Corby's trial judged 'fair and proper'

Corby's trial judged 'fair and proper'

Rinduan Zain, Sydney

On May 23 I was invited to attend a panel discussion called
SBS Insight, organized by SBS Television Network in Sydney.
Before the discussion, I was interviewed about the Schapelle
Corby trial, which is said by some to be unfair and poisoning
Australia's relationship with Indonesia. I was prepared for the
discrepancies and logical inconsistencies frequently shown by
Australian media when it comes to Indonesia.

First of all, many Australians believe Indonesia's legal
system is corrupt while they know almost nothing about how the
system works. They come to this conclusion because they think
interference in the courts is common in Indonesia.

They might not realize that since the downfall of Soeharto,
Indonesia has tried hard to transform the country from an
authoritarian to a democratic state, including establishing
independent courts and appointing impartial judges.

Second, many Australians' attitude toward Bali courts are
inspired by the bribery that may sometimes happen in Indonesian
trials. In the case of Corby's trial in Bali, nobody can show
that the judge and prosecutors asked for a bribe in return for a
light sentence for Corby, as claimed and then later retracted by
Ron Bakir, an Arab-born Australian businessman in the Gold Coast.

Third, many Australians are convinced Corby is innocent, but
Corby and her lawyers have only been able to provide a
conventional argument that somebody else, possibly baggage
handlers in Australia, could have interfered with her luggage en
route to Bali. A baggage handler could have put the marijuana
into Corby's surfboard bag without her knowledge. This argument
is not very strong.

In addition to Corby's recklessness in not putting a lock on
her bag, she did not have the initiative to report to a customs
officer at the Bali airport that her baggage felt a bit heavier.
It seems that she would have noticed the weight change since the
marijuana found in her bag weighed 4.2 kilograms.

Moreover, Corby's lawyers could not find any evidence to back
up their claim of baggage handlers at Sydney airport planting the
marijuana in Corby's baggage. Responding to this claim, the
Australian Federal Police commissioner said there was no
intelligence on the involvement of a baggage handler.

Some Australians appear to be blaming Corby's weak defense to
corruption at the court. This might be because of their sympathy
for Corby, as well as the belief in their own legal system,
Common Law, as opposed to Indonesia's civil law system.

It is likely that many Australians will not be able to accept
the verdict if Corby is convicted. They insist the marijuana was
placed in her baggage without her knowledge. This argument,
however, is useless unless backed up by actual evidence. It was
her bag, so she is the only person responsible for anything found
inside it.

Some Australians at the panel discussion did not blame the
court for Corby's predicament. Instead they looked at their own
government, which they said had not done enough to help Corby.

They alleged that the federal police and attorney general was
in the wrong by providing the Indonesian authorities with
information on international drug syndicates. This information
could help put Corby on death row. But because Australia is
opposed to capital punishment, this help should not have been
provided by the federal police and attorney general.

There are many lessons to be learned from Corby's trial. It is
unfair for Australia to alleging corruption in Indonesian courts
when Australians are not willing to look at their own weaknesses.
Also, attempting to interfere in the court, for example, the
attorney general sending an official letter to the Indonesian
authorities calling for a fair trial for Corby, could set back
Indonesia's court system back to a time when the state controlled
the courts.

This interference could also backfire on Australia if
Indonesia began to do the same thing for its nationals on trial
in Australia.

In the end, though, Corby's trial will not have much of an
effect on official relations between Australia and Indonesia,
since both governments believe Corby's trial is fair.

It is worth mentioning that virtually no Australian government
employee has criticized Corby's trial.

Finally, there is no value in the kind of freedom of speech
that allows people to accuse the Bali court of corruption without
offering any evidence to back up this serious accusation.

The writer is an associate researcher at CDIE's Tarbiyah,
State Islamic University (UIN) Yogyakarta, and a PhD student in
sociology at the University of New South Wales, Sydney.