Schapelle Corby's 'Trial'

The show trial itself [13] is extremely supportive of the proposition. Why else would a regime so blatantly and systematically abuse Schapelle Corby’s legal and human rights in the full glare of media focus? The list of abuses is staggering. Here is a small subset:

• Schapelle Corby did not have legal counsel at the preliminary interrogation at Denpasar airport.
• Schapelle Corby did not have an interpreter at the preliminary interrogation. She was interrogated by airline staff whose English-language proficiency has never been established and she did not understand Indonesian
• Best calculations suggest that Schapelle Corby was interrogated for nine hours in a state of serious travel fatigue
• Schapelle Corby’s access to a lawyer was hampered or denied for many hours
• As a result of the wanton contamination of evidence (manual handling) and lack of collection (no weighing of luggage, no CCTV recording presented to court, no x-ray of the bag, etc) Schapelle Corby was forced to seek evidence of any kind in a desperate bid to prove her innocence
• Schapelle Corby was refused access to the evidence (eg: the marijuana, for testing of origin)
• Schapelle Corby was denied the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
• The case attracted political interest and other interventions throughout
• There was clear demonstration of attitude in court by the judges prior to verdict
• The destruction of evidence despite pleas to the contrary is well documented
• The refusal to investigate (for example, to DNA or fingerprint the inner bags, to test the drugs for origin, etc) was a repeated feature throughout.

Even the behavior of the prosecution presented clear evidence of an agenda. If they actually believed that Schapelle Corby was guilty, why didn’t they:

• have the inner bags tested for fingerprints and DNA, when one small fragment would have proved their case?
• have the marijuana tested for origin, given that if Australia was the source it would have strengthened their case?
• collect and show the CCTV tapes from the airport to collaborate their version of events?

They blocked these and other attempts to collect evidence and stimulate investigation. Observers wonder what possible motive there could be for this behavior. One obvious conclusion is that they knew the outcomes (or likely outcomes) already, and were desperate to suppress them.

For good measure though, the regime appointed a judge who had never acquitted a defendant in over 500 drug related trials [14]. With even the president of the country
itself commenting, the case was never primarily judicial in nature.

They subsequently awarded what was demonstrably a wholly political rather than a judicial sentence, one which bore no resemblance to the norm for marijuana offences, and one which exceeded sentences often awarded for crimes such as murder, rape and even terror related crime.

All this suggests that they desperately wanted a high profile conviction, and were prepared to go to significant lengths, risking international condemnation, to achieve one.


Next: Denpasar Airport

Return to Main Propositions Page