I have a sad feeling that the defence in this case relied more on generating public sympathy in Australia, than offering anything of substance in the Indonesian court.

I hope that as the details of what actually occured in this case/trial are made public, I am proven wrong.

The point is that there is a presumption of an absence of innocence. Which may be infered as guilt. There is a presumption of being guilty of trafficking as opposed to possession, when statutory quantity is reached, and the burden of proving one is not guily of the more serious offence SHIFTS to the ACCUSSED.

The fact that the accussed went thru gate A (possession of an illicit drug) to end up at gate B (presumption of guilt in trafficking) does not, in any way, alter the fact that there is a REVERSAL of the burden of proof and the presumption of innocence with regard to trafficking.

Further evidence of the reality that Australia is evolving a system that has a basic disregard for the presumption of innocence is the introduction of sniffer dogs in public places, sniffing out the crotches of all and sundry for the POSSIBILITY that they MAY be in possession of, or have been in contact with, illicit drugs. The existence of such fishing expediations presumes criminality which implies guilt. Ergo... guilty until proven innocent.

Check this out... http://svc026.wic004dp.server-web.com/snifferdogs/thesituation.asp

Some quotes.

... The Use of police sniffer dogs continues to occur around the streets, bars and venues of Sydney. This inappropriate use of police power at public expense searches huge numbers of people without reason or warrant. Some activities involve the unlawful detention of patrons

... People detained in bar while sniffer dogs used to search everyone on premises ...police block the entrances and exits to a bar and then either take the sniffer dog through the bar or ask everyone to file out past the dog.

We can quible over semantics ad infinitum. It doesn't change the fact that a presumption of guilt exists in various forms. Qualify the existence of that reality any which way you like.

The article about rule of law was correct, and one must at least "respect" the right of every citizenry to create and maintain their own judicial system. It is they who must live or die by it! This is the case, whether it be Indonesia, Saudi Arabia or the USA.

That leaves us, as Australians, to decide whether we wish to engage with that political system or that country. I take the view that if I don't agree with that system I will not engage it, nor will I support it (economically or otherwise). End of story. If you don't want to end up in an Indonesian gaol, don't go to Indonesia !!

What disturbs me greatly is that Chapelle Corby (and possibly others) may be the innocent victims of drug trafficking by baggage handlers - and that NO-ONE seems to be doing anything about it!!

Luggage is carried under the Genva convention and it seems that this secure pact is now under threat or destroyed. In case you doubt me, I'll relate an incident which occurred to me in the USA recently. When departing Los Angeles one has to submit one's luggage to hand searches before it is loaded. The luggage must be left unlocked and is then "sealed" afterwards with a plastic tag and paper sticker. I noticed that one of the staffers from the Dept. of Homeland Security was annotating some bag's tags. I turned to the woman standing next to me and asked what they were doing. Her response was:
"Don't you know?" (She being a local and me an Aussie)
"They note which ones contain valuable items and that is a signal to their friends out the back to remove the stuff and sell it on the black market".
I was absolutely shocked at the implications of this.
Further, on the same trip, my colleage had the misfortune to have his suitcase "searched" for dangerous goods (in absentia). His was an "oyster" style suitcase and was locked with 3 integral combination locks. The Dept of Homeland Security smashed all the locks (basically exploding the whole suitcase) and re-packed the contents by wrapping it all up with kms of plastic and enclosing an apologetic note. The strange part is, that some of his personal effects were missing and there also appeared to be miscellaneous items belonging to someone else amongst his belongings. Now..... what if we'd being going on to Indonesia and that there had been some other substances included......?? Doesn't bear thinking about does it?

IMMEDIATE ACTION: Customs and Immigration needs to implement a SECURE baggage certification procedure to guarantee that travellers' belongings are not tampered with once they have been checked in. It is done in some Eurpean countries, why not here?

Ullavatar (sorry if i've misspelt) the Dept of Homeland Security sounds a tad Orwellian, especially after your experience. What country was it, and doesn't it just go to highlight that we are in the lap of the baggage handlers regarding being able to move safely from a to b. Like the Mary Magdalene equation, very true. This story ain't over yet until the expose has been done in the places that need to be under the microscope, otherwise, it will happen again and again.

One of the statements by the concluding Judge was that she could not identify who owned or placed the drugs in her bag. Was she able to?

Suppose you were a non-drug user attending a night club raided by the police and someone dropped dope into your handbag to hide it and you had no idea who had unloaded it into your handbag. How are you going to prove who owned the drugs if it found in a bag you owned? Under Indonesian law possession of drugs is guilt enough to face the firing sqad or imprison you for life.

Before the drugs are burned let us get some fingerprints on the internal bag!!