I've pretty much stayed out of this debate but I thought this Canberra Times editorial articulated the way I feel about it quite well. I find it hard to comprehend the passion expressed by many on this subject and correlate that with views expressed on, say, David Hicks who has languished for over three years, in illegal detention without any judicial process at all, been the possible victim of torture and has been little more than a political football. But then, he doesn't cry and he isn't pretty....
Right verdict, wrong reaction Monday, 30 May 2005
T HERE are perhaps good reasons why some Australians have had such extraordinary interest in, and have maintained such passions about the Schapelle Corby case. Corby is not only a young and attractive white Australian girl, but one easily enough to imagine as a girl next door. It may well be true that the criminal literature shows many cases of such people being used as "mules" in the drug trade, but it is also a nightmare of Australian tourists that they may get caught in a foreign land, accused of crimes they did not commit, face systems (in the past not famously competent or honest) they do not understand, in languages they do not comprehend. The film Midnight Express (which involved a victim who did not dispute his guilt of the drug crimes for which he was convicted) underlines the consequence part of the nightmare. The fact that some other countries have, and carry out, the death penalty adds an extra frisson of horror. On top of this, perhaps, Australians may have better developed scepticism and cynicism about the certainties of the criminal law and of criminal investigation - and are more willing, in some classes of case at least, to see gaps in the evidence as proof of reasonable doubt.
By all such criteria, and because the infotainment media was quick to seize on the potential of such an attractive victim, Corby's plight has stirred many Australians. But it is doubtful whether that interest, those passions, or the forms in which it has manifested itself has helped her one jot. Even more alarming is the serious risk that it will come to seriously imperil Australian-Indonesian relations, including attitudes of citizens of each country to the other, and tourism to Bali, only recently recovering after the impact of terrorist bombs there which seriously damaged Bali's economy.
The verdict against Corby was entirely predictable. On the evidence, indeed, it was the right verdict. There is no doubt she brought luggage into the country which included 4.1kg of cannabis in a parcel neatly fitting into the container of her boogie board. When stopped, she insisted that the drugs must have been planted in her luggage, presumably in Brisbane, from where she had departed to Sydney, or in Sydney, from where she had departed to Denpasar. Her supporters have made a great deal of evidence that there have been incidents involving drugs and baggage handlers at Australian airports - evidence that was, with an excess of care in her favour (given its essential inadmissibility) put before the Indonesian judges. But her defence team was entirely unable to link that fact to the individual circumstances of Corby's case in a way producing real doubt. That may partially reflect her defence's inexperience, but it is also clear that investigations by the Australian Federal Police were unable to find any such link either, or any evidence suggesting set-up, invention of evidence of "verballing" by the Indonesian authorities. It was also argued that it was essentially ridiculous that anyone would smuggle drugs into Bali; it is now quite clear that there is a real market there, particularly among tourists, for such high- quality cannabis.
The Corby defence was long on emotion and pure denial, but seems to have been little focused on the evidence. It was on the evidence that the judges were focused, and stayed focused. Some critics have pointed to the fact that one of the judges remarked that he had never acquitted anyone of drug charges. Yet, under the European-style inquisitorial system operating in Indonesia, it is important to notice that before the time a case comes to trial there, there has been a full investigation by a separate judge which has been focused at finding the truth, not merely the material for a prima facie case or a finding of probable guilt. Lawyers for defendants take part in these investigations and are able to suggest lines of inquiry which they say are consistent with innocence. The trial stage, at which counsel get a second go, occurs before different judges and is an exhaustive review of the evidence, but, given that the trial would not be occurring unless there had been a earlier conclusion about guilt, it is to a degree true that the onus had shifted on to Corby and her lawyers to displace it. They failed to do so - indeed, some observers thought that much more could have been put in her favour. The Indonesian criminal justice system is not as sophisticated with scientific evidence as in Australia, but little was made, by Corby's lawyers, of gaps within it. Those gaps would not have been fatal, even in Australia, but could have been more completely explored. If fault there was in the case, however, there is little to suggest that it was fault on the part of the judges, who it seemed not only were aware of their duty but to have gone out of their way to provide an opportunity for everything which could be said in Corby's favour to be said. This included much material which would never have been admissible in an Australian trial; by contrast, the evidence against Corby would have been, and here, in front of a professional judge, would almost certainly have convicted her.
But if the judges behaved professionally and correctly, one would hardly know so from some of the feverish infotainment reports, or from remarks made by Australians who should have known better, including some politicians who leapt on the populist bandwagon. A number of people called on Indonesian Government figures to intervene in the court proceedings, a particularly infamous suggestion given the struggles Indonesia has faced in getting judicial independence. Others seemed to think the judges, or some of them, incompetent because they did not speak English and had to rely on translations of what Corby said. What does that say of the justice doled out in Australia to arrested Indonesian fishermen? There is even a tinge of racism in the alacrity with which the Government is pursuing attempts for prisoner-exchange systems on Corby's account. There are more than 100 Australians in Third World prisons, some far worse than those to which Corby is condemned. Alas those prisoners have been unable to get the attention, the public sympathy, or the government assistance Corby got. The most disturbing feature, in all the ignorant and hot-headed responses, has been the suggestion that Australians should boycott Indonesia, or Bali specifically, to put pressure on the authorities, or to punish them for what they have done. Perhaps it is time to contemplate instead just what Corby has done; what indeed the drug demand of Australians has done to Indonesia.
