· Schapelle Corby was charged under Article 82 which appears to be reserved for those working in a drug syndicate rather than alone. This would be a breach of the special narcotics laws of the Criminal Code (KUHAP). According to the prosecution indictment, if there is not enough evidence to convict her of trafficking, she could be convicted under two lesser laws carrying maximum prison terms of 15 years and 10 years respectively. So there is significant doubt about the propriety of the conviction under Article 82.
· The destruction of the evidence before all legal appeals had been exhausted. There are precedents in Indonesia where samples of drugs have been preserved before the bulk was destroyed. The authorities refused to preserve a sample from Schapelle Corby’s case.
· The influence of public opinion and prejudice on the judges’ decision. See: Appendix B - The Principle Of Judicial Independence And Impartiality
· The English-language proficiency of Winata, and the other airport witnesses who testified for the prosecution, was challenged at least twice in court but never tested.
· The value of Australian marijuana in Bali was never proved.
· The existence of Australian marijuana on the streets of Bali was never proved.
· Lily Lubis’s post-trial un-cooperation in providing Erwin Siregar with records of court proceedings and the police evidence brief could have been a breach of law.
.