Yes, Sam, there are evidentiary issues. That's why para. 2 of my original article says:

"There are two distinct issues to consider in the Schapelle Corby case. The first is evidence: the adequacy of the evidence presented and the rigorousness of the Indonesian system for gathering and controlling its admissibility. The second issue is whether it is fair to create criminal liability for offences based on possession, without requiring proof of subjective knowledge.

This second element is more interesting because it points not only to the injustice of the Indonesian law but also to an intractable problem in Anglo-Australian criminal law."

This is far from a "pointless debate". What you have done is to misconstrue my original article. You have construed it as a piece about Schapelle Corby. In fact, it is a piece about law reform in Australia, which advocates a liberalization of the knowledge element (we don't use mens rea these days) required to convict on charges of possession and trafficking.

If this was a "pointless debate", then essentially, all legal philosophy is pointless. You should inform the academic I quote, Professor Andrew Ashworth of this; I'm sure he'd be keen to hear that his career has been a "pointless" waste of time:

http://denning.law.ox.ac.uk/members/profile.phtml?lecturer_code=ashwortha