Indonesian Justice
Despite the billion dollar tsunami aid package pledged by Australia to the Indonesian government, relations between the two are going through a low ebb, at least according to Professor Tim Lindsey in his interesting public lecture at the Melbourne University Law School. Professor Lindsey is a legal academic, and has kept a very close eye on three important events that are shaping the bilateral relationship - the Schapelle Corby case, the Bali Nine, and the trials of the Bali bombers. In each case, the Indonesian legal system has taken a batterring, at least in the eyes of the Australian public, via the tabloid media.
Lindsey argues that the criticisms levelled at the Indo justice system are ignorant and incorrect. There has been plenty of baseless scuttlebutt circulating, including suggestions that the justice system has a presumption of guilt rather than innocence, that the judges' verdict is predetermined, and the notion that the Australian government should do more (more what is never made clear) to help its citizens on trial overseas. Lindsey challenges these ideas, and suggests that the Indonesian legal system has a history grounded in Dutch (and by extention, French) legal process, which may be foreign to Australians, but is quite common around the world. The legal system undoubtedly has his flaws, Lindsey admits: corruption is still widespread, resources are scarce, and basic infrastructure - such as court transcripts and a decent translation service - is lacking.
Instead of blaming the justice system, in the case of Corby, Lindsey argues that an incompetent defence is to blame. Despite having good cause to challenge the intregrity of the physical evidence, after the Indo police failed to fingerprint the bag, Corby's defence failed to score a hit (pardon the pun) and instead focused on an emotive case, likely to win over the audience of A Current Affair, but less likely to woo a panel of hard-nosed Indonesian judges.
So what are the likely verdicts for Corby and the Bali Nine? Lindsey seemed certain that Corby would escape the death penalty, and after appeals and the possibility of Presidential clemency, would end up serving 15 to 20 years. He was sceptical of the possibilities for a prisoner transfer to Australia, explaining that there were technical and legal issues to be resolved first, particularly the likely arrangement the that Indonesians currently held in Australian prisons would need to be repatriated. The outcome for the Bali Nine is even more pessimistic - with the physical evidence strapped to their bodies, it was going to take a supremely dedicated defence team to punch holes in the evidence.
As for the Bali bombers, it was the death sentence for some, but a pitiful sentence for others (albeit just today upheld):
Lindsey argues that the criticisms levelled at the Indo justice system are ignorant and incorrect. There has been plenty of baseless scuttlebutt circulating, including suggestions that the justice system has a presumption of guilt rather than innocence, that the judges' verdict is predetermined, and the notion that the Australian government should do more (more what is never made clear) to help its citizens on trial overseas. Lindsey challenges these ideas, and suggests that the Indonesian legal system has a history grounded in Dutch (and by extention, French) legal process, which may be foreign to Australians, but is quite common around the world. The legal system undoubtedly has his flaws, Lindsey admits: corruption is still widespread, resources are scarce, and basic infrastructure - such as court transcripts and a decent translation service - is lacking.
Instead of blaming the justice system, in the case of Corby, Lindsey argues that an incompetent defence is to blame. Despite having good cause to challenge the intregrity of the physical evidence, after the Indo police failed to fingerprint the bag, Corby's defence failed to score a hit (pardon the pun) and instead focused on an emotive case, likely to win over the audience of A Current Affair, but less likely to woo a panel of hard-nosed Indonesian judges.
So what are the likely verdicts for Corby and the Bali Nine? Lindsey seemed certain that Corby would escape the death penalty, and after appeals and the possibility of Presidential clemency, would end up serving 15 to 20 years. He was sceptical of the possibilities for a prisoner transfer to Australia, explaining that there were technical and legal issues to be resolved first, particularly the likely arrangement the that Indonesians currently held in Australian prisons would need to be repatriated. The outcome for the Bali Nine is even more pessimistic - with the physical evidence strapped to their bodies, it was going to take a supremely dedicated defence team to punch holes in the evidence.
As for the Bali bombers, it was the death sentence for some, but a pitiful sentence for others (albeit just today upheld):
Jakarta High Court has upheld radical Islamic cleric Abu Bakar Baasyir’s 30-month jail sentence for involvement in the conspiracy behind the October 2002 Bali nightclub bombings that killed 202 people.
Comments
Well, if the judge is going to make statements before issuing his judgment like "the defence hasn't proven her innocence", what other conclusions can be reached?
Schapelle would almost certainly not be convicted in Australia because we have:
1) trial by jury
2) onus on prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
3) strict evidentiary requirements which might have seen the failure to film/fingerprint as fatal to the prosecution case.
Also, the judge would have to disqualify himself from sitting if he made comments in the media like the Chief Judge in Denpasar.