Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Is it really time to bring Schapelle Corby back home?

Jump to new
pavilion103 said:
You'd know if you're drunk before you drive though.
Click to expand...

Sigh.

Fine, you're on your "P" plates, you blow 0.01. You're over the limit, you might have no idea. The point was illustrative. :rolleyes:

Someone slips a pill in your Diet Coke

Someone gives you space cake.
 
I don't have much of an opinion either way.

I just couldn't imagine myself in the rare position where that happened to me, I've got no idea how it happened, I'm flipping out. Then I'm told I'm guilty until proven innocent.
I know it may be the law and I'm not disputing that it IS the law. But it just isn't right.

I know you use the drink driving example and it's a similar principle.
But it's worlds apart in terms of what is at stake for the innocent victim.
20 years in jail (possibly death!!) or demerit points/losing licence for a period.

No one should be in a position facing 20 years jail or death where they are presumed to be guilty. It's absolute BS.
 
pavilion103 said:
No one should be in a position facing 20 years jail or death where they are presumed to be guilty. It's absolute BS.
Click to expand...

You're entitled to your opinion, I'm just explaining how things work...

And from Victoria...

In Australia, Victorian woman Vera Momcilovic was arrested when police found at various locations in her apartment (including the refrigerator and the kitchen cupboard) quantities of methylamphetamine. Momcilovic was adamant that the drugs were her boyfriend's (a convicted drug trafficker) and that she had no knowledge of their existence.

Momcilovic was found guilty in 2008 under the Victorian Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981, which states that if a drug is found on the premises that you occupy, you are effectively in "possession" of them, unless you can satisfy a court otherwise.

Further, under the deemed supply provisions, Momcilovic was presumed to be a drug dealer. She was unable to disprove both of these legal fictions and was convicted of trafficking in a drug of dependence.
Click to expand...

https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/law/drug-prohibition-makes-mockery-criminal-law
 
McLovin said:
You're entitled to your opinion, I'm just explaining how things work...
And from Victoria...
https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/law/drug-prohibition-makes-mockery-criminal-law
Click to expand...
A bit of selective quoting there McLovin. A reading of the whole article is more informative.

Drug prohibition makes a mockery of criminal law
07 June 2012

OPINION (Helen Gibbon): Recent reports into the criminalisation of drugs in Australia have all concluded that the criminal law is a counterproductive and harmful way to deal with the issue of drug use and addiction, and that prohibition has failed.

It is now time for the legal profession to add its voice to the community's calls for reform.

...

Further, under the deemed supply provisions, Momcilovic was presumed to be a drug dealer. She was unable to disprove both of these legal fictions and was convicted of trafficking in a drug of dependence.

The Court of Appeal in Victoria was asked to decide if the drug laws violated the state's new Human Rights Charter Act. The court held that the section requiring Momcilovic to prove she did not know the drugs were in her house was inconsistent with the Charter Act, which provided that people are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. While the court issued a "declaration of inconsistency", Momcilovic's conviction was upheld.

Momcilovic appealed to the High Court. Unfortunately, the High Court left intact both legal fictions, but at least held that one (deemed possession) was not applicable to the other (deemed supply), and Momcilovic was granted a retrial.

...

It is now time that the legal profession denounces the butchering of traditional criminal common law concepts in the name of what is truly ineffective drug law enforcement.

Ben Mostyn and Helen Gibbon are members of the Australian Drug Law Reform Initiative based at the UNSW Faculty of Law. Helen is also a lecturer in Criminal Law at UNSW.
Click to expand...

And this:

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/h...change-to-state-drug-laws-20110908-1jzw2.html

High Court ruling could force change to state drug laws
Date: September 9, 2011

A HIGH Court ruling has cast doubt on some drug trafficking convictions in Victoria, prompting the state government to consider changing the law.

Attorney-General Robert Clark is considering amending a key part of the Drugs Act after the court set aside the drug conviction of a Melbourne lawyer.

Vera Momcilovic was convicted of trafficking amphetamines after they were found in the apartment she owned and regularly shared with her then partner, a convicted drug dealer. She denied having anything to do with the drugs.

After the High Court yesterday ordered a retrial, doubt has been cast on other drug trafficking convictions in similar circumstances, although a spokesman for the Attorney-General said early indications were that the number of cases affected was likely to be small.

Lawyers who spoke to The Age said the court's decision could especially impede prosecutions where marijuana was grown hydroponically.

"It's going to make it more difficult to prosecute trafficking offences," Peter Faris, QC, said.

Momcilovic was found guilty in the County Court in 2008 under sections of the Drugs Act that said if a trafficable drug were found on the premises that you occupied, you were effectively in "possession" of them, unless you could satisfy a court otherwise.

This reversed the burden of proof that normally applies in criminal cases and makes it much easier to prosecute drug cases.

At her trial, Momcilovic's partner gave evidence claiming possession of the drugs and backed her denial of any knowledge of the drugs found in her fridge. After a jury found her guilty, she appealed to the Court of Appeal, which said it was unable, under law, to set aside her conviction, though it reduced her sentence.

The Court of Appeal noted, however, that the law under which she was convicted shifted the burden of proof in such a way that it was an unjustified breach of her right to a presumption of innocence under Victoria's Charter of Human Rights.

The matter then wound its way to the nation's highest appellate court, which yesterday found by a majority in Momcilovic's favour. They said the burden of proof could not be shifted in the way it had been interpreted.

The ruling also raises questions about the operation of the much-debated charter, which is being reviewed by a state parliamentary committee.

Professor Sarah Joseph, of Monash University, said while the charter had been found valid, the case raised important questions about its practical workings.

Phil Lynch, of the Human Rights Law Centre, hailed the decision as an affirmation of the charter.

The decision was particularly important and timely in light of the Baillieu government's current review, he said.
Click to expand...
 
To Mr. Mike Willesee
Channel 7
Sydney or Melbourne
Australia
The World
The Universe


Dear Mr. Mike Willesee


You have a once in a lifetime chance to depart Entertainment on a high note.

The following are the questions you NEED to ask Schapelle Corby.

1. Is she innocent? :jerry

2. How does she feel after all this time in an Indonesian hell-hole? :jerry

3. Has she given any thought to the situation in Israel/Palestine, viz a viz, settlers encroaching on Palestinian land versus Israel's right to have a nation state with secure borders. :alien:

4. Where does she think the ASX XAO will be in 12 months time? :partyman:

5. Has the Higg's boson given her any insight in to the benefits of further actively funding Realistic Existentialism as a philosophy, viz a viz a more singular Nietzcheism. :jump:

6. When the Gatecrashers arrive who will be eliminated from "My Kitchen rules" :rolleyes:

gg
 
Chris45 said:
A bit of selective quoting there McLovin. A reading of the whole article is more informative.



And this:

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/h...change-to-state-drug-laws-20110908-1jzw2.html
Click to expand...

Well the Drugs, Poisons And Control Act is from 1981 and the Charter of Human Rights is from 2006. The High Court didn't say there was a fundamental problem with shifting the burden of proof, merely that the two bits of legislation contradict eachother. What do you think happened in the intervening 25 years? In any event, it serves to make the point that laws around possession are not unique to Indonesia, notwithstanding this little hiccup in administrative law.

I have no idea what has happened to the Charter, but the DP&C Act hasn't been amended and as you'd expect, the pollies were none too happy about some silly charter getting in their way.

Shortly after Momcilovic was handed down, the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee of the Victorian Parliament published its report of the four-year review of the Charter. A majority of the Committee recommended that, while the role of the Charter in the processes leading to the enactment of legislation should be maintained, the Charter should no longer play any role in the courts. The majority of the Committee therefore recommended that key parts of the Charter (including s 32(1) and the obligations on public authorities in s 38) should be repealed. The Government’s response has not yet been announced. At the time of writing, the future of the Charter is, at best, uncertain.
Click to expand...

http://blog.thomsonreuters.com.au/2...cilovic-v-the-queen-an-insider’s-perspective/

And with that, I'll leave you all too it. Enjoy.:)
 
Schapelle Corby: Islamists protest against parole decision

More than 100 Islamic hardliners have protested against the Indonesian government's decision to approve Schapelle Corby's parole from jail, saying she should receive the death penalty.

The convicted drug smuggler was released from prison in Bali on Monday and has since been holed up in the luxury Sentosa Seminyak resort.

On Friday, a crowd of mostly men from the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) and other hardline groups gathered in the capital Jakarta, demanding Corby's parole be revoked.
Click to expand...

"Drugs are not our culture. That's Australia's culture. In Indonesia drugs means the death penalty - why did we free her?" the protester shouted, to which others replied "Allahu Akbar" (God is greater), before marching to the presidential palace.
Click to expand...

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-14/islamists-protest-parole-for-schapelle-corby/5261874
 
DocK said:
Same here. At the time I thought "the baggage handler did it" was a bit of a wild stab at establishing reasonable doubt - now I'm wondering if she may have actually be innocent all along. Certainly the "reasonable doubt" factor has been well and truly amplified by these findings.
Click to expand...

How can our jurisdiction have a warrant to search issued when the so called crime has nothing to do with Australia. Are we crossing the line between the Judiciary's independence and what the governutters want.

Are we here getting to the CIA standard of rounding up a few Union members and shipping them to Siberia forever.

Yes those missing tapes could become a problem Mr Howard.

Well worth refreshing the discussion back in 2012 where I took the above quote of Dock's.
 
I expect that she will give an interview and be put behind bars again.

That's the mindset of a drug mule.
 
Top