First off, why would anyone attempt to smuggle marijuana into Indonesia?
1.The buyers are westerners, who buy only from westerners, out of fear of undercover Indonesian police posing as sellers. nd is from westerners is a market for imported marijuana
2. The price of high grade weed in that market is $30,000 to $40,000 per kilograms.
In the plastic bag in Corby’s travel bag was 4 ks., $120,000 to $160,000 worth of marijuana.
The marijuana found in the bag was analysed, it was high grade marijuana.
Secondly, what was the objective of the prosecution, and what was the objective of the defence?
The prosecution had to tie the bag of marijuana to Corby, demonstrate that marijuana was her possession.
The defence had to establish to the contrary, showing either the evidence the prosecution laid out before the Judges did not tie that bag to Corby or, lay out evidence which shows, while the prosecution’s evidence might have satisfied the charges against Corby, in fact it Corby was innocent, that it was not hers that, as their claim was planted by some-one else.
The defence went further, they specified the drugs were inserted at Brisbane airport , to be taken to Sydney.
The first mistake Corby’s defence made was to refuse the Australian Govt’s. offer of the services of two Q.C.s, pro bono.
The second was the letter to the President of Indonesia to intervene. The implication, even if the President is ever inclined in any case to intervene, is vicious, it would be tantamount to over-riding courts and judiciary, suborning them to the President’s whim, the Corby case aside, this readily opens up th e prospect of perversion of justice. Other objections can be raised against this mistake such as, pleas to the President are pleas for clemency by those convicted of crimes. Rants about corruption of Indonesian Govt. aside, irrespective of whether they be false, true , or exaggerated, the Indonesian govt. is not noted for nay such overt intervention, nor, for that matter, for attempting to suborn judges.
The third was to fight the case through the media in Australia and thus, having sought to bring political pressure on not only the President of Indonesia to intervene in Corby’s case, but upon the court to find in Corby’s favour. In other words, they did not fight the case where it had to be fought, in the court and according to rules of evidence, argument and principles informing due process and other matters fundamental to the conduct of a trial. They needed to satisfy the judges with the case they presented, not a pack of journalists in Australia stirring up emotion hostile to the court and now , it seems Indonesia ( Australia is descending into primitive tribalism in view of the increasing frequency of`collective’ hysteria and outpourings of emotion).
The fourth mistake was to mount as arguments mere assertions, heresay and mere character references. In contrast, to illuminate, the Judges found the prosecution had established the four elements which justified a verdict of guilty. On each element, the prosecution’s arguments were sound, they were, evidentially based and it is thus that they tied Corby to the drugs and as the one who brought them into Indonesia. The defence did not dint the arguments, which satisfied the negative tests entailed in having to demonstrate each of the four elements, which the prosecution did not on 2 elements but on all 4 elements.
Those who are saying the judge was capricious in `dismissing’ Corby’s evidence are evading that singular observation, the defences evidence was not evidence, it was heresay, character references and allegations, in addition to, for example, trying to discredit the four customs officers for which, that too, grounds were not delivered by the defence.
Mr. Peter Faris Q.C. has given a close examination of the case, based on the information he had available, and introduces his article with this telling point:
Is she guilty?
3. I do not know if she is guilty ? nobody but Corby knows that. I was not present during the commission of the alleged crime so I can form no independent judgment of the matter.
4. This means that the correct question is ? should she have been convicted?
In other words, guilt or innocence is not the issue, it is , did the verdict of guilty follow from what was laid out before the court, not just by the prosecution, but also by the defence.
Mr Faris concludes, yes, to the question, and gives a point by point explanation of why so.
If there is a flaw in, say the Judge’s reasons, that, surely will be examined and raised as a ground of appeal by defence lawyers . If there is something which contradicts prosecution evidence, they will raise that. if there is evidence they discover which upholds the claim of not guilty, they will raise it, in an appeal case.
The fifth mistake was, the defence lawyer did not seek evidence from Australia, particularly the airports, in order to establish the case, irrespective of what any available evidence might have shown when they were preparing their case.
The aim of the defence was to secure acquittal of the charge, irrespective of Corby’s innocence or guilt, since that was, and remains her plea. Her lawyers fought the case not in the court but in the Oz media. They badly advised Corby to not accept the offer of the services of 2 Q.C.’s made by the Australian Govt. They did not seek in Australia objective evidence to demonstrate any claim they would make, in order to demonstrate why the prosecutors had not satsfied the 4 elements required for a guilty verdict, why the prosecution’s claim could not be justly maintained, to establish doubt at least sufficient that a verdict of not guilty was justified.
They had attempted to pre-empt the court, even have the by the letter sent to the President of Indonesia influence it in some way by sending that letter to the President. Through the media in Australia they launched a campaign aimed at discrediting the court and the trial judges. Trying to smear the judges served no good purpose at all. The judge reflected in his reasons of judgment, Indonesian Law, the courts and justice will be upheld and will not be compromised by yielding to public campaigns mounted in the media. I read that statement to be a reflection on the media campaign in Australia launched by the defence. The Judge made plain before the trial, the trial will be just, the judges are impartial, are objective, cannot be compromised suborned in order to favour either side, and reasserted that in that same passage in the published reasons for judgment. In other words, if there is any flaw in the reasoning, it is not because the Jurist deliberately erred, nor sought to hand down a flawed judgment for, say, corrupt reasons.
It was not a bright `tactic’ of the defense to attack the Indonesian Court and Judiciary before, during and straight after the trial, through the media, and uttering this sort of nonsense to do so,` in 500 cases of drug trafficking/possession the trial Judge has not acquitted even one defendant’. What is that nonsense supposed to mean, apart form the clear cut, naked insinuation of:
That he found 500 guilty of trafficking /possession, shows that he is, somehow, ill disposed against anyone charged with trafficking/ possession, a-priori biased against any such defendant and will hang anyone regardless of the evidence.
Ipso facto, Corby would not receive a fair trial, and, the verdict shows she did not? The defence lawyer did not fight the case in the court, she did not bother to consider what the Judge will have to have put before him if he was to acquit Corby, she ran a campaign, which the medja all too readily seized upon and developed, rather stupidly at that. The weekend editions of the newspapers were indeed, running the line, Corby was done in.. that is is what it amounts too, as, for example, Mao’s Melbourne Age, Saturday the 28th shows in lurid detail.
That, after all , is one of the functions of an appeals court ,to correct decisions if a judge has erred. Taking up the cudgel and crying, the Judge had it in for Corby, she was doomed from the very first, was a blinder , which will also serve her appeal not one bit of good at all. The appeal has to be soundly run.
In view such a shoddy defence, Corby might have been fortunate in being handed a 20 year sentence only, the Prosecution believes the judge was lenient.
What is surprising, in view of the above, the defence has decided to lodge an appeal so soon after the completion of the trial. Corby would have been best advised to wait before lodging the appeal, accept the services pro bono of 2 Q.Cs the Prime Minister has offered Corby, and let them work through and sort out what is a complete mess, a right cock-up of the defence’s own doing.
A cock up which is bad enough if she is guilty, and it is worse if she is innocent. Assume the second, the defence have to work fast and hard at rectifying a bad case in order to mount a sound appeal, if they are secure an acquittal. If she is guilty, if she proceeds with the appeal, and with nothing more to add by way of new evidence, her defence will have to work hard at averting the jeopardy of a harsher penalty that might be imposed on failure of the appeal. Indeed, that is now the risk she runs even if she is innocent, that is how defective her defence was.
Much has been made of the lack of forensic evidence, such as fingerprints and the origins of the marijuana. That the marijuana came from Australia was not contested, as far as I understand, the Brisbane Airport to Sydney Airport story put by the defence concedes that anyway. As for fingerprints, in the first instance, some surfaces, say waxed metal, or plastic do not retain prints or prints which are sufficiently detailed for analysis. It sounds counter-intuitive but, fingerprints are only circumstantial evidence, even in Australian courts, which entails, such adds to demonstrate a claim only by agreement with major evidence. The lack of such evidence as fingerprints does not affect not only what the defence must demonstrate, but what the prosecution must demonstrate. There-in is the difference between the tow sides, the prosecution tied the bag to Corby, they showed she was its owner, they showed she brought in the marijuana. If Corby is innocent, and she might well be, her lawyers set nothing out which substantiated her claims.
One upshot of the media campaign is worth noting:
The reaction to the declaration public by the Federal Police Chief Mr. Keelty, allowing that some of his public statements might seem odd, allegations that baggage handlers are engaged in packing drugs into passengers’ luggage are baseless., certainly during that period .
At this stage, if Corby is innocent, what is required is for the defence to secure the evidence which establish that and that evidence, right now, is the police in Australia;ia identifying, according to her claim, baggage handlers at Brisbane and Sydney which the defence allege inserted the drugs. Faris provides an explanation the medja have not managed to set out which shreds the claim. Then there is declaration of the Federal Police Chief Mr. Keelty, allowing that some of his public statements might seem odd, allegations of baggage handlers engaged in doing the sort of thing alleged by the defense are baseless.
Attacking Mr. Keelty for that statement misses the point, he was stating as a fact what the Federal Police are satisfied with, and notice this, to make allegations baggage handlers are involved in drug trafficking and use their jobs to ensure drugs are smuggled is a serious charge against the baggage handlers at Sydney and, Brisbane airports. Tampering with baggage, is one thing, and grievous enough but, to falsely accuse anyone of a type of major crime is shocking , with hideous ramifications such as, the [perversion of justice and, the consequences for anyone who is accused of a major crime on the mere say so of anyone, and not just Corby’s defence.
Let us be quite clear about this, contrary to anyone who says , Keelty was wrong to declare in public, no, that allegation is false, Keelty actually did the correct thing, in clearing up that allegation. The baggage handlers were a soft target, since the allegations were preceded by the discovery of some, and some only, had tampered with baggage, which is not the same as stuffing drugs into passenger’s luggage, as reprehensible as tampering is. Correcting a false suspicion was the right thing to do.
The. If Corby is Innocent, trying to secure the conviction of baggage handlers on false accusations is also grievous, is a perversion of justice, to leave a false suspicion, much built up by the media ,against anyone hanging in the air is nothing less than a witch sniffing persecution to satisfy a public, whose emotions have been stirred up by the defence and the media, and as mistaken tactic by the defence. Yet, in choosing to do just that, make assertions which, though false, as Keelty stated, what the defence and the media did was target that the defence could make the soft target, by then , of the baggage handlers were a soft target, since the allegations were preceded by the discovery of some, and some only, had tampered with baggage.
If anybody believes that falsely accusing someone of a criminal act, a serious act, two acts, and a possible third crime, perversion of justice, should not be checked, stopped on the spot, consider the implications in this case:: smuggling and, using someone innocent to carry the drugs by shoving drugs into their bags and a third crime, thereby , if the drugs are discovered, it will be the victim who is arrested, convicted and sent to prison.
Now, that is what Mr. keelty clarified, the allegations against the baggage handlers raised by the defence are without foundation. He did the correct thing. That some have tampered with baggage is reprehensible as it is, and they have been sacked. It is, however, a shocking matter to proceed with false allegations of anything against anyone and more so when the allegations are of serious crimes against the targets .
One could illustrate this with some anecdotes of some in Australia who have been falsely accused of having committed some serious crimes. In one case, the matter did go to court. The judge threw the case out for what it was false, but, it was too late. The one who was falsely accused was so distraught that, at the end of the brief trial that that individual volitionally signed himself into a psychiatric hospital. Others, those who sought to damage someone, have merely asserted a false accusation and let it hanging , as it were, in the air, the mere assertion of it sufficient to damage the targets, the sheer distress some have gone through because they have been the targets of such vicious conduct being the effect sought.. Oh, yes indeed, Keelty did the right thing against what could reduce to perversion of justice, the incrimination of someone for grievous crimes they have not committed and, indeed , possibly, never would commit. If Corby is innocent, subjecting others to such treatment in order to mount a defence does not rectify Corby’s position , it is a very rotten, savage thing to do.
Indeed, by doing that, the defense has opened up the prospect of the prosecution, for the appeal case, doing what the defence failed to do in the first place, seek evidence from Australia , buy calling an Officer of the Federal Police to give evidence, and , should they be needed airport security and customs officers of Brisbane and Sydney
Keelty’s statement is independent of what, of course, the defence alleged in court.They had to substantiate the claim with evidence. The defence did not seek to discover evidence from the appropriate sources in Australia. Instead, the defence relied on such things as heresy, allegations, and character references, leaving the prosecution’s case intact.
What is surprising, in view of the above, the defence has decided to lodge an appeal so soon after the completion of the trial. Corby would have been best advised to wait before lodging the appeal, until she has accepted the services pro bono of 2 Q.Cs the Prime Minister has offered Corby, and let them work through and sort out what is a complete mess, a right cock-up of the defence lawyer’s own doing, before lodging an appeal.
Recollecting, if Corby is guilty, then she took her chances to make $130,000 to $160,000 by selling high grade marijuana in Indonesia. She did that, despite the public record of smugglers caught, convicted and their sentences,Indonesia, and that the position of the Indonesians on drugs and drug smugglers, and of other Asean Govts and courts, the believing Indonesian has is well understood for some decades notwithstanding. If she is guilty, she incurred the risk of being caught and dealt a harsh sentence. Agree or not with that position, that is the position of Indonesia and other Asean countries. If she is guilty, why did she believe she could get away with it when many other have not managed that feat?
If she is innocent, she erred in following her lawyer’s advice to refuse the offer of the 2Q.C for the trial and its preparation, and her position was eroded further by the approach her lawyer took in running the case. There is no point in attacking the trial judge when, her defence did great work on behalf of the prosecution. The prosecution did their job, the defence did not. The prosecution established all four elements were satisfied, they laid out evidence which tied Corby and the Marijuana together. It was on those grounds the Judge delivered the verdict of guilty.
Peter Faris Q.C. Summation and Analysis, . As Mr. Faris properly cautions, the trial and judgement transcripts are required before a complete and accurate analysis can be laid out.
