Is it really time to bring Schapelle Corby back home?

[McLovin]

It seems pretty obvious doesn't it that if you are found with drugs in your case when you enter a country they were yours ?

Unfortunately there are some very, very clever drug smugglers who have successfully conned people into unwittingly bringing drugs into the country. In the cases that have surfaced the "marks" were found to clearly not at fault in any way.

There is also a case coming up in America where a couple of drug smugglers manged to get copies of car keys from Ford and stashed bags of dope in students cars. It's very clever and far safer for the smugglers.

________________________________________________________________________________________

By the way I do not think in a month of Sundays that Schapelle Corboy was set up.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/26/free-vacation-drug-mule_n_4166263.html
http://www.vancouverdesi.com/news/n...-s-border-may-be-unwitting-drug-mules/397289/
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/news/ci_23751049/college-student-who-was-unwitting-drug-mule-sues

I never knew this (from 2008)...

The defence was a costly sham for Australia

THE real tragedy of the Schapelle Corby saga is that misguided people have risked Australia's good relations with Indonesia by pushing claims about a conspiracy involving baggage handlers - claims they knew were false. We now know there was never any substance to stories of an inside job involving baggage handlers, because Corby's dumped Australian lawyer, Robin Tampoe, has admitted he made it up. Australian authorities wasted a lot of time co-operating with this charade, including sending a convicted criminal from prison in Australia to Bali to give evidence.

Confirmation that the baggage handler defence was a lie does not establish who, if anyone, in the Corby family knew about the marijuana before it was found. But it does establish with certainty that the Corby family is prepared to play with the truth in a bid to mislead authorities and garner sympathy from the public. Indonesian customs staff had every reason to believe someone was up to no good when they intercepted the package of drugs Ms Corby admitted were concealed in luggage that belonged to her. After making that admission, Ms Corby appears to have badly miscalculated by publicly questioning the competence of her accusers and the host country. She wasted her efforts trying to win support in the court of public opinion at home rather than with the legal system in Bali, where it really mattered.

Indonesian judges were obviously correct to reject the baggage handler fantasy, unlike the many Australian tourists who, for a period, refused to travel without encasing their luggage in plastic film. Indonesian authorities have every reason to be displeased at the way their judiciary was portrayed as incapable of doing its job.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/corby-truth-is-out/story-e6frg72o-1111116714603

 

[bellenuit]

Schapelle's is young and has much to contribute to Australia.

I see no reason why she should not one day take her place in the Senate, for the Greens.

A mini-series could be her stepping stone to respectability with our Green Senators.

Stranger has occurred.

gg

I think you are on to something there GG. Instead of SHY having to rely on Sea Patrol to understand smuggling between Australia and Indonesia, she would have her very own advisor direct from the front line.

 

[McLovin]

Some good news...

ATTORNEY-GENERAL Jarrod Bleijie will take steps to block convicted drug smuggler Schapelle Corby from profiting through a $2 million deal with Channel Seven to tell her story.

Queensland Premier Campbell Newman today said he had asked Mr Bleijie to investigate whether state laws to block criminals profiting from their crimes could be applied to the Corby interview deal.

“I am deeply concerned, in fact I’m dismayed that a convicted drug criminal has benefited it appears from a criminal activity and I am asking the Attorney-General to see whether the Queensland legislation, the proceeds of crime legislation, may have some application,” Mr Newman said.

“What we are seeing here is a convicted criminal apparently benefiting from the criminal act,” he said.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...om-2m-media-deal/story-fnihsrf2-1226824579744

 

[cynic]

I never knew this (from 2008)...





http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/corby-truth-is-out/story-e6frg72o-1111116714603

The content of those articles is unsurprising. The only thing that amazes me is that more people didn't wake up to the deception earlier. That tall tale about the missing video footage was hysterical! (Did everyone truly forget about the elevated vigilance post 9/11?)

However, I do believe that basilio was raising a valid concern regarding the potential for innocent people to be wrongfully convicted of serious crimes.
The presumption of innocence may result in such criminals "getting away with it" for a time, thereby contributing to the demise of those partaking of illicit substances, but I can imagine nothing worse than the destruction visited upon inncocent people by wrongful convictions.

Which is preferable?

Allowing a criminal to continue to profit from the exploitation of other criminals' weaknesses

or

risk incarcerating some innocent people in efforts towards prevention of aforementioned criminal activities?

 

[Chris45]

I never knew this (from 2008)...
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/corby-truth-is-out/story-e6frg72o-1111116714603

It sounds like that article was written by a devoted Indonesia-phile!

Indonesian judges were obviously correct to reject the baggage handler fantasy, unlike the many Australian tourists who, for a period, refused to travel without encasing their luggage in plastic film. Indonesian authorities have every reason to be displeased at the way their judiciary was portrayed as incapable of doing its job.

So we can have absolute confidence that Indonesian authorities will administer justice competently, honestly and fairly, can we?

Robin Tampoe may have made up that particular story, but is the general idea of baggage handlers smuggling drugs in people's luggage such a fantasy?

QANTAS Baggage handlers Plant cocaine in unwitting passengers luggage
http://qantasbaggagewarning.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/qantas-baggage-handlers-plant-cocaine.html

Five arrested in customs drug sting
http://www.smh.com.au/national/five-arrested-in-customs-drug-sting-20130212-2eb6q.html

 

[McLovin]

The content of those articles is unsurprising. The only thing that amazes me is that more people didn't wake up to the deception earlier. That tall tale about the missing video footage was hysterical! (Did everyone truly forget about the elevated vigilance post 9/11?)

However, I do believe that basilio was raising a valid concern regarding the potential for innocent people to be wrongfully convicted of serious crimes.
The presumption of innocence may result in such criminals "getting away with it" for a time, thereby contributing to the demise of those partaking of illicit substances, but I can imagine nothing worse than the destruction visited upon inncocent people by wrongful convictions.

Which is preferable?

Allowing a criminal to continue to profit from the exploitation of other criminals' weaknesses

or

risk incarcerating some innocent people in efforts towards prevention of aforementioned criminal activities?

A valid point, cynic, and one of the reasons (and I have a few) that I don't believe in the death penalty. I can't imagine a person suffering a worse fate than being executed for something they didn't do.

The justice system will never be perfect. It is afterall a system that is only human. The whole purpose of "beyond reasonable doubt" as opposed to "on the balance of probabilities" by design means that more guilty people are acquited than innoncent are convicted.

Having said that, in the specific case of Corby, once you cut through all the xenophobia and bush lawyers, there was very little evidence to support any of her claims about the source of the drugs in her bag. The only defence that seems to be offered is that Indonesia is corrupt therefore a not guilty verdict is to be accepted at face value, whereas a guilty verdict only serves to highlight that corruption.

 

[McLovin]

So we can have absolute confidence that Indonesian authorities will administer justice competently, honestly and fairly, can we?

You can't have absolute confidence in any justice system.

Robin Tampoe may have made up that particular story, but is the general idea of baggage handlers smuggling drugs in people's luggage such a fantasy?

So basically, the Indonesian judges were correct to dismiss this fabricated story. I would have thought that would count as a point for them, but no, they still must be incompetent, dishonest and unfair. We'll just gloss over the fact that Schapelle and her bogan entourage were quite happy to lie.

 

[Julia]

She was found in possession of drugs. She couldn't prove that she didn't have knowledge that they were in her bag. That's case closed, in Australia or Indonesia.

I don't know whether she's guilty or not. I didn't take any interest in the event in the first place and only comment now because it's everywhere, unavoidable.
Just a question on the above, McLovin, how would one prove that one did not have knowledge of any item when it was found in one's bag?

Say I checked in my packed bag at a US airport, then picked it up at Sydney. Customs found some illicit substance in it. I have no idea how it got there, I just know I didn't put it there. How could I prove that?

There's a link above to the Canada trip won by a couple. Personally I wouldn't have believed any such prize would include provision of luggage, but can understand some older naive folk just being thrilled about their good luck. Their account of what had happened was believed.

To be honest, I really can't believe anyone would be stupid enough to take such a quantity of such a low potency drug concealed with a body board. I'd have assumed it would be checked before being allowed to pass through just as much as any other piece of luggage.

I'm also vaguely surprised at the assurance that the Indonesian justice system is deemed entirely OK.
Given the reported bribes paid in so many instances, I wouldn't it find it all that hard to believe it was corruptible.

Again, not suggesting Corby is innocent or guilty. No idea. Just a little alarmed at the absolute rigid conviction by so many that she did it, and if she didn't, well then it doesn't much matter anyway.

It seems pretty obvious doesn't it that if you are found with drugs in your case when you enter a country they were yours ?

Unfortunately there are some very, very clever drug smugglers who have successfully conned people into unwittingly bringing drugs into the country. In the cases that have surfaced the "marks" were found to clearly not at fault in any way.

There is also a case coming up in America where a couple of drug smugglers manged to get copies of car keys from Ford and stashed bags of dope in students cars. It's very clever and far safer for the smugglers.

________________________________________________________________________________________

By the way I do not think in a month of Sundays that Schapelle Corboy was set up.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/26/free-vacation-drug-mule_n_4166263.html
http://www.vancouverdesi.com/news/n...-s-border-may-be-unwitting-drug-mules/397289/
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/news/ci_23751049/college-student-who-was-unwitting-drug-mule-sues

 

[nulla nulla]

Personally I no longer care as to her guilt or otherwise. I find it disgusting the way the media has her location staked out. She isn't a hero. There must be hundreds of Aussies all over the world doing or have done time in some hell hole jail and they don't receive any media attention.

Because of the media circus and willingness of the media to throw money around for a "story", Corby will come out of this a millionaire. Better than she ever would have, working as a beautician.

 

[McLovin]

I don't know whether she's guilty or not. I didn't take any interest in the event in the first place and only comment now because it's everywhere, unavoidable.
Just a question on the above, McLovin, how would one prove that one did not have knowledge of any item when it was found in one's bag?

Say I checked in my packed bag at a US airport, then picked it up at Sydney. Customs found some illicit substance in it. I have no idea how it got there, I just know I didn't put it there. How could I prove that?

It's impossible for me to answer that, Julia. It's so hypothetical and there could be a myriad of ways to prove it (locks tampered, security camera footage of the bag being opened etc)

I'm also vaguely surprised at the assurance that the Indonesian justice system is deemed entirely OK.
Given the reported bribes paid in so many instances, I wouldn't it find it all that hard to believe it was corruptible.

I don't think anyone is saying the Indonesian system is entirely OK, I just don't believe that it is so broken that it cannot deliver a fair verdict.

Tim Lindsey (Prof of Asian law at U Melb) has a pretty balanced view on it...

Alan Saunders: This was the Australian prisoner who overheard her being discussed in prison?

Tim Lindsey: Yes. His evidence is in an Australian system, the courts would wait for one of the parties to put him forward as a witness, it would then conduct an inquiry into whether or not the evidence that he was proposing to adduce was acceptable within the framework of the laws of evidence of this country, or make a decision as to whether it would hear him or not, and as that then proceeds, parties can object and narrow down what evidence the court can take into account. And that evidence, once it is in front of the judges, is more or less binding on them.

Now in a European or civil law system, it's quite different. The judges will generally allow the parties to put more or less what evidence they choose in front of them, and may actually seek evidence themselves to supplement it, and would allow most things in. What they then do is they weigh up the merits of all that evidence in their deliberations and decide what weight they will attach to it, and then in their judgment, indicate whether they think it's significant or insignificant, or whether they will take it into account at all. In other words, in the British-derived Australian system, we decide whether the evidence is any good before we hear it, in their system they hear it, and then decide whether it's any good. There's certainly, as you can guess, some pretty good arguments for the European system. It allows much more information to come before the courts than our system, but it certainly is different.

In the Schapelle Corby case, Ford has given his evidence, but I don't think we should assume that it will be given any weight at all by the court.

Alan Saunders: Well in this case, given the evidence that's been presented, would Schapelle's case have got this far under our system, or imagine that she were being tried in former British colonies like Singapore and Malaysia, would it have got very far under that sort of system? Is there sufficient evidence for us, let's say?

Tim Lindsey: I think that as it stands now in the Indonesian court, it is likely that Schapelle Corby will be convicted, and I think that she would find herself in a similar position if she was being tried in a common law system such as ours. The reason for that is that her defence hangs largely on the evidence of Ford.

What Ford said is that while in prison he heard two prisoners talking, who indicated that a third person had been responsible for placing the cannabis in her luggage, and when cross-examined in the court by the judge, he refused to name that person incidentally. Now that evidence is what we would call here in Australia hearsay. Usually in our courts, that sort of hearsay evidence would not be admitted in the first place. She was caught with 4.1 kilograms of cannabis in her luggage and that creates a prima facie case really for the prosecution. Her defence is it was somebody else. There are many hypotheses about what happened that might well be true, but none of that evidence has been put before the court in Bali. Her evidence is based on a flat denial. 'They're not my drugs, I didn't put them there, I don't know who put them there'. That denial is of course quite consistent with innocence, but it is also what you might expect a guilty person to say. That's the problem, it's a real dilemma for her. If she is innocent, (I have no views as to her guilt or innocence) but if she's innocent, that is what she would say; if she's guilty, that's what she would say.

The problem is here, what we're coming back to, this is nothing to do with an inadequate legal system, it's nothing to do with there being something inherently flawed in the European legal system, yes there are problems in developing countries in any system, whether it's British or European. The problem is really you can't expect to succeed in court without hard evidence.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational...sian-legal-system-and-schapelle-corby/3448778

 

[Chris45]

I don't know whether she's guilty or not. I didn't take any interest in the event in the first place and only comment now because it's everywhere, unavoidable.
Just a question on the above, McLovin, how would one prove that one did not have knowledge of any item when it was found in one's bag?

Say I checked in my packed bag at a US airport, then picked it up at Sydney. Customs found some illicit substance in it. I have no idea how it got there, I just know I didn't put it there. How could I prove that?

My thoughts also. Corby was asked to prove that she didn't put the drugs in her bag but the Indonesians didn't allow finger printing of the bag or DNA testing of the marijuana, and they burned all of the evidence immediately after the judgment was handed down. Just exactly how was she supposed to do that under those circumstances?

There's a link above to the Canada trip won by a couple. Personally I wouldn't have believed any such prize would include provision of luggage, but can understand some older naive folk just being thrilled about their good luck. Their account of what had happened was believed.

I wonder where they'd be now if they had passed through an Indonesian airport and had voiced their concerns to an Indonesian customs official?

To be honest, I really can't believe anyone would be stupid enough to take such a quantity of such a low potency drug concealed with a body board.

I agree and it just doesn't pass the common sense test. Just as the accusation that Lindy Chamberlain murdered her baby and tried to blame it on a dingo didn't, and it was appalling how people were so quick to believe it and judge her guilty!

I don't know the full details of the Corby case apart from what has been depicted on TV. Her looks and place of abode are irrelevant to me. If she is in fact guilty, then I think she's an incredibly good actor, and she should be studying to be an actress, not a beautician.

I went through the Bali airport terminal myself a few years before Corby. After a long flight I was very keen to get through the customs process and away from the hustle and bustle and smells as soon as possible and get to my hotel. It is entirely conceivable to me that one would not notice a thin plastic vacuum sealed bag or a few extra kilos in a floppy boogie board bag. Third world airport terminals are not places where one wants to linger.

The thought occurred to me that if a person's father is into criminal activities, then is that person automatically a criminal too? Is it not possible for a person to reject the activities of some family members but still love them because they're family?

It is possible she may have smoked marijuana in the past, as have a large section of our society, but does that automatically make her a smuggler?

My gut feeling is that, if not baggage handlers, then the father and half-brother, who were both definitely involved with drugs, were probably responsible for the marijuana in the boogie bag and there is reasonable doubt in my mind that she may have been a victim.

I'm also vaguely surprised at the assurance that the Indonesian justice system is deemed entirely OK. Given the reported bribes paid in so many instances, I wouldn't it find it all that hard to believe it was corruptible.

Agree.

Again, not suggesting Corby is innocent or guilty. No idea. Just a little alarmed at the absolute rigid conviction by so many that she did it, and if she didn't, well then it doesn't much matter anyway.

My sentiments also.

I don't think anyone is saying the Indonesian system is entirely OK, I just don't believe that it is so broken that it cannot deliver a fair verdict.

How can a system that believes that mere possession is proof of guilt without the need for supporting forensic evidence, possibly be relied on to deliver a fair verdict when it expects an accused to prove her innocence but denies her access to basic forensic testing of the evidence being used against her?

 

[pavilion103]

Good post Chris.

 

[McLovin]

My thoughts also. Corby was asked to prove that she didn't put the drugs in her bag but the Indonesians didn't allow finger printing of the bag or DNA testing of the marijuana, and they burned all of the evidence immediately after the judgment was handed down. Just exactly how was she supposed to do that under those circumstances?

She was asked nothing of the sort. She was charged with importing marijuana into Indonesia. Her only defence is if she was not aware that she had been carrying it, which she is required to prove. Whether her fingerprints were on the bag or they weren't is neither here nor there, because (a) it doesn't take a criminal mastermind to use a set of gloves (b) she may have not packed the bag. I can imagine a prosecutor in Australia tearing to shreds that defence.

FWIW, her lawyers asked for the marijuana not to be tested to determine its source.

Mr Rasiah, interviewed on the Seven Network, said Corby's Australian legal team had advised the family to participate. "But it was never done. They would never do it."

The Australian reported last February how Corby's Bali lawyers had rejected an offer from the Australian Federal Police to DNA test the bag and marijuana after police had told them the result would be reported to the Bali police.

AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty confirmed the Corby defence team had approached his officers about conducting the tests, but said it was the same lawyers who later backed away.

"I think the reality was if it was tested and the tests didn't come up with what the defence counsel expected, then it may, in fact, assist the prosecution and not the defence," Mr Keelty said.

How can a system that believes that mere possession is proof of guilt without the need for supporting forensic evidence, possibly be relied on to deliver a fair verdict when it expects an accused to prove her innocence but denies her access to basic forensic testing of the evidence being used against her?

I don't know, but it's the same system, as I've explained countless times in this thread, that is in use in Australia.

Here it is again, from the former CJ of the High Court...

"If a person enters Australia carrying a suitcase which has narcotics concealed in it, and offers no convincing explanation of the presence of the narcotics, I should be surprised if a jury would draw any inference other than that he knew that the narcotics were in the case".

I imagine it would be quite a gullable jury that would accept as convincing the "my fingerprints aren't on the bag" defence.

 

[Julia]

Just a question on the above, McLovin, how would one prove that one did not have knowledge of any item when it was found in one's bag? Say I checked in my packed bag at a US airport, then picked it up at Sydney. Customs found some illicit substance in it. I have no idea how it got there, I just know I didn't put it there. How could I prove that?

It's impossible for me to answer that, Julia. It's so hypothetical and there could be a myriad of ways to prove it (locks tampered, security camera footage of the bag being opened etc)

I agree it's a very difficult question to answer. It does, however, roughly mimic Corby's situation if she was telling the truth.
Yet you have absolutely no hesitation in believing she is 100% guilty.

You travel a good deal. Suppose, just suppose, some clever scammer set you up and planted something in your luggage, out of sight of security cameras (or disabled them) and you only found out about it at your destination. If it was an item like a board cover, maybe ski covers et al, which I imagine just zip up and down quickly and easily, how are you going to prove you did not put the stuff there yourself?

On the point about the cameras, I have some vague memory of security cameras being disabled at Sydney airport, or am I thinking of some other case?

If a dopey family member put the stuff in there, the arrangement having been agreed with the sister, is that another possibility?

I understand the principle of "it's your item and you can't explain how the drugs got there, so obviously we can't let you off". Just feel some residual concern about possible miscarriage of justice plus the fact that she has been at least in part judged by association with her odious family.
Plenty of decent people are afflicted with family members who do not reflect their own philosophy and morals.

(Again, not saying this is the case with Corby, it's just a generalised concern.)

 

[banco]

I agree it's a very difficult question to answer. It does, however, roughly mimic Corby's situation if she was telling the truth.
Yet you have absolutely no hesitation in believing she is 100% guilty.

You travel a good deal. Suppose, just suppose, some clever scammer set you up and planted something in your luggage, out of sight of security cameras (or disabled them) and you only found out about it at your destination. If it was an item like a board cover, maybe ski covers et al, which I imagine just zip up and down quickly and easily, how are you going to prove you did not put the stuff there yourself?

On the point about the cameras, I have some vague memory of security cameras being disabled at Sydney airport, or am I thinking of some other case?

If a dopey family member put the stuff in there, the arrangement having been agreed with the sister, is that another possibility?

You can say that about just about any crime. Just suppose a clever murderer murdered someone and then buried the murder weapon in your backyard......

If you believe half the stuff in Eamonn Duffy's book Schapelle could not have been unaware that the father was a major marijuana dealer (that was basically his profession). There's a Qld police intelligence report on the father's smuggling of marijuana to Bali that predates Schapelle's arrest. Whether she knew specifically that her party was carrying marijuana that trip is another question (although Duffy's book certainly suggests she knew).

 

[McLovin]

I agree it's a very difficult question to answer. It does, however, roughly mimic Corby's situation if she was telling the truth.
Yet you have absolutely no hesitation in believing she is 100% guilty.

If she'd been found guilty in an Australian court we wouldn't be having this debate it would just be accepted that she was guilty. Her innocence, in the minds of many, seems to rest on the fact that she received a trial that was conducted unfairly, incompetently etc. The problem with this thesis is that aside from the tabloid media which portrayed her as some of sort Breaker Morant of the 21st century, no legal experts have said she was treated unfairly. That's my first point. My second one is that since her trial much has come to light about her and her family that makes it exceedingly unlikely that she was really just an innoncent abroad. A couple of examples:

1) Four weeks before she was arrested a police informant in Queensland told police that Corby's father, Mick, was using commerical aircraft flights to transport large amounts of marijuana to Bali.

2) In the weeks after her arrest, a known drug dealer, who had spent time in prison for transporting marijuana from South Australia to Queensland, and who claimed to have sold Corby's father the marijuana that would end up in Corby's bag, flew from Adelaide to Bali to visit Schapelle in prison. That visit was only discovered after police raided his home and found photos of him with her.

It's difficult to believe that Corby didn't know her father was a drug dealer, and at the time of her arrest, the most logical defence would have been "my father is a drug dealer and he put it in there without my knowledge". You could also ask why Queensland Police sat on the intelligence about Corby's father that they had.

And yes, I realise that is all circumstantial evidence, but if you connect the dots...

You travel a good deal. Suppose, just suppose, some clever scammer set you up and planted something in your luggage, out of sight of security cameras (or disabled them) and you only found out about it at your destination. If it was an item like a board cover, maybe ski covers et al, which I imagine just zip up and down quickly and easily, how are you going to prove you did not put the stuff there yourself?

Well you can't, it's for the police to investigate. But let's not forget that the AFP said, before her conviction, that the baggage handler tale didn't match up with their own intelligence at the time, even though they were aware of drug rings working inside the airport. I just don't think it's a realistic scenario that a drug ring can operate in an airport in a western country like Australia and even after an extensive police investigation find no evidence of it. FWIW, I always have my bags locked, mainly because I'm worried about people taking things out rather than putting them in.

On the point about the cameras, I have some vague memory of security cameras being disabled at Sydney airport, or am I thinking of some other case?

I thought it was to do with how long the tapes were kept, iirc, it was only a few days and then they were wiped.

I understand the principle of "it's your item and you can't explain how the drugs got there, so obviously we can't let you off". Just feel some residual concern about possible miscarriage of justice plus the fact that she has been at least in part judged by association with her odious family.
Plenty of decent people are afflicted with family members who do not reflect their own philosophy and morals.

Absolutely, but the AFP (and given the public and political pressure around the case I doubt they sent a couple of gumshoes out to investigate) said there was no evidence to corroborate the baggage handler story. She refused to allow the marijuana to be tested, which had it been shown to have been Balinese would have gone a long way to exonerating her. She said she packed her own bag. So where along the food chain was her bag tampered with? Her only defence was provided by a prisoner who claimed to have overheard a couple of other prisoners talking, but refused to say who. Now, if you were a juror, would you believe that? The judges can only reach a verdict based on the evidence presented to them. And the prima facie case is that she was importing an illegal substance and couldn't explain how she came to be in possession of it.

 

[Julia]

Thanks for detailed response, McLovin. Having not followed the original case, I was unaware of some of the points you describe.

I shall withdraw my concern.

 

[Chris45]

She was found in possession of drugs. She couldn't prove that she didn't have knowledge that they were in her bag. That's case closed, in Australia or Indonesia.

My understanding of Australian law is that an accused is deemed innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The accused doesn't have to prove their innocence. Is that not correct?

And here's what the Chief Justice of the High Court said, which was the majority view...
"As Gibbs CJ put it (pp.536-7, the majority adopting his position on this), ’ "If a person enters Australia carrying a suitcase which has narcotics concealed in it, and offers no convincing explanation of the presence of the narcotics, I should be surprised if a jury would draw any inference other than that he knew that the narcotics were in the case"."
And from the same case...
Dawson J. observed (at p.597) that
"... the fact that an accused has been found bringing narcotic goods into the country may ordinarily found an inference that the goods are being imported intentionally, notwithstanding protestaions by the accused that he was unaware of their presence or of their nature or quality. At the very least, proof that the goods were brought into the country by the accused will ordinarily mean that there is a case to answer".

Note: "there is a case to answer". Do you understand the significance of those words?

She was asked nothing of the sort.

Was that recent Ch9 movie incorrect? I remember a scene where the judge asked Corby to prove that she didn't put the drugs in her bag, or didn't know they were there, or similar.

She was charged with importing marijuana into Indonesia. Her only defence is if she was not aware that she had been carrying it, which she is required to prove.

Isn't that the major difference between their system and ours?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schapelle_Corby

"The four bags belonging to Corby and her companions were not weighed individually at Brisbane Airport, with a total weight of 65 kg being taken instead. The Bali police and customs did not record the weight of the bags, despite requests from Corby for them to do so."

"Despite repeated requests from Corby's companions and lawyers, the bag was not tested for fingerprints."

She was clearly denied vital information that could have supported her defence.

FWIW, her lawyers asked for the marijuana not to be tested to determine its source.

"In 2004, Alexander Downer, the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, announced that the Australian Government would be requesting permission from Indonesia to test the cannabis and help determine its point of origin. It was argued that testing of the cannabis would have strengthened Corby's defence if it could have been shown that the drugs were grown in Indonesia, or potentially weakened it if they were grown in southern Queensland. However, shortly thereafter the Australian Consul General in Indonesia informed Corby that the AFP had no jurisdiction in the case, and in early 2005 the AFP was advised that the Bali police would not be providing a sample. Downer acknowledged that Indonesia had denied the request, but clarified that as the case was in Indonesia, it was their sovereign right to do so.

Three years later, in 2007, Vasu Rasiah, the "case co-ordinator" for Corby's defence team, appeared on Today Tonight to say that he managed to obtain a sample of the cannabis for testing prior to Corby's conviction, but that Corby did not allow the sample to be tested. This was similar to earlier claims by Mike Keelty, who in 2005 stated that Corby's legal team had advised the AFP that they did not wish to have the drugs tested when it became apparent that the results of the tests would be shared with Indonesia. In both cases these versions of events were disputed by Corby's family, who insisted that it was the Indonesian police who turned down the request, and that they wished to have the drugs examined by Australian authorities."

Weighing the evidence: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/03/04/1109700677359.html has a good summary of the Corby case.

As I've said previously I'm not convinced one way or the other, but I think the trial was a complete farce.

What's done is done but the important thing is that Australian Bali-philes be aware of the Indonesian legal system and the risks they face before planning to travel there.

If you discover upon your arrival that you've become an unwitting drug mule, don't expect any justice from the Indonesian legal system, and certainly don't expect a lot of sympathy from your fellow countrymen.

Those are good enough reasons for me to stay well away from the place, ... but each to his own.

PS. If you want a good example of the lengths our prosecutors go to to establish their case against an accused, have a look at the Daniel Morcombe trial. Their efforts are impressive!

http://www.news.com.au/national/que...-daniel-morcombe/story-fnii5v6w-1226825957059

 

[Baldric]

If I wanted to get a pack of dope from Qld down to Sydney I would just put it in my car and drive it down. Make a weekend of it and be done. In fact fill the whole boot of the car up and drive.
It seems a very convoluted and high risk method of transport to use baggage handlers to transport a bag of dope.

 

[McLovin]

My understanding of Australian law is that an accused is deemed innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The accused doesn't have to prove their innocence. Is that not correct?

...

PS. If you want a good example of the lengths our prosecutors go to to establish their case against an accused, have a look at the Daniel Morcombe trial. Their efforts are impressive!

http://www.news.com.au/national/que...-daniel-morcombe/story-fnii5v6w-1226825957059

Chris, I'm not going to keep repeating myself, so I'll just point out that, as banco did a few posts back, that drug importation and possession is a strict liability offence, murder is not. Drink driving is probably the most common strict liability offence. You can't just roll up to court and say someone spiked your drink and ask the prosecutor to prove that they didn't.