Photographs and documents related to bags seized as part of an AFP investigation into Sydney airport baggage handlers in 2004 around the time of Schapelle Corby’s arrest will not be made public after an Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision blocking a freedom of information request.
Passionate advocates for Corby’s innocence in Australia are continuing the fight to try to uncover evidence to overturn her 2005 conviction for importation of 4.2kg of cannabis into Indonesia in a bodyboard bag, for which Corby spent nine years in Kerobokan prison in Bali before being released on parole in 2014.
One avenue being pursued by the Corby advocates is seeking to uncover whether bags containing cocaine obtained as part of the Operation Mocha investigation by the AFP and the NSW Crime Commission into drug smuggling in Sydney airport around the time of the Corby arrest could have also contained the cannabis later discovered in Corby’s bodyboard bag when it arrived in Indonesia.
The allegation is that the drugs could have been transferred to Corby’s bag from one of the other bags at the airport before it was flown to Bali.
An FOI request was filed with the AFP more than two years ago seeking access to the photographs of the two bags, along with police documentation of the bags taken at the time they were seized. AFP blocked the release of the documents on the grounds it could prejudice an ongoing investigation, and after a lengthy review of the case, in December 2015, the Information Commissioner agreed with the AFP’s finding.
The case made it to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, on the grounds that the evidence should be considered as part of the Corby case, not the Operation Mocha investigations into the Sydney Airport drug-smuggling ring.
The AAT ruled in September that the documents would again not be released. The AFP argued that because there was an outstanding arrest warrant and an Interpol Red Alert for one person involved in connection with the original investigations, if criminal prosecution is sought, then the release of documents related to the investigation would potentially prejudice the case, and not give the court the option to decide whether or not to suppress the documents when, or if, a trial eventually goes ahead.
The AAT agreed and said it was “simply not relevant” to consider whether the evidence was connected to the Corby case. The man behind the FOI, Dr Adrian Bradford, asked the AAT to “direct”the AFP to investigate whether baggage handlers at Sydney Airport were responsible for placing cannabis into Corby’s luggage, and to release a media statement advising the public that such an investigation was underway.
The AAT responded that it had “no jurisdiction” to direct the AFP in such a way.
Corby will finish her parole period in Indonesia next year and will be deported back to Australia.
As was stated in evidence given by Customs Intel agents at the trial (in 2007) of the former officer convicted of releasing reports of corruption at Sydney airport in 2003, the reports had been included in the AFP data base in December 2003.
When PM Howard and AFP Commissioner Keelty, during Corby’s trial in 2005, denied any knowledge of evidence of baggage handlers involvement in drug smuggling he was –
(a) mendacious,
(b) mislead,
(c) moronic.
Discuss.
Much stronger words than those. I wonder how many people are aware of the M2 Motorway scandal, how it links to the privatisation of the airport, and then the rip-off privatisation of the airport itself to buddies at Macquarie? The Howard brothers, one on each side of the table, for the former? The the airport itself and the screams of abuse (by politicians who later suffered from memory loss) and lack of regulation and security requirement when it was handed over?
They all knew the score here, including about the customs reports which exposed the entire mess on the ground. Allan Kessing was the scapegoat for that.
I am not sure if I can post links, but there is a report on all this and it is an eye opener. I will post it separately in case I can’t.
The point of all that is obvious.
When she was arrested the LAST thing they needed was the crisis of her coming home, declared innocent, and then all eyes on the precious airport, and their squalid roles in what went on regarding the privatisation. They were surely aware of the personal and political consequences of this.
That’s the context. Now look at what they DID.
Look at the evidence that they had, evidence that would have exonerated her. Primary clear cut evidence. Evidence that has now been published the the Expendable Project but NEVER by the mainstream media.
Why do you imagine so many people are still angry about this, and still campaign on it?
These people belong in prison, and justice will not be served until they are. Also, until the media begins to publish and expose all the material on the Expendable website.
When that happens, the option for the AFP of continuing to hide its own corruption and criminality will also disappear.
Here’s that report on the grubby context and just a smidgen of what Ellison and Keelty got up to when the Corby case was in progress:
http://www.expendable.tv/2014/04/background-briefing-business-as-usual.html
I forgot to add –
(d)meretricious
(e) mediocre
(f) ALL of the above.
Blocked at every turn. And anyone who has read the material on the Expendable Project website is aware of the reason: Keelty.
I will name them, because Crikey singularly refuses to read the correspondence between them: Keelty, Ellison and Howard. They were all well aware that her boogie-board bag was the only one NOT scanned on that flight. They scurried for cover when her lawyer came asking. This vital information was never revealed, and now it is never reported by the media. Why?
It’s obvious why the politicians were so desperate to protect the newly privatised (appalling rip off to Mcquarie) airport, and shove the AFP corruption under the carpet. But why must the mainstream media lie in the gutter and smear the victim instead of exposing this rabble?
That is just the start of the muck. The entire cache of damning evidence, which quite apart from demonstrating her innocence, shows what a corrupt rabble Canberra’s best actually are, is not reported. It never has been. Thousands of cables and transcripts are blanked. The culpable remain free of prosecution.
It’s Australia’s Wikileaks, not a conspiracy theory. The material is actually there to be seen. You know, with your OWN eyes. But the media wallows in the gutter instead of confronting and exposing it.
This case is a disgrace in every respect. If I was Schapelle Corby, the last place I would want to return to is Australia.
Here you are Josh…. this may help. Just a smattering of examples involving Keelty’s boss, and some Keelty himself. You know, just a start of the sort of stuff the AFP are hiding.
BUT BE CAREFUL. Don’t forget the raids on Seven by 30+ armed AFP thugs when they tried to give Schapelle Corby herself a platform to expose this sort of stuff.
EXAMPLE 1.
In a letter dated 5th July 2005, the CEO of Sydney Airport Corporation Ltd, Max Moore-Wilton, told Justice and Customs Minister, Christopher Ellison, that Schapelle Corby’s boogie-board bag was the only one not scanned at Sydney airport on route to Bali. Ellison wrote to AFP Commissioner Keelty the following day, 6th July 2005, conveying the same information. Both men realized how important this information was to Schapelle Corby, as she stood before an Indonesian appeal court. Indeed, Ellison even referred to its evidential importance directly in his letter. Keelty subsequently confirmed in writing that Prime Minister John Howard discussed this verbally with him, on 8th July 2005. All parties were also aware that scanning of all luggage, on all flights to Indonesia, was mandatory.
Furthermore, Schapelle Corby’s lawyer asked directly about scanning, in faxed letters to Ellison dated 6th July and 11th July, just days after Ellison and Keelty had discussed the importance of this new evidence. Ellison’s responses of 8th July and 13th July evaded the issue entirely.
Neither Schapelle Corby, nor the Bali court, was ever provided with this vital information. It was wilfully withheld.
In addition, Ellison had no intention of revealing the situation to Parliament. In a prepared response for the potential question “If asked whether the Australian Government is aware that Schapelle Corby’s boogie-board bag was not screened at Sydney Airport”, Ellison had pre-prepared the following evasive text: “The Australian Government is aware of comments about the screening of Ms Corby’s boogie-board bag at Sydney airport. Screening of checked baggage at the International Terminal at Sydney Airport is carried out by SACL. I understand SACL informed Ms Corby about this issue as early as October 2004. On 12th June 2005 the Minister for Justice and Customs wrote to Ms Corby’s lawyers suggesting they approach the operators of Sydney and Brisbane Airports regarding the handling of her luggage in Australia. I understand that SACL has had continued contact with Ms Corby’s lawyers about the handling of Ms Corby’s baggage. It is important to note that the screening for flights leaving Australia is undertaken for aviation security purposes. The screening process is not intended to detect drugs”.
EXAMPLE 2.
On 8th October 2004, Schapelle Corby checked her bags in normally at Brisbane airport. There was no fuss, and no excess baggage charge.
Following her arrest in Bali, Schapelle Corby’s lawyers asked directly about the weight of her bags, seeking to establish if there were any anomalies that might indicate an addition of between 4kg and 5kg, which was the approximate weight of the marijuana.
Qantas replied on 1st December 2004, providing only the total weight of her bags. It was flagrantly economical with the truth.
The weight of her bags on the Qantas system was actually 5kg overweight, which should have incurred an excess baggage charge of $175. This was exactly, and self evidently, the sort of information which Schapelle Corby’s lawyers were desperately seeking.
Again, vital and critical evidence was withheld from Schapelle Corby, her lawyer, and the Bali court. Neither Qantas, nor Ellison’s department, which was co-coordinating responses, ever divulged it.
EXAMPLE 3.
Christopher Ellison was at the heart of Schapelle Corby’s desperate efforts to secure forensic testing. In a bizarre sequence of events, the Indonesian National Police were very receptive to the general suggestion that the AFP should forensically test the marijuana. Ellison was personally informed of this by AFP briefing note 3286440.
Subsequently, Keelty visited his counterpart in Bali. However, according to the Indonesian police, no specific request for testing was forthcoming. This was also confirmed by a DFAT briefing note dated 21st December 2004.
Further, Parliament was told directly that the AFP did not have the expertise to test the marijuana, even though it had originally offered this to assist the INP, and even though a forensic expert in Australia had offered to perform the tests (again, on record). Alarmingly, Parliament was also told that the INP had rejected the request. Both these stories were entirely false.
Schapelle Corby openly pleaded for the forensic testing of her bag, and particularly, the marijuana found within. Her lawyers wrote to the Australian government, detailing a list of the specific tests required (letter dated 3rd December 2004). She directly asked the Australian consulate (consulate file note dated 4th December 2004). She asked the court repeatedly, as also recorded by DFAT file notes of February and March 2005. She pleaded with the prosecutor directly in front of the media.
However, on 24th May 2006, in a letter to a constituent, whilst inexcusably defending the burning of the primary evidence by the Indonesians, Ellison stated that, “The Bali court, on its own authority, or upon application by Ms Corby, could also authorise a request for forensic assistance. No such request was made, either by the Indonesian authorities or by Ms Corby.”
Ellison was well aware that Schapelle Corby did make such a request, repeatedly. His statement was totally and utterly false.
EXAMPLE 4.
On 23rd August 2005, Schapelle Corby’s Indonesian lawyer wrote a formal letter to Ellison, Downer and Howard, stating directly that her 20-year sentence was discriminatory in nature. He cited examples of Indonesians receiving a fraction of that time, including for offences involving hundreds of kilograms of marijuana.
The letter was not even acknowledged. Indeed, the Australian government continued to present the sentence as though it was wholly within normal parameters, and equally, continued to dismiss the clear and documented abuses at the trial itself. Numerous direct comments, by Foreign Minister Alexander Downer in particular, are on public record.
In 2012, Indonesian human rights campaigner, Arifin Wardiyanto, undertook a significant research effort, identifying dozens of marijuana-related cases via examination of the Supreme Court database.
He tabulated these and demonstrated that Schapelle Corby’s sentence far exceeded that of all Indonesians, not only convicted for similar amounts, but many times greater. Her sentence was at least 4x higher per kilogram of marijuana than that imposed on any Indonesian. All this information was sent to the Australian government. It was ignored.
[No politician has even acknowledged this, or any of the other discriminatory abuses perpetrated against Schapelle Corby, and the Australian media has never reported it]
EXAMPLE 5.
Ellison, in fact, was also at the heart of an entire series of disturbing events, all of which were extremely damaging to Schapelle Corby and her family. The three examples below were selected from many:
1) The PowderGate affair unfolded on 1st June 2005, directly after the verdict and unprecedented 20-year sentence. In a nutshell, flour was sent to the Indonesian embassy in Sydney with a note written in Bahasa which bore no reference at all to Schapelle Corby. Immediately, the government accused supporters of Schapelle Corby of a “murderous attack”, instantly dampening public anger and support for her. However, at 6:35pm on the same day, the AFP’s national manager of intelligence sent an email to Ellison. This was marked URGENT. It was very clear. It explained in simple terms that the substance was only gram bacilli, a commonly occurring bacteria. What did Ellison do, armed with the information that this was merely one of many white-powder hoaxes, which occurred in Australia each month? Nothing. The false story was allowed to roll around the world, and syndication continued across Australia for days.
2) After the original trial, two Australian QC’s were pressed upon the Corby family by the government, in time for the appeal. Whilst it was difficult to understand how two non-Indonesian speaking lawyers could actually provide practical assistance, government ministers were forceful, with the media repeatedly citing it as significant “help”, pressuring the family further. In the middle of the appeal, one of them, Mark Trowell, fatally undermined her prospects when he made a series of unsubstantiated allegations against her defence team, accusing them of seeking funds for bribes. He offered no evidence whatsoever, even though he and the Australian government must have been well aware that this was, in fact, the modus operandi in that nation. Mark Trowell, on oath, later stated that he was working for the Australian government all along. He was a Liberal Party member, and long term friend and colleague of, Ellison.
3) Schapelle Corby needed every cent of revenue from her book, “My Story”. This was intended to pay for medication, food, and for an extra-ordinary legal appeal. On 8th November 2006, the AFP began a large-scale investigation and extensive surveillance operation, reporting to the Minister of Justice and Customs, Ellison. The outcome was a politically driven ‘proceeds of crime’ case, which many consider to have subverted the judiciary itself. It was held in secret, with Schapelle Corby having no representation whatsoever. Indeed, she wasn’t even aware of it, nor was any other Corby family member. It also extended Australian legal reach beyond Australian borders. The money was duly seized. Even worse, this occurred whilst Schapelle Corby was still in legal-process in Indonesia. The signal to Jakarta, that she was considered, by Canberra, to have committed a crime, could hardly have been mistaken. Schapelle Corby remains the only person in Australian history to have had book revenue seized under ‘proceeds of crime’ legislation.
Have always been sceptical regarding the Corby case. Now I know why; call it ‘gut level’, maybe. Thanks for posting that.