What is it with Corby supporters?

I am ready to assume, at least for the sake of argument, that Schapelle Corby is totally innocent and that someone else planted marijuana in her boogie bag. However, I am perplexed with Corby’s supporters who have launched a tirade protesting her innocence, and at how media and the Australian Government have responded to this campaign. As the editorial of the Sydney Morning Herald suggested the other day, there has been “too much talk about Corby”. But more than that, for several reasons such talks have been nonsensical for most of the time.

So, what is it that is troubling Corby’s supporters and sympathisers? Are people pained by the prospect of wrongful conviction of an innocent woman? Or are they concerned about Corby being denied a fair trial by a country that had an imperfect judicial system in the past? Or is it the fact that Corby, an Australian, could face a firing squad, or life imprisonment under degrading conditions in Indonesian prisons? Or are her supporters puzzled by the fact Indonesian courts might take the life of an (allegedly innocent) Australian citizen whereas Australia’s one billion dollar aid has helped to save the lives of so many Indonesians?

I think that probably a mixture of these concerns - some of which are misplaced - has motivated Corby’s supporters to behave in a way that is repugnant to the rule of law. Falsely claiming that Indonesian prosecutors offered to take a bribe in return for asking a lighter sentence for Corby; sending death threats to the Indonesian Embassy in Canberra; “hammering” those who think her to be guilty; or threatening to boycott Bali as a tourist destination if Corby is found guilty. All these smack of disrespect for the rule of law. Rules are to be respected whether or not they bring favourable results.

On a closer scrutiny, it seems that many of the above apprehensions of Corby’s supporters are baseless and should be rejected outright.

To begin with, it is non-contentious that every wrongful conviction must be avoided, especially if one favours the “due process model” over the “crime control model”. However, even under the due process model the determination of innocence or guilt of a person is to be done within the boundaries of an agreed legal process, and not on the basis of conscience or public opinion.

If for any reason Corby’s lawyers fail to provide enough evidence - a burden that was entirely on them in this “special” case - to prove that Corby is innocent or at least are unable to cast doubts about her being guilty, it does not necessarily follow that Corby should be freed. It is beyond dispute that marijuana was found in Corby’s bag and it is for her not only to plead but also establish why she did not illegally import marijuana into Indonesia.

Why is this case special? This brings us to the second erroneous belief held by Corby’s supporters. It is claimed that she has received an unfair trial because she was denied the presumption of innocence and there was no jury. Moreover, that “Indonesian authorities have a history of murdering innocent foreigners”.

Although the matter is sub-judice and the Indonesian court is scheduled to deliver its verdict today, those who assert this are neither aware of relevant Indonesian laws nor appreciate the general principles of criminal law. Presumption of innocence is an important but not an absolute or unqualified principle. Many legal systems, including Australia, provide for a departure from this principle in certain situations, including for drug trafficking offences. In other words, in exceptional cases it is permissible to raise a presumption of guilt if the prosecution could make out a prima facie case. But it is usually open for defendants to rebut such presumptions of law or fact, as was the position in Corby’s case.

Furthermore, any suggestion to equate a jury trial with a fair trial is as misleading as equating sun with light. History is a poor and often inconclusive guide to judge the fairness of a current legal system, especially when the present reflects a break from the past. Also, most legal systems have their not so commendable histories!

As far as the fear of Corby facing a firing squad is concerned, it can be said that the death penalty as a sentence is questionable on several moral, ethical, religious and legal grounds. Perhaps the death penalty could only be justified - if at all - if it serves a useful purpose within the justice dispension system, and is awarded though a fair and just process for a heinous crime known beforehand.

However, irrespective of these considerations, one should take a consistent stand towards the death penalty. For example, it would be hypocritical to rejoice or ignore death penalties for foreign terrorists but not for Australian drug traffickers. One should also keep in mind Indonesian prosecutors do not ask for, nor do judges award, life imprisonment and death more often for foreigners - including Australians - who are involved in drug trafficking. As a 2004 report of Amnesty International indicates, out of the 54 people that are currently believed to be under death sentence in Indonesia, 31 are Indonesians.

An unreasonable fuss is also made about the prison conditions in which Corby is detained and may still be held in the future. Public demands and government initiatives have been taken to ensure Corby serves her sentence in Australia. The prison conditions may be degrading and inhumane, but she has not been put in a disadvantaged position by the Indonesian Government, nor has she been moved to a prison that tolerates torture.

We should also not forget that in several countries even non-prisoners live in conditions similar or worse than Corby. They would happily swap their places with prisoners in Western or even Indonesian jails. A prison transfer treaty, on the other hand, is defensible, not because of inhumane prison conditions but on the grounds of rehabilitative justice.

Finally, is the Corby’s case inviting wider public outrage because we are talking about Indonesia and not, say, the US? It is doubtful if similar unrest or bullying, diplomatic or otherwise, would have been visible had Corby been tried by the “supposedly fair” US courts. The response of Australia and Australians generally to the non-trial of Hicks and Habib lends support to this possibility. In an increasingly interdependent world, the sooner we learn to respect “all” countries, the better.

Media

Apart from fuelling the misplaced apprehensions of Corby’s supporters or publishing sensational stories, the Australian media has also indulged in unethical profiteering. For example, other than earning dollars and a higher rating for Channel Nine, what significant purpose was served by finding Corby “innocent in a TV program”? The same could be said of both Channel Nine and Channel Seven deciding to telecast a live coverage of the verdict.

One could also point to the publication of inadequately verified comments or unbalanced reports. For example, by quoting one of Corby’s lawyers, it was suggested that the publication of the criminal records of some of Corby’s family members would damage her case.

In my view, legally speaking, this disclosure is as irrelevant as the recent letter sent by the Australian Government indicating some baggage handlers, who were on duty when Corby boarded her flight to Bali, might be involved in drug trafficking. Neither of these prove conclusively what they purport to suggest. One cannot prove Corby to be a drug trafficker on the basis that some of her family members were convicted for similar wrongs in the past. Likewise, the mere presence of some baggage handlers who are linked to drug trafficking on duty on October 8, 2004 does not prove conclusively they planted the drug in Corby’s bag.

Certainly Corby’s case has received excessive prominence and publicity partly because she is a woman facing a harsh sentence. Every day thousands of innocent and destitute human beings are receiving little or no public sympathy and media attention. Seemingly, some “untold” stories are not meant to be told!

Government

Finally, a small note on the response of Australian Government to Corby’s case. The Australian Prime Minister, perhaps rightly, “feel(s) for the girl”, but unfortunately he does not feel enough for, say, Hicks, Habib, Cornelia Rau, detained children and women, innocent dying Iraqis, or Aboriginals. Why is it so? Could it be because a feeling for “others” might annoy (powerful) strategic partners, or because they could demand the adoption of a more compassionate and humane policy towards refugees?

In sum, I have full sympathy with Corby, and for that matter with any other innocent victim placed in a similar situation, but not on terms which reject the rule of law in order to promote it.