this study focuses only on breaches of the law which I have been able to confirm
myself, there will certainly be other serious breaches. I consider the following
to be breaches but further research is required:
the prosecution were correct in charging Schapelle Corby with Article 82 which,
as far as my research indicates, is reserved for those working in a drug
syndicate and not alone. This would be a breach of the special narcotics laws of
the Criminal Code (KUHP). I don’t have a copy of the special narcotics laws.
According to the prosecution indictment, if there is not enough evidence to
convict her of trafficking, she could be convicted under two lesser laws
carrying maximum prison terms of 15 years and 10 years respectively. So there is
some doubt in my mind about the propriety of the conviction under Article 82.
destruction of the evidence before all legal appeals had been exhausted. There
are precedents in
where samples of drugs have been preserved before the bulk was destroyed. Why
didn’t the authorities preserve a sample from Schapelle Corby’s case?
influence of public opinion and prejudice on the judges’ decision.
Principle of Judicial Independence and Impartiality
English-language proficiency of Winata, and the
other airport witnesses who testified for the prosecution, was challenged at
least twice in court but never tested. It was probably challenged more
frequently but my archive has only two occasions: 28 April and 12 May.
value of Australian marijuana in
was never proved – it was always reckless speculation by everybody
existence of Australian marijuana on the streets of
was never proved.
Lubis’ post-trial unco-operation in providing
Erwin Siregar with records of court proceedings and the police evidence brief.
Is this a breach of the law?
The Failure To Test for Fingerprints or Determine the Quality and Origin of the