quality of the impact between falling on a human body and falling on a concrete floor and, given the medical evidence, the massive nature of the force applied, one may think would be stark and apparent to Hurley and not lost to his memory, even in the “hard and fast” fall to the ground he describes.

 

194. Consequently, Hurley’s own evidence can be construed as denying an accidental cause and supporting an inference that a second application of force caused the fatal injury.

 

195. In the interview conducted on 19 November 2004, several hours after the death, Hurley stated that he “fell to the left of [Mulrunji] and he was to the right of me” and that he could “only presume that we fell over the step because when we were at the station I can remember that we were on the ground.”92 When asked again by the investigating police whether he had landed on top of Mulrunji, Hurley stated “No, I landed beside him on the…lino”.93

 

196. In a further interview with police on 8 December 2004, at which he was legally represented, Hurley stated:

 

“I had hold of [Mulrunji] and we both came through over the step and through the door at the same time and I recall I fell to the left and he was to the right, but I had hold of him the whole way down until we hit the floor… his head went close to hitting near a… filing cabinet and the door frame but I noted that it didn’t”.94

197. However, this account did not assist him in explaining the injuries:

 

“What plausible – what explanation can you give for that injury then? – Well, I don’t know. It may have occurred during the tussle, I don’t know, sir. May have

71

occurred during the fall.” “If I didn’t know the medical evidence, I’d tell you that I fell to the left of him. The medical evidence would suggest that that wasn’t the case.”95

198. In his interview on 19 November 2004, closest in time to the death, Hurley stated that he then “stood up” and Sergeant Leafe came over and assisted him “to drag him into the cell.”96

 

199. However, in his next interview, at 11.53am on 20 November 2004, Hurley performed a re-enactment of the event and relevantly stated: “I ended up on my knees beside him”.97 He then added, for the first time, that he “tried to lift him a couple of occasions…picked him up…but his shirt kept ripping”, and he was saying “get up Mr Doomadgee”.98

 

p73 202. There were subcutaneous bruises and injuries to the area above Mulrunji’s right eye, forehead and back of the neck, left index finger knuckle, right little finger, bruising around the rib fractures and the right side of the jaw. Although the injuries to the face were consistent both with contact during a fall or during an assault, they could not have occurred at the same time as a fall, if the fall had caused the fatal injuries. These are unexplained signs of violence, with Hurley being the only possible perpetrator.

 

203. Hurley has now accepted that “some part of my person has touched some part of Mr Doomadgee” so as to cause the fatal injuries. Such a concession is to state the obvious. He was the only person who had physical contact with Mulrunji at the time the injuries were sustained. It is undeniable that this must have occurred on the floor near to the entrance to the station, given the observations of Mulrunji being limp from that point onwards.

 

204. The prior case of Conway is instructive given Hurley’s continued denial, despite contrary evidence from Constable Steadman, that he was angry or physically reactive following the fall. In Conway’s case Hurley does say that he “just straight away reacted”.

 

205. Hurley accepts that if he did not fall on Mulrunji, an intentional assault is the only other available finding as to cause of death. In such circumstances, one possibility is that the accounts by Hurley eschewing any possibility of physical contact between Mulrunji and him during the fall are lies which may amount to admissions against interest. But they need not be treated as such. The motive for the lie must have been a realization of guilt and a fear of the truth. People sometimes lied, for example in an attempt to bolster up a just cause or out of

 

p74

shame or a wish to conceal disgraceful behavior from their family. I will say more on this later.

 

206. Nowhere in Hurley’s first interview did he mention any action or statement by him which could have been mistaken by Bramwell for punching or for the words he (Bramwell) attributed to Hurley.

 

207. Hurley in the video re-enactment described trying to lift Mulrunji and described the arm movements involved in that lifting. Those arm movements appear similar to the punching movements described by Bramwell.

 

208. Further, Hurley described saying to Mulrunji “get up Mr Doomadgee, get up” which in tone and form of address are similar to the words attributed to Hurley by Bramwell but, of course, now with an innocent explanation.

 

209. It beggars belief that this is simply the result of an amazing coincidence that, even though Hurley did not mention in his first interview either lifting Mulrunji or uttering these words to him at this critical moment, yet in the video re-enactment conducted with him after Bramwell’s interview, he offered innocent explanations to both of those damaging allegations by Bramwell.

 

210. The suspicion is strongly raised that one or more of the police investigators had tipped off Hurley as to the content of the Bramwell statements made by Bramwell during the re-enactment, or that Hurley was in a position to see or hear Bramwell’s re-enactment before participating in one himself. There is an admission by Hurley, in the video re-enactment that was started at 11.53am on the 20 November 2004 with Detective Inspector Webber and Williams, that contrary to the operational procedure manual he had been again speaking to other witnesses. He states at line 96 “Anyway he was down there and ah, he refused to get up. Now I can’t... I can’t remember, I just asked Michael before…um when

 

p75 99 Video re-enactment 20/11/04, Transcript Line 96

did he come through.”99 The investigators, even at that stage, were clearly not ensuring the witnesses were kept apart.

 

211. This was an area identified by Counsel Assisting as requiring an explanation. Mr Hurley was asked under cross examination:

“ Do you agree that in giving your second version you inserted into the narrative attempts to get Mr Doomadgee off the ground?-- Yes.

And statements to Mr Doomadgee, "Get up, Mr Doomadgee, get up."?-- Yes, I did.”

And later:

“And so nobody told you that Bramwell had made the allegation that he could see over a filing cabinet the upper movement of your arm in three repeat punches-----?-- No ----- on Doomadgee?-- No, nobody had said that.

Nobody tipped you off about that?-- Nobody had said that to me.

No? And nobody tipped you off that Bramwell had said that you, had said to Doomadgee or had alleged that you said to Doomadgee words to this effect, "Have you had enough, Mr Doomadgee, have you had enough?"?-- No, I wasn't aware of that.

You see, what's missing from your story - your first account to the investigators the night before is this detail that (A) you tried to pick him up unsuccessfully by the shirt and (B) you said words to him along the lines of, "Get up, Mr Doomadgee, get up, Mr Doomadgee."?-- Yes, I see that.

And so how did that come to be in the second version you gave to investigators? Can you assist the coroner with that?-- And why was it in the second one and not the first one?

Mmm?-- I don't know. There was a lot of things in that second one. I was-----

Were there?-- That second video, at the time I regretted doing that second - I regretted doing that re-enactment.”

212. Both Hurley and Leafe did not know what the cause of death was. They both thought that Mulrunji died from head injuries. They had observed the small

 

p76

100 Re-opened Inquest Transcript page 5-52

wound to Mulrunji’s eyebrow. They were concerned about trouble in the community when the news got out that Mulrunji had died.

 

213. It may be possible that the exact manner of a violent and complicated fall may not be remembered by one of the participants in the ., however, It seems improbable that he did not realise that he fallen onto Mulrunji at all. The severe force required to cause the injuries spoken of by all the medical experts convinces me that Hurley must have realised that he had indeed fallen onto the deceased rather than directly onto a concrete floor if it was the severity of the fall that caused the fatal injuries I note the Hurley in his Video interview of 20/11/04 stated at line 195 that Mulrunji was already low when he came in the door and therefore he may not have had such a heavy fall from a standing position as suggested by the medical evidence. He also said in his interview with Sergeant Kitching on 19 November 2004 at line 326 “I can only presume we fell over the step because when we were at the station I can remember that we were on the ground.”. This does tend to show that he may not have realised what had occurred during the fall or that the fall was not particularly heavy.

 

214. ????? WHERE IS SECTION 214

 

215. Even as late as his evidence at the re-opened inquest, Hurley was not prepared to say that he had fallen onto Mulrunji. When cross-examined by counsel for the Attorney-General, he said100:

 

Yes? – “…… if I sat here today without the medical evidence, I would say again, that I fell to the left of Mulrunji.”

You still can't say, "I remember coming in contact with him", can you?-- Correct. 76

 

P77      101 Re-opened Inquest Transcript pages 5-52 to 5-53

Right. So, you've come into - some part of your body has come in contact with Mulrunji's abdomen so violently as to cleave his liver across his spine; right?-- Yes.

And you've missed it?-- Yes.

You've just not noticed?-- Yes.

This man has an injury that is usually seen in head-on motor vehicle accidents and plane crashes. You've seen that in the medical evidence?-- No, I didn't know about a plane crash. I didn't know that he said head-on - head-on motor vehicle accident. I just thought the doctor said a motor vehicle accident. I accept that.

You have inflicted that injury, you say, accidentally, by falling upon this man?-- Yes.

That's your theory?-- Yes.

And you just missed it?-- Yes.

You actually get up, you say, afterwards, actually believing that you never contacted him at all?-- Correct.”101

216. I am satisfied that both Hurley and Leafe did not realise the massive internal injuries which Mulrunji had suffered at the time. But I find that Hurley was concerned that if it was reported to the Palm Island Community that he had fallen on Mulrunji or assaulted him there would be severe repercussions. Sergeant

 

p78    102 Statement of 19/11/04 with Sgt Kitching, page 7, L 187

Leafe’s telephone call to his wife is confirmation of his fear of retribution if word got out.102

 

217. As a consequence, Hurley decided to tell everyone that he had fallen beside Mulrunji, and not on top of him or if he had applied the force deliberately he again would not mention it. Later, when the autopsy results were announced, he was trapped. He had by then given a number of statements and participated in the re-enactment video and could not thereafter change his version of what had occurred.

 

218. It is significant that in his interview on 19 November 2004, the closest in time to the time of death, Hurley stated that he then “stood up” and Sergeant Leafe came over and assisted him “to drag him into the cell.”

 

219. However, in his next interview, at 11.53am on 20 November 2004, Hurley performed a video re-enactment of the event and relevantly stated: “I ended up on my knees beside him”. He then added, for the first time, that he “tried to lift him a couple of occasions…picked him up…but his shirt kept ripping”, and he was saying “get up Mr Doomadgee”.

 

220. Roy Bramwell was electronically interviewed by Detective Senior Sergeant Kitching and Detective Sergeant Robinson on 20 November 2004 at the police station at the conclusion of which Robinson obtained a signed statement from Bramwell in which he gave a description of events. Bramwell said Mulrunji was on the ground, with Hurley standing up, bending over him. Hurley’s elbow could be seen moving up and down in a punching action, while Hurley was saying “Do you want more Mr Doomadgee, do you want more?”

 

221. In the next interview with Hurley, conducted by Inspectors Webber and Williams at 11.53 am, Hurley described an action which he explained as being that which

p79

occurred in the course of "helping Mulrunji up". This action involved his elbow moving up and down, as he unsuccessfully attempted to lift Mulrunji by his shirt. Hurley's account explains what Roy Bramwell purported to have seen; an innocent explanation was given for a damaging piece of evidence.

 

222. Could Hurley’s close colleague, Detective Sergeant Robinson, have passed on Bramwell’s account giving Hurley an opportunity to neutralize the allegation?

 

223. As noted above, the issue was pursued in examination-in-chief of Hurley at this Inquest. Hurley could offer no explanation as to why it was mentioned in the second interview and not the first, and added that he regretted doing the re-enactment.

 

224. I consider that Hurley’s failure to proffer an explanation impacts adversely on his credit. This subtle modification of Hurley’s account provides some support for Roy Bramwell’s account of punches having been thrown by Hurley. However, this evidence would not, of itself, support a positive finding of a deliberate act by Hurley which caused Mulrunji’s death.

 

What do the other witnesses say?

225. Apart from Hurley, there are four other witnesses to the fall and/or its immediate aftermath, namely, PLO Lloyd Bengaroo, Sergeant Leafe, Constable Steadman and Roy Bramwell.

 

Roy Bramwell

226. As Bramwell was seated in the yellow chair opposite the door to the parking bay when Hurley and Mulrunji came through that door, he ought to have been in a good position to witness the incident.

 

p95

246. Bramwell’s evidence at the initial interview (8.15am the following day) and later at the video re-enactment was received before there was any opportunity for Bramwell to have heard any police version of events, to know the cause of death, or to be aware of the facial and scalp injuries and bruising revealed later by the autopsy.

 

247. Steadman’s notes of Mulrunji being dragged in and Hurley yelling at Mulrunji are consistent with Bramwell’s account. Hurley’s131 and Leafe’s132 later mimicking of that mechanism and wording provides strong evidence of collusion, especially against the silence of Hurley on this central issue when interviewed the previous day, and gives some support to Bramwell’s initial account in respect to the allegation of punching. This view is re-enforced when it is noted the Leafe’s head-on view when approaching the scene along the corridor from the area of the cells would have provided a different perspective. The actions shown by Leafe in the video re-enactment were not from this perspective but resembled Bramwell’s actions.

 

248. The other difficulty in the way of an acceptance of the explanations of Hurley and Leafe of the arm action observed by Bramwell, is that Bramwell spoke of seeing three punches. One lifting action by Hurley may have been explained in this way,

131 Re-enactment video on 20.11.04 (exhibit D17.2) transcript at lines 84 to 128; Interview on 08.12.10 (exhibit D17.5 – second tape) at lines 219 to 224.

132 Re-enactment video on 20.11.04 (exhibit D27.2) transcript at line 57 and lines 147-154

 

but for such an attempt to be repeated makes no sense. If Mulrunji’s shirt would not hold his dead weight and ripped upon lifting releasing him on the first occasion, why would a second or third attempt achieve a different result? Significantly, the video shows both police officers repeating the alleged action. Why? In seeking to cover up Hurley’s actions, Leafe and Hurley may have overplayed their hands.

 

249. The television footage a few days later of Bramwell’s comments to the Palm Island community describing what he had seen in the police station, in which he repeated the action shown on the video re-enactment of 20 November 2004133 is a substantial verification of the truth of his original account.

 

p97

253. At a fundamental level, Bramwell maintained throughout that:

 

 

 

<!--[if !supportLists]-->                   <!--[endif]-->