There is a long-held legal maxim that justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.
It is as relevant in 2026 as it was when Lord Chief Justice Hewart coined the phrase more than a century ago.
For Aboriginal families across the country who have lost loved ones in custody, the appearance of impartiality has too often been something demanded rather than delivered.
The Northern Territory has once again offered a stark example.
Last week, Labor MP Luke Gosling — charged with two counts of assault — had his prosecution moved from the Northern Territory to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.
The Territory is small. The circles in which police, prosecutors, politicians and public officials operate can be smaller still. For one of the Territory's two federal lower house MPs, having his prosecution assessed outside the NT is the least that should happen if there was a question about a perceived conflict of interest.
It is a sensible safeguard. Nonetheless, it raises an uncomfortable question: Why was the same principle not applied when Kumanjayi White died in police custody?
Turn the clock back more than a year.
Mr White, a 24-year-old disabled Warlpiri man, died after being restrained by two Northern Territory Police officers inside an Alice Springs Coles supermarket. His death sparked protests and demands from his family and supporters for an independent investigation.
The concern was straightforward: when police are involved in a death, confidence in an investigation can be difficult to maintain when police are also responsible for investigating the conduct of their colleagues.
However, the process remained within the Territory's existing investigative and prosecutorial structures, defended, to the point of incredulity, by the NT Government and Police.
When federal politicians called for greater independence in the investigation into Mr White's death, Chief Minister Lia Finocchiaro dismissed the proponents — including a federal minister — as "uneducated" and "unhelpful".
It was not that far off Joh Bjelke-Petersen's infamous "Don't you worry about that" aphorism, and would have surely carried more weight if they had indeed considered the thoughts of the family, who were calling for independence.
In May this year, prosecutors determined there were no reasonable prospects of a successful prosecution against the two officers involved in Mr White's death.
In response, Mr White's grandfather and family spokesperson, Ned Jampijinpa Hargraves, said the family had never trusted the investigation process.
"Kumanjayi was my Jaja and his life was violently cut short. We deserve to know all the information about his death and about the process, including who decided that no one should be charged and why," he said.
"We will keep fighting for a genuinely independent investigation."
The family continue to seek answers about the investigation and the decision not to prosecute. They don't know who made that call. Nobody even knows how Mr White died.
The NT DPP has defended the process and said the conflict that exists in the Gosling matter did not arise in relation to Mr White's death.
But the difference in the timeframe of the investigations can't be cast aside: When the issue arose in Mr Gosling's case, the prosecution was rapidly moved outside the Territory; when the family of an Aboriginal man who died in police custody asked for an independent process, that request was rejected.
George Newhouse, chief executive officer of the National Justice Project, which represents Mr White's family, said the difference was stark.
"The family called for an independent process in which police were not investigating police, but their request was refused," he told National Indigenous Times last week.
"Instead, there was a police-controlled process, a secret review and, ultimately, a decision not to prosecute for which Kumanjayi White's family were given no meaningful reasons. They cannot even find out who made the decision.
"The Gosling case exposes a disturbing double standard. If impartiality matters enough to protect a politician, it should matter at least as much when a family is asking who's accountable for a death in custody."
The NT DPP has said the Gosling referral was necessary because of a perceived conflict — fine. But the principle should be applied consistently, because the appearance of impartiality is not a luxury reserved for politicians.
It matters just as much when a disabled Aboriginal man dies in police custody as when the people responsible for investigating that death are from the same jurisdiction as those involved in it.
And it matters when a family asks a simple question: who decided nobody should be charged, and why?
The Territory cannot reasonably tell families that independence matters, then dismiss their demand for it when it becomes inconvenient. The strongest way to support public institutions is to subject them to scrutiny that allows the public to trust their conclusions. That is what independence is for.
There is a phrase often heard from Indigenous activists after another event raises questions about the way Aboriginal people are treated: "Another day in the colony."
One person updated the quote in a comment to this publication last week.
"Just another day in the NT."
