Click here to go back to the issue outlines list
2005/17: Australian citizens tried in other jurisdictions: has Schapelle Corby been fairly treated?
Related issue outlines: no related issue outlines.
Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).
Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis
Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click the icon below to access the Echo news items search engine (2004 file) and enter the following word(s), with just a space in between them.
schapelle
corby
Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald
.
The issue at a glance
On October 8, 2004, Queensland resident Schapelle Leigh Corby, 27, boarded Australian Airlines flight AO7829 from Sydney to Denpasar, having previously caught a domestic flight to Sydney. She was travelling with her brother James, 17, and two friends
Soon after arriving, Corby was arrested at Bali's Denpasar airport. Indonesian police alleged Corby was smuggling 4.1kg of marijuana in her body board bag. They claimed x-ray scans of Corby's luggage showed it contained a large and unusual package.
On March 27, 2005, the Bali court sentenced Schapelle Corby to 20 years in prison for trying to smuggle 4.1kg of marijuana into Indonesia.
In the intervening six months the case had attracted enormous media and popular interest within Australia. There were claims the Indonesian justice system was severely faulted , if not corrupted; the Australian Government was accused of not doing sufficient to assist an Australian national and questions were asked about the adequacy of luggage security at Australian airports.
Also at issue have been the length of sentences issued in Indonesia and the jail conditions faced by those found guilty.
Background
October 11, 2004: Lawyers acting for Corby first made the claim that the marijuana was placed in her bag while she was in transit. Corby was questioned for 90 minutes at Bali police headquarters.
It was announced that Corby could face the death penalty if convicted.
Bali's chief narcotics detective, Lieutenant-Colonel Bambang Sugiarto revealed that high-quality marijuana heads, similar to those found in Corby's luggage, sold for about 70 million rupiah ($AU10,535) per kilogram, said to be 14 times the price of locally grown marijuana.
Lieutenant-Colonel Sugiarto said Corby had told police the package was not hers, but confirmed she owned the body board bag, in which it was found. This is a crucial admission in Indonesian law, as it effectively means Corby is the owner of the marijuana.
Under Indonesia law Corby could be detained for 60 days without sentencing.
January 28, 2005: Corby's trial began before three judges. Indonesia has a different legal system to Australia: juries are not used and a panel of three judges usually decides a defendant's guilt. Many cases in Australia are decided by a judge alone, without a jury.
The prosecution's indictment read: 'After unpacking the contents of the boogie board bag one by one, there was a big plastic bag containing dried flowers which, after questioning, the defendant said was her marijuana which was then confiscated as material evidence.'
February 4, 2005: During questioning of witnesses by the prosecution Corby denied the marijuana she was caught with was hers.
February 12, 2005: Customs officer Gusti Winata took the stand.
March 17-24: Corby's defence team won an adjournment to give it time to interview a witness in an Australian jail.
March 29, 2005: The Victorian prisoner, John Patrick Ford, testified to overhearing prisoners admitting that Corby had been an unwitting mule and that organised crime traffics drugs through Australian airports.
April 15, 2005: Corby collapsed at the start of the day's hearing and was warned by Judge Linton Sirait, 'Don't pretend.'
April 28, 2005: Corby's defence team asked for a full acquittal.
April 29, 2005: Judges announced that they were unimpressed with Corby's plea.
May 6, 2005: John Patrick Ford was stabbed and assaulted in a Melbourne jail, apparently in retaliation for testifying at Corby's trial. The prosecution details its case against Corby in its summing up.
May 12, 2005: Qantas acknowledged that it couldn't be sure whether corrupt baggage handlers were smuggling drugs through Australia's domestic airports. However, the judges presiding over the case disallow the submission of this information as evidence.
May 19, 2005: Australia announced that Corby may be allowed to serve out her sentence in Australia.
May 22, 2005: Corby made a final plea to the court
May 27, 2005: The Bali court sentenced Schapelle Corby to 20 years in prison for trying to smuggle 4.1kg of marijuana into Indonesia.
Internet Information
The online encyclopaedia Wikipedia has a detailed entry outlining the Schapelle Corby case. This can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schapelle_Corby
Save a Life: Foreign Prisoner Support Service is a lobby group attempting to seek the release of Australian nationals in prison overseas, especially those facing the death penalty. A sub section of their site is given over to the Schapelle Corby case. There is also significant information on other Australian citizens in jail in other countries.
This site can be found at http://www.usp.com.au/fpss/
Its sub site dealing with Schapelle Corby can be found at http://schapelle.foreignprisoners.com/
On May 16 2005 Professor Tim Lindsey, Director of the University of Melbourne's Asian Law Centre issued a media release in which he claimed that a number of the negative comments being made about the Indonesian legal system were based on misinformation.
This media release can be found at http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/articleid_2359.html
On May 27 2005 ABC's The 7.30 Report conducted an interview with Professor Tim Lindsey, Director of the University of Melbourne's Asian Law Centre, in which he claimed that under Indonesian law the Bali court had no option but to find Corby guilty on the evidence that was put before it.
A full transcript of this interview can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1379035.htm
On April 6 The Bulletin published a detailed background treatment of the Schapelle Corby case. This can be found at http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/site/articleIDs/5659AB9226A0D336CA256FD500161504
Radio commentator Derryn Hinch has argued that the defence case for Schapelle Corby is weak and that the Australian public is prejudiced in her favour. On May 23 2005 the National Nine News presented a report including segments of an interview with Derryn Hinch. This can be found at http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=50928
On May 15 2005 the ABC's Sunday Profile conducted an interview with QC Philip Opas, in which, among other issues, he explained why he believed Schapelle Corby should not be found guilty.
A transcript of this interview can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/sundayprofile/stories/s1367295.htm
On May 16 2005 Alan Jones a commentator for Radio 2GB in Sydney conducted an interview with the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard. In the interview Jones highlights the arguments to be put in support of Schapelle Corby while the Prime Minister indicates the limits of what the Australian Government is able to do.
A transcript of the interview can be found at http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/Interview1384.html
Arguments suggesting Schapelle Corby was not fairly treated
1. The initial forensic examination of evidence was mishandled
At the time Schapelle Corby was taken into custody no adequate forensic evidence was taken from the plastic bag containing the marijuana. The bag was not examined for fingerprints or DNA evidence. Criminologist Professor Paul Wilson has argued, 'There's no solid forensic evidence such as fingerprints, for example.'
Video footage taken at Bali airport after Corby was detained on suspicion of importing more than 4kg of marijuana showed customs officers handling the plastic bag containing the alleged drugs, without gloves.
It has been claimed that in the absence of any forensic evidence and given that Schapelle Corby's boogie board bag was unlocked, there is no conclusive evidence to demonstrate that Schapelle Corby put the marijuana in the boogie board bag.
In addition to this the Indonesian officials refused to allow forensic examination of the marijuana to determine its source.
Colonel Bambang Sugiarto, senior officer of the Balinese Drug Squad, has stated on Australian television that the lack of television footage at the Bali airport, and problems with fingerprinting of exhibits were weaknesses in the prosecution case.
The Australian Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, offered to help with forensic testing of the cannabis found in Corby's luggage. The Bali police reportedly declined the offer of help from the Australian Federal Police (AFP). (They later claimed the offer was never made.)
2. The Indonesian legal system does not operate on a presumption of innocence
In Indonesia the prosecution has to establish a case sufficient to justify prosecution. After this the burden of proof is no longer borne by the prosecution but rests with the defence which then has to prove the defendant's innocence. There have been many who have argued that this system is inadequate.
In a letter published in The Age on May 30, 2005, Brian Campbell argued, 'No system is perfect, but does that mean that all systems are of equal accuracy in achieving their goal?
[In] the Indonesian judicial system ... the prosecution merely has to establish a prima facie case leaving the defence with the need to conclusively prove innocence. In order to prove innocence, one must either prove the guilt of another, or somehow prove the event as alleged did not occur. The former would be extremely difficult for anyone not close to the crime in the first place, and the latter requires proof of a negative. As an example of trying to prove a negative, prove that pixies do not exist.
... The relative ease with which guilt can be proven compared with the difficulty of proving innocence means that the Indonesian system is at a considerable disadvantage when it comes to finding the truth.'
3. Translation services were inadequate
It has also been claimed that the lack of simultaneous translation services was a serious impediment to the delivery of justice in the Schapelle Corby case.
Dr Philip Opas QC was the lawyer for Ronald Ryan, the last man hanged in Australia. Dr Opas has a number of concerns about the manner in which the Schapelle Corby case has been handled. Included among these are concerns about the inadequacy of translation services.
Dr Philip Opas has argued, 'Well it seems to me that [Schapelle Corby's] facing three case hardened judges who've heard every possible excuse from people in a situation similar to hers and they're not impressed by it. They're certainly not moved by her tears and when you see that there's not an instantaneous translation of what she says into Indonesian, so that what she's saying is double Dutch to the court, they're left to read a translation of what she says at a subsequent period. I've never seen anything like that in court.'
It has also been argued that translation problems contaminated some of the evidence given by the Indonesian customs officers. A second Customs officer, Komang Gelgel, has said Corby had told Customs officer, Gusti Nyoman Winata she owned the marijuana. The defence claims this is an unlikely admission and probably indicates that neither customs officer knew what Corby was saying.
4. The Indonesian court discounted some key pieces of evidence
On May 12, 2005, Qantas acknowledged that it couldn't be sure whether corrupt baggage handlers were smuggling drugs through Australia's domestic airports. However, the judges presiding over the case disallowed the submission of this information as evidence.
It has been claimed that the Indonesian court's unwillingness to accept Corby's defence team's claim that dishonest baggage handlers at Sydney airport may have placed the marijuana in her bag makes it virtually impossible for Corby to prove her innocence.
Radio commentator Neil Mitchell has stated, 'When suspicion began to emerge about the possibility of corrupt baggage handlers slipping the drugs into her bag, nobody was prepared to investigate it properly or allow the claims any credibility.'
Corby's defence also claimed that inconsistencies in the evidence of Indonesian customs officers constituted a flaw in the prosecution case. These claims were discounted by the judges
5. Corby was not given sufficient protection from media intrusion
It has been repeatedly claimed that the level of media intrusion allowed in this case has been to the physical and psychological detriment of Corby.
Writing in The Herald Sun on May 30, 2005, Paul Gray observed, 'If Princess Diana was a media victim, what is Schapelle Corby? ... Inside a hot courtroom and just sentenced to 20 years' jail, followed by a heartbreaking scene with her parents, Corby immediately faced a wall of people that might have crushed a rugby player, as she was gang-pressed by cameras, police, journalists and onlookers en route to her prison van ... For 2 1/4 gruelling hours, TV cameras peered into her face, exposing every demi-semi-quaver of her personal emotion and anguish to the world. As each harsh word of judgment was passed, she had no chance of retreat into dignified privacy.
Execution would have been crueller -- but not by very much.'
6. Indonesian sentences for drug carrying are extremely severe
It has been repeatedly argued that irrespective of Schapelle Corby's guilt or innocence the severity of her sentence makes her treatment unjust.
In a letter published in The Age on May 30, 2005, David Mullett argued, 'The issue is not her guilt or innocence. It's not even a question about our diplomatic relationship with Indonesia. The fact remains that even if she is guilty, a 20-year prison term is clearly disproportionate to the crime and should be opposed on that basis.
The need to counteract the serious drug problem in Indonesia is no justification for a sentence that is excessive by any reasonable standard. Not only are "zero tolerance" drug laws a highly dubious response to the drug trade in the first place, but to respond to the importation of a drug like cannabis with a 20-year sentence is to take an already hardline approach to an unwarranted extreme. Not only will it irredeemably affect Schapelle's life, but its efficacy in stemming the flow of drugs is also open to serious doubt.'
7. Indonesian prison conditions are primitive
It has been claimed that prison conditions on Bali are so poor that a 20 year sentence would be very difficult to endure. On may 29, 2005, the Herald Sun reported the following, 'AIDS is rife in the jail as corrupt officials allow drug abuse to run virtually unchecked. Human rights activists estimate that life expectancy in the badly overcrowded jail compound would be between 10 and 15 years.
The toilets in the jail's squalid cells sit directly beside the benches where food is prepared. The jail was built in 1976 for 366 prisoners, but it holds 525.
Corby shares her 5m-wide cell with seven other women. She is forced to wash with only a small bucket and ladle. The untreated water is fetched from a dilapidated well in the prison compound.
Corby's family says the jail food is inedible. It comes around on a big cart -- a bucket of rice which her family says regularly contains stones, dirt and sticks, and a pot of some kind of stew. The pot is encrusted with drying and rotting food.'
8. The Australian Government has not done sufficient to support Schapelle Corby
On January 17,2005, Corby's Bali-based lawyer attacked Australian authorities for failing to help his client. 'We have lost all faith in the AFP and the Australian foreign ministry,' Vasudeva Rasiah said. 'They promised us they would help, but it was lip service all the way. They have done nothing and now what do we have in her defence? Absolutely nothing.'
The Australian Government has also been condemned for supposedly lax airport security which made it possible that drugs may have been planted in Corby's luggage. While both the Indonesian and Australian governments claim to have boosted security measures in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the US and the October 2002 Bali bombing, the Corby case has exposed the fact that these measures are largely cosmetic.
Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, when questioned on ABC radio, stated that he had no control over such issues. This has been condemned as disinterest. He also made clear that, apart from some limited assistance to Corby's lawyers and private talks with Indonesian foreign affairs officials, there would be no political intervention by Canberra.
Arguments suggesting Schapelle Corby was fairly treated
1. The Indonesian legal system does have an initial presumption of innocence
Professor Tim Lindsey, Director of the University of Melbourne's Asian Law Centre, has claimed, 'Most [media] reports are based, however, on serious mistakes. For example, despite persistent claims that Indonesian law presumes guilt, the fact is that it certainly does not. Indonesian legislation clearly places the burden of proof on the prosecution and provides for a presumption of innocence similar to that which applies in Australia.'
According to this line of argument, though the system does not operate exactly as it would in Australia, there is an initial presumption of innocence. The prosecution has to establish that there is a case to be answered before charges are laid and a case proceeds to trial.
2. There was significant evidence suggesting Schapelle Corby's guilt
Professor Tim Lindsey, Director of the University of Melbourne's Asian Law Centre, has claimed that the prosecution had a sufficiently strong case to justify prosecution merely because Schapelle Corby was found in possession of the narcotics, regardless of her supposed knowledge of the contents of her bag.
Professor Lindsay has argued, 'Being caught with drugs on you, whether strapped to you or in a bag that is your property, is probably going to be sufficient in most instances for the prosecution to establish a prima facie case.'
In Corby's case the prosecution case against her is strengthened because it is claimed that she was reluctant to have her bag checked by Indonesian customs officers. This is seen as significant as it would seem to indicate that she knew there was some illegal material in the bag.
Four Indonesian transport security officers have testified that Corby clearly attempted to avoid presenting the contents of her boogie board for inspection.
Customs officer, Gusti Nyoman Winata, testified that when he asked Corby to open her bag, she opened only the empty compartment of the bag. When he demanded a different compartment of the bag to be opened, she tried to prevent him from opening the bag himself. He claims she locked concerned and said 'I've got some.'
3. Some of the evidence supposedly supporting Corby was of doubtful worth
The Indonesian court dismiss the evidence of all defence witnesses. There are those who have claimed that these witnesses were treated appropriately and that their evidence would also have been discounted in Australia.
This claim has been made especially in relation to the evidence of Victorian prisoner, John Patrick Ford. The Bali Court dismissed the evidence as hearsay. It also cast doubt on the reliability of Ford's testimony given that he is a convicted criminal.
Regarding the general claim that baggage handlers in an Australian airport had placed the drugs in Corby's boogie board bag, the court found that the defence had simply failed to establish with any degree of likelihood that such an event had occurred.
The claims of a criminologist that Schapelle Corby was not the type of person to typically be involved in drug smuggling was also found to be of no evidentiary value.
A number of Australian legal authorities have claimed that the case offered by Corby's defence team would not have secured her release in Australia either.
4. Some of the explanations as to how the marijuana found its way into Corby's luggage seem unlikely
The proposition that there is a crime network involved in smuggling marijuana between Australian airports seems a little far-fetched. As the bag of marijuana found in Corby's boogie bag indicates, commercial quantities of marijuana are likely to be large and thus conspicuous, unlike either heroin or cocaine. Marijuana could more easily and safely transported around Australia by road.
As Andrew Bolt noted in his column in The Herald Sun on June 1, 2005, 'The judges are ... asked to believe these unknown smugglers took the marijuana into a high-security area at Brisbane in easy-to-see-through plastic and popped it into a random bag to be flown to another high-security area in Sydney.
Why the smugglers would do that, rather than simply drive the drugs down to Sydney by car, all safe, no one can say. That they then let their valuable drugs fly off to Bali is another mystery.'
5. Importing Australian marijuana into Indonesia can be very valuable
Bali's chief narcotics detective, Lieutenant-Colonel Bambang Sugiarto has claimed that high-quality marijuana heads, similar to those found in Corby's luggage, sell for about 70 million rupiah ($AU10,535) per kilogram, said to be 14 times the price of locally grown marijuana. The amount of marijuana found in Corby's boogie board bag would have had a value of over $40,000.
In an article published in The Age on May 26, 2005, Age reporter Matthew Moore stated, 'An Australian who says he's lived in Bali for 15 years contacted The Age several times to say his children were frequently offered marijuana called "Aussie gold". The man, who refused to give his name, said the "hydroponic bud" smuggled from Australia sells for $A600 an ounce (about $A21 a gram) or as much as $A20,000 a kilogram.
Top quality marijuana in Australia sells for around $8000 a kilogram, although more when broken into "deals".'
Such figures indicate that Schapelle Corby would have had a large financial incentive for smuggling marijuana into Bali.
6. Indonesia has reason to punish drug couriers harshly
There has been a rapid increase in drug-taking in Indonesia in recent years and Indonesia has responded to this by significantly increasing the penalties it imposes on those convicted of drug-trafficking. Though there are some who may disagree with the effectiveness of such measures, this is not a judgement Australians are entitled to make as any independent jurisdiction is able to determine what legal penalties should apply within its borders.
Further, there are those within Australia who believe that the penalties that apply within Indonesia for drug-trafficking are completely appropriate.
In an opinion piece published in The Herald Sun on May 30, 2005, Paul Gray appeared to be in support of Indonesia's harsher sentences. He stated, 'Corby's conviction and long jail sentence should be a wake-up call to Australians, in particular, to begin taking the word "narcotics" more seriously ...
Our debates over the legalisation of marijuana have started from the premise that a liberal attitude towards drug use is universally valid. In fact, we are at odds with large parts of the world, in thinking this way. The Indonesian judges demonstrated this bluntly on Friday.
Indonesia is working to eliminate narcotics including marijuana. The judges said: "This is a problem which can bring detriment to the youth of our nation." Detriment. It means harm. It's a simple argument, that mind-affecting drugs are harmful to individuals and society, and so should be aggressively outlawed.'
In an opinion piece published on June 1, 2005, Andrew Bolt similarly stated, '... our whinges about their drug laws must seem bizarre. Guess who truly has the worst laws - Indonesia, which gave Corby 20 years' jail for having 4.1kg of marijuana; or Victoria, which meanwhile gave a mere 12-month community service order to a teacher found with 29kg - and let her keep her teaching licence?'
7. Many of those supporting Corby have been distracted by irrelevant considerations
It has been claimed that many Australians supported Corby not because of the weakness of the case against her, but because they saw her as an appealing young woman with whom they could identify. Her gender, her physical attractiveness and her apparent normalcy all conspired to lead many people to automatically accept her innocence.
This point has been made very bluntly by radio commentator Derryn Hinch who has stated, 'I said I believed that Corby has been championed in Australia because she was young and pretty and white and Australian and had big boobs, and I stand by it.'
In a piece published in The Bulletin on May 25, 2005, Patrick Carlyon argued, 'Looks may not be everything, but they count for more than they should. You may have noticed a young Gold Coast beauty therapy student of late. She went on a Bali holiday and didn't come back ... Chances are you believe that Schapelle Corby is a victim of forces beyond her control.
Perhaps the eyes have it ... Corby's green-speckled eyes seem to dance no matter the fears they reflect. She shares the desperation of all Australians wasting away in Asian jails. Yet somehow, in the public esteem at least, she defies their wretchedness. She is a poster girl by comparison: for what, exactly, remains to be seen. She is not one of them, she is one of us. That could be your sister or daughter weeping in a foreign jail. If you believe her story, it could have been you or me who landed in a Bali cell.'
It has also been suggested that racial prejudice may be an element in some Australians' willingness to condemn the Indonesian justice system. As Andrew Bolt noted on May 29, 2005, 'Suddenly she was the star of a reality-TV [show]... It helped the plot that she was repeatedly filmed hands bound and besieged, pale in a jabbering, jostling crowd of brown foreigners.
Damn those natives. "The judges don't even speak English, mate, they're straight out of the trees, if you excuse my expression," raged 2GB Sydney fill-in host Malcolm T. Elliott. "Whoa, give them a banana and away they go."'
8. The Australian government has acted on Corby's behalf
As the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, and the foreign minister, Mr Downer, have noted on a number of occasions Indonesia now has an independent judiciary. This means that it would be both inappropriate and of no use to make representations to the Indonesian Government on Schapelle Corby's behalf.
That said, the Australian Government claims to have taken all steps it reasonably can to protect the rights of Schapelle Corby. On May 15, 2005, the Australian government made a formal plea to the Indonesian court over Corby's case.
Further the Australian Government has meet the total costs of Schapelle Corby's Indonesian defence team, as it does with any Australian national in similar circumstances.
After Schapelle Corby was found guilty, the Australian Government has also paid for the services of Queens Counsel to help her mount an appeal.
Further implications
Irrespective of Schapelle Corby's guilt or innocence, this case has not reflected well on Australia. There has been understandable concern for the fate of an Australian national, initially potentially on trial for her life, however, the Australian interest in the case has frequently degenerated into what appeared to be simple racial prejudice.
Accusations of incompetence and corruption were levelled at individuals and at the Indonesian justice system generally. In this case these accusations would seem to be completely unfounded.
And while it might be reasonable to expect a more effective translation service than apparently operated, it is completely unreasonable to take offence, as one radio commentator did, at the fact that Indonesian judges have the cases presented before them conducted in Indonesian.
Regarding issues such as conditions within Indonesian jails, their poverty is essentially a reflection of the relative poverty of the country. There is no suggestion that Schapelle Corby is having worse conditions inflicted upon her than are endured by other prisoners. Indeed as a Western with some access to funds, Corby is likely to be able to buy additional food and other privileges not available to many other inmates.
Similarly, with regard to the fact that Indonesia imposes far harsher sentences for dealing in marijuana than apply in Australia - that is a judgement that Australia has no right nor any power to influence. The simple reality is that anyone convicted of a crime is punished in the manner that applies in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. If Schapelle Corby had been convicted of murder in George Bush's state of Texas she would probably have been sentenced to death, and that sentence would apply irrespective of the fact that Australia no longer employs the death penalty.
One positive development that may eventuate from this case is that Australia and Indonesia are likely to arrive at a prisoner exchange agreement which would see Corby and other Australian nationals in jail in Indonesia completing their sentences in Australia. That said, it cannot be expected that these sentences will be reduced simply because they are being served in another country.
Finally, the two most disturbing aspects of this case are the readiness of some Australians to claim that Australian financial support to Indonesia after the tsunami disaster should in some way have affected Corby's trial and sentence.
The other area of major concern is the selective nature of our interest in Australians in trouble with the law overseas. Schapelle Corby is not the only Australian incarcerated in a foreign country, but she is the only one whose plight has seen the establishment of a nation-wide campaign to have her freed. It is possible to speculate that Corby's relative youth, the fact that she is female, and her physical attractiveness have led to an interest in her case that would not otherwise be there. If this is so it would be a very sorry indictment of both the Australian media and a significant proportion of the Australian population.
Newspaper items used in the compilation of this outline
The Age:
May 13, 2005, page 13, analysis by Todd and Moore, 'The Corby campaign'.
May 21, 2005, Insight section, page 6, analysis by Malcolm Moore, 'Is there any justice'.
May 31, 2005, page 15, comment by Indonesian journalist Dewi Anggraeni, 'Behind the Corby frenzy - ignorance and a
vocal minority'.
May 30, 2005, page 18, letters, incl, 'Reaction to the Corby sentence reflects badly on Australia'.
May 27, 2005, page 19, comment by Tim Lindsey and Simon Butt, 'Indonesia's life or death battle against drugs'.
May 26, 2005, page 5, news item by Malcolm Moore, 'Gold! Gold! Gold! Why Australian marijuana is a big hit in Bali'.
June 4, 2005, Insight section, page 7, analysis by Meagan Shaw, 'How a beauty school student became an obsession'.
The Australian:
May 30, 2005, page 3, news item, 'Ruddock questions Schapelle defence'.
May 13, 2005, page 3, news item by Steve Creedy, 'Snug fit of drug bag raised suspicions about Corby'.
May 21, 2005, page 19, analysis by Sian Powell, 'The case against our Schapelle'.
June 1, 2005, page 13, comment by Emma Tom, 'Proof of innocence needs more than tears and protests'.
The Herald-Sun:
May 18, 2005, page 16, letters under general heading, 'The pain, the shame, the hypocrisy'.
May 17, 2005, page 19, comment by Neil Mitchell, 'Corby's enemy within'.
June 1, 2005, page 23, comment by Andrew Bolt, 'Corby and the mob'.
May 31, 2005, page 20, comment by Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, 'Schapelle's not our only concern'.
June 6, 2005, page 19, comment by Matthew Pinkney, 'Corby's beauty bonus'.