EXTENTION GRANTED
Schapelle’s Re-Trial began on the 20th of July.
Her team requested that they have an extension
To provide the courts with more evidence, and hopefully a culprit!
They were granted an extension until the 3rd of August!
The scene on the way to the courtroom was appalling,
Schapelle was quite harshly thrown about!
Let’s continue to hope and pray that these witnesses come forward,
And can help out with case! She has worked to hard for this to fall apart, and i think that with all the support, it won’t fall apart...because we can get very angry!
(Although I don't want it to come to that)
Xox Cheers dudes, keep writing, and sending your support to Schapelle and her family!
posted by Danya @ 10:36 PM
6 Comments:
Hi Danya and to all,
Luv your efforts Danya
HPH threatens to quit Corby defence- news release Friday 22/7 1120pm
HPH threatened to quit the defence of Schapelle Corby on the basis that he has done everything he can and can produce the individuals who placed the drugs into her boogie board bag in Queensland and was meant to remove the package in NSW but is being given the run around by the Australian Government and Judiciary on offering immunity to prosecution in order for these individuals to come forward and testify in her defence.
His first reaction of threatening to quit was retracted as fast as it was made but the emotional outburst and its intended impact was obvious in its intent to incur the Australian public’s outrage at the Australian official’s apparent lack of cooperation and lack of concern for their innocent citizen and shame them into further action.
Yes the task of encouraging our Government and Judiciary to act seems a big ask and especially if you are not sure of our laws, conventions and due process but you cannot be hung for voicing your opinion in a reasonable manner in a society that embraces freedom of speech and especially on an issue of such importance as proving the innocence of a citizen wrongly convicted of a crime overseas.
More on this issue coming
Cheers
just ice t
Hi Danya,
The missive below is a little intense and I apoligise for the occasional indiscretion.I sure hope that it doesn't offend you
Corby lawyer threatens to quit
By Rob Taylor
July 22, 2005
From: AAP
SCHAPELLE Corby's Indonesian lawyer has threatened to quit her case saying Australian prosecutors are refusing to offer an immunity deal for witnesses that may help her.
Hutapea said the defence team was being given a legal run-around by various levels of Australian governments.
Federal Justice Minister Chris Ellison says immunity for criminal witnesses was a matter for state and federal public prosecutors.
But Hutapea said the NSW public prosecutor's office had written to him saying it was not within its power but a matter for the Federal Government.
"I am bloody sick of this, I have to say," he told AAP.
"I am the most expensive lawyer in this city (Jakarta) and I am not getting anywhere with pro-activity from the Australian government.
"I am going to resign this case – I am thinking about quitting tomorrow – if they do not start helping. I am serious."
Bali's High Court has given the defence team until August 3 to secure new testimony backing Corby's claims that 4.1kg of marijuana found in her luggage at Bali airport last October was put there by someone else, possibly corrupt baggage handlers at Brisbane airport.
Hutapea has said a mystery witness in Australia is willing to admit to putting the drugs in Corby's bag, but only if the government grants immunity from prosecution.
In Perth, Senator Ellison said he was happy Corby's lawyers had approached the director of public prosecutions in NSW and Queensland requesting an immunity deal.
"We have advised Mr Hutapea that he approach the DPP at both state and federal level if he is seeking immunity for any witnesses to give evidence in relation to Schapelle Corby's hearing," he said.
"The question of whether immunity is given to a witness in a trial is one for the DPP and so it should be.
"We are pleased to see Mr Hutapea has taken this course of action.
But Hutapea said the letter had been almost immediately dismissed by the NSW DPP.
"I am sick of this. I think this Senator Ellison should go back to law school," he said.
A spokeswoman for Senator Ellison said the defence team had repeatedly been advised that an immunity deal depended on the type of crime for which it was sought.
"We have told them it depends on whether it is a Commonwealth matter or a state matter," she told AAP.
Corby is serving a 20-year jail term in Bali's Kerobokan prison.
Defence lawyers have been warned they have only one more chance to secure witnesses and present new evidence to the Denpasar District Court on August 3
Hmm! Am I missing something?
Ahhhhh! I’m really looking for help here! Is Schapelle Corby not an Australian citizen?
Don’t the Government departments communicate with each other or is that saved for across the room kindergarten antics in parliament?
Oh sorry! I forgot that of course they communicate, that was shown when they agreed the economy could not support anything but moderate indexed rise in the basic wage and then shouldered together to justify their obscene salary rises. Sorry I lost track of my thoughts.
I thought the Government was elected by the people to serve the people………. I must be mistaken because I can’t see anything but platitudes coming from the PM and buck passing from the B Justice minister.
Yeh! yeh! I know they appear to have been doing what they can till now but unless I’m mistaken Schapelle must face the court again on Aug 3rd and that leaves precious little time for the wheels of justice to grind there bones in the due process and procedures required before considering granting immunity.
Please. Wouldn’t they expect common decency even from a customer service rep when asked regarding something that’s not within their department or job description. I can’t tell you the times that I have been shown amazing courtesy and assistance by someone who believes their job is to provide a service even when it doesn’t benefit them or the company they work for.
I’ve seen police officers provide escort to delivering mothers. MFB rescue cats and dogs from drains etc, people going out of their way everyday to provide assistance to those in need out of just plain goodwill.
Here we have an Australian citizen who has maintained her innocence from the very first moment who appears for the first time possibly able to prove her innocence and what is the BLOODY gov doing?
Read the above and the endless other articles recently trashed out on behalf of our public bloody servants. Yes I’m angry, very bl---- angry because what kind of effort would be required for these pr—ks to assist Schapelle in what is shaping up to be her greatest hour of need? Not bloody much in the scheme of things I assure you.
If ever the Australian people needed to demand action of our government it is now and I’ll confine my focus to Schapelle’s needs for this moment but they are certainly in for a most interesting future if I have anything to say about it.
I’m sorry I’m ranting and probably not being very cohesive in what I’m trying to say.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that a lot of time has passed since Australian’s raised their voices collectively demanding government action on Schapelle’s behalf and now it appears her direst need is at hand the support base appears to be……..…..well……..…Um……..…….Where the hell is it?
Time out for me, just a moment though.
Gotta get my head right again because this ones really got me going as it should every person who gives a damn about Schapelle and citizens right’s let alone justice and seeing the bloody poli’s do what they were elected for in the first place..
Best regards and with the greatest respect for you Danya
just ice t
Hi Danya and to all,
Yes, my lord the third lengthy wordy posting but I tried to do a better job of it than the last one,
Hoping you share my urgency in this matter.
The news articles re offering immunity are typical of the difficulties facing the DPP’s, the Justice Minister, PM, Foreign AM, etc….
It broaches the confused and frustrated discussions regarding conventions and due process requirements amongst officials and judiciary and this issue could easily be encouraged to hibernate in the too hard basket as quite frankly it is a monster.
The uncertainties and conundrums of Schapelle’s case increase in complexity at a hitherto rarely witnessed exceptional rate. That is as long as you ignore immigration, terrorism, terrorist sympathisers and freedom of speech issues of course!
Acknowledging but ignoring the possibility/obviousness of HPH’s masterfully creating the illusion of poor innocent Schapelle and softening up the Indonesian officialdom with sophistry regarding Australia’s obvious legal incompetence especially in matters of security and our Governments total lack of concern for their poor innocent citizen.
He really is attempting to pave the way for reasonable doubt and he has a real battle on his hands considering the fact that in order for the Indonesian court to find in reasonable doubt they must first accept they did the wrong thing in the first trial and don’t forget the instability of Indonesia’s government with many political and radical groups prepared to use anything they can to create further instability and incur a real push for fundamentalist Islamic law in all Indonesian provinces.
This statement is not racist or critical of the Indonesian Government, simply an observation of fact kept very low key by the Governments for obvious reasons.
Back to the granting of immunity issue…………..
Cultivation, possession, supply and trafficking is a state legal offence.
That is to say that it is pursuable by the state police in the state of origin and the state of purported destination where it was received, handled and transferred where upon the relative state DPP’s would discuss and decide which state would pursue legal action according to which state can lay the greatest number of charges and has the greatest proof of offence to assure conviction.
The supply and exportation/importation or transporting of illegal drugs across state borders and through airports are also a federal law offences so such actions would incur federal action and charges as well..
The supply and exportation of illegal drugs internationally is of course a federal offence but also comes under the jurisdiction of the destination country as well so Indonesia has the right to request the extradition of persons responsible to face charges under their judicial system. Shhhhyte I hate internationally sensitive issues, nothing seems to make sense and most “sensible?” outcomes rely on backroom deals. Hmmmmm! I also hate being a mushroom.
DPP”s rarely consider granting full immunity to prosecution and only consider reduced sentencing in exchange for significantly greater advantage in terms of justice In the spirit of the laws and to the welfare of the public, their ultimate burden of responsibility but not their employer’s like the poli’s. Te, he, he, he!
There is no capacity to grant immunity from prosecution under the Indonesian constitution and therefore law. That is not to say they don’t make deals to their advantage but I doubt any such deals made by Indonesian authorities would be in anyway attractive to a westerner’s point of view. Again no criticism just observation and westernized opinion
In order for a state or federal DPP to consider granting reduced sentencing or immunity to prosecution they must first know the precise identity of the person, have full disclosure of offences committed, the identity of any other parties involved and the time to pursue exhaustive investigations to establish the full truth of the situation, the true extent of crimes committed, the wider issues of possible connections and omissions as well before they then review the merit’s of plea bargaining or immunity to prosecution.
HPH has written to members of our government including the justice minister and DPP’s regarding these issues and has received the same blanket response as is being delivered through our media.
Name the person and the crimes committed so we can investigate the matters further and pursue it through due process of law and the international mutual assistance treatise provisions in place.
It is time for our officialdom to be seen to making efforts on behalf of an apparent innocent Australian citizen. They can forgo their correct procedures and short track a little as they would in any emergency and if this isn’t an emergency then heaven help anyone who needs to rely on the Australian Government to uphold their rights cause they are certainly not doing so now when given the opportunity too.
The best legal advice I have received suggests that
authorities will not consider setting a precedent in law that encourages every mother’s ill adjusted son and daughter to crawl out of obscurity in pursuit of 30 seconds of fame and ignoble glory.
they most emphatically will not consider granting immunity until they know the full extent of crimes committed and can consider the greater ramifications of any decision and action on their behalf.
they will be encouraged by mass volumes of appreciative letters acknowledging the difficulties faced but sensibly weighing up the possibility of exoneration of an innocent Australian citizen sentenced to gaol overseas for a crime they possibly did not commit.
the most assured way to guarantee action on this matter is to take it sensibly and responsibly into the forum of public opinion.
Yes, though I cringe and have great forebodings, and in many ways would prefer to stick my head in the sand.
I do confer that when dealing with the judiciary the media is our greatest hope especially in consideration of the very short time period left to conduct such a campaign to force the very swift actions required by our officialdom.
This is reminiscent of the advice I received regarding Mark Trowell QC’s media statements re bribery and the letter I wrote to him was in consequence of that legal advice recommending that being the only approach that would possibly sway a silk to consider diplomacy as the better part of valor.
Do remember he was coping a lot of discreet flack from his peers for his inappropriate actions at the time and the possibility of turning the issue to his trial by media in the public forum for his actions was suggested as the means to shut even the most irreproachable judiciary identity up.
In this case we don’t want to shut them up we wish to motivate them and I am led to believe we would be supported discreetly by some peer members to those we need to enervate the most
I am aware of the constitutional separation of political and judicial powers but we live in the real world where every action has a reaction, all actions are boomerangs and everything is ultimately connected.
To put it plainly the Government can do a hell of a lot to help instead of continual buck passing as its Schapelle’s life, our Aussie girls life their playing with and I don’t care what they say if it was any politicians daughter she’d have been home long before now and I firmly believe that.
We mushrooms must sprout voluminously with voices united in purpose and intent.
This is an issue that even the most retiring must be called upon to speak out on and I feel that failure to stand and be counted in pursuit of this matter is simply not an option for those concerned for social justice and citizens rights let alone the life of our truly admirable aussie girl, sister,daughter, friend and loved one.
I would appreciate your consideration and response to the matters raised and actions proposed above as I feel that if we really wish to support Schapelle
Now is when we can do the most for her.
Best regards again
just ice t
Just ice t! I have information i can share with you! and it would be great if you could email me at doll_dagga_buzz_buzz13@hotmail.com and i can send you information! it's hard to answer all your questions on here, but i would love to help you with an understanding on the topics, so please do contact me! xox Danya
Hi Danya,
Sorry I haven't got back to you before now I am normally reasonably prompt.I would love to hear from you and I will contact you on the address given and you may contact me direct if you like justice4ourgirl@hotmail.com
I have found myself replying so much to one topic at the moment so I'll post it here but I warn you it's huge and hope you are not peeved.
Hi T
Thankyou for putting it straight re Indonesian legal Team and your trust in them I sleep a little better knowing that Schapelle at least has a slim chance
cheers
Peter Stevens
Hello Peter,
I have not finished my night’s efforts and as is my habit I regularly check back on various sites for new “stuff’ so I came across your message.
I am a little confused as you are not in my contacts but your message came into my in box so I would like you to identify yourself and which posting you are referring to as I do get around a lot. I will presume you are referring to a posting on schapellefn and though I had not intended to post on that site tonight your message is such that I thought I should at least reply.
This will again be the second night in a row without sleep for me which has been happening way to often in recent times. I have just sent off replies to other persons/ forums regarding this topic and have other’s to do but first I’ll just say that I am not so dense as to be unaware of facetiousness, cynicism or sarcasm at times directed my way but find them completely useless states of mind and generally ignore such occurrences as not worthy of response and an utter waste of time.
Having said that I will take your message at face value and I think I will paste the message referred to above as it clearly sets out my position on HPH. Further to that I will say that as neither we or Schapelle have any choice I am indeed living in hope and quiet honestly if he can achieve her exoneration I’ll print out hard copies of every even slightly negative piece I’ve ever written about him and I’ll eat them and then send him so many thank you letters that he’ll probably have me charged as a stalker..
dulce est disperse in loco – It is pleasant to play the fool in the right place.
Hi xxxxx
Sorry to have missed your call.
I did try to return it but the number was consistently engaged.
I am pleased to read your email and amongst other offerings here included are some examples of HPH’s profile and I have attached the MAT document with explanation of letters rogatory at the end
As you know I have been searching and collecting information from the news, forums, blogs, legal journals, bulletins and just about every other source within my capacity blah, blah, blah for months so I do have a bit of a resource and am very glad regardless of feelings of futility to get back to that and take back my shadowy background skulking role.
All relevant or possibly helpful information I find or is supplied to me is still referred for legal, security and or intelligence scrutiny and discussion where relevant and though precious little is turning up I reiterate what I have said before that we are right in suspecting a lot more is happening than is sometimes obvious.
I cannot give you any qualified information re Miller beyond what I posted on schapellefn as I have no legal ability to have it but lets just presume the reports have been miiiildly accurate . It still doesn’t mean that HPH couldn’t use such a person to an advantage though.
I too do not trust or have faith in HPH either and in particular I have and will not forgive or forget the disgusting position he put Schapelle in when she was most desperate and confused but had no option but to take him back for fear of his threatened action.
As I have said before Schapelle does not have the legal team of her choice but more to the point she has the legal team in which she had no choice!
Regardless of what happens to Schapelle HPH will shine and make a fortune out of this high profile case and no discreditation of witnesses or anything else is going to stick to him.
It does not matter what we think of him, he couldn’t give a rats but he does care what we think of Schapelle and it is still my opinion that we are disappointing his expectations and therefore his defence strategy of Schapelle by not kicking up a greater storm through the media against the Gov’s reluctance and apparent inaction.
He and the Corby family cannot be seen to be trying to incite us as that would risk [return of the creeps] and negate our effectiveness which must be seen as free will and impassioned belief that Schapelle is innocent as well as in defence of our, and our girl’s citizens rights.
Yes I know the Gov is appearing to be a little more transparent and that is most probably because of the publics [our] response so therefore if we want them to truly do everything they can for Schapelle and be reluctant to ignore these and other important issues in the future I believe it is imperative that we do not just maintain a trickle of letters but kick up the storm that hopefully will fulfill HPH’s expectations and make sure the GOV does not believe it can sit on its laurels in the future.
After al if they can’t take the flack do you want them representing and leading our country?
Personally I would very much like to have a more accountable and transparent Gov and the thought of the polli’s being less smugly complacent as well as thinking and remembering that they better pick up their acts because we will no longer accept their apathy and platitudes is so appealing its downright motivating.
I do respect almost all persons right to their point of view [no LOL, just sadly shaking my head]
but I personally cannot sit by the river waiting in hope that it will flow past so I can cross.
I had no doubts you would welcome our young nuby and agree with the parents approval
I will have the phone on my hip again tomorrow if you wish to contact me.
Thanks for your kind words and candid thoughts
Cheers
T
just ice t, just ice, just ice thanks
Hotman Paris & Partners
Summitmas I, 18th Floor, Jl. Jend. Sudirman Kav. 61-62
Jakarta 12069, Indonesia
Telephone: +62-21-2522460; 2523468
+62-21-2522234; 2522841
Statement of Practice:
Commercial Litigation, Bankruptcy Litigation, Banking and Finance Litigation, Corporate, Banking and Commercial Legal Work, Labour Litigation, Construction Litigation and ADR, Intellectual Property and Trademarks, Debt and Corporate Restructuring, Shipping and Criminal Law, Arbitration and Insurance.
Year Established: 1999
Firm Profile:
Formally established in 1999 and lead by Mr. Hotman Paris Hutapea, the firm has grown to become one of Indonesia's leading litigation law firms due to the extensive and broad international legal practices of Mr. Hutapea who has the experience of 20 years in litigation and dispute resolution representing numerous domestic and multinational companies in Indonesian courts and arbitrations. When the Indonesian new Bankruptcy Law was adopted in April 1998, the firm argued the new Bankruptcy Law's first case, and since the new Indonesian Bankruptcy Court was opened in September 1998, the firm has successfully handled many of the biggest and highest profile bankruptcy cases, representing many foreign banks and blue chip companies, thus establishing the ground for bankruptcy litigation practice since the new law was enacted in Indonesia. The firm has also been involved in various international transactions, inter alia, foreign investment, banking and finance, mining investment, corporate and general commercial law. The firm has a broadly based practice with a reputation for offering a full range of quality legal services. The client base is World wide.
Firm Size: 12 Partners and a veritable army of subordinate legal and article clerk personnel as well as trainee legalese students, clerical staff, private detectives and others who are in his debt, paid or encouraged to help or be favourable.
Hotman Paris Hutapea (Member) born North Sumatra, Indonesia, October 20, 1959; admitted, 1981, Indonesia. Education: Parahyangan Catholic University (S.H., 1981); University of Technology, Sydney, Australia (Graduate Study in Comparative Law, 1990); Singapore Institute of Arbitrators and Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, Singapore (1993). Foreign Associate, International Law Firm, Sydney, Australia, 1987-1988. Founder and Current Director, Hotman Paris Law Education and Training Centre. Member: Indonesian Bar Association (AAI); International Bar Association (IBA); Inter-Pacific Bar Association (IPBA); Bankruptcy Litigation Lawyers Club (President) (BLLC); Jakarta Lawyers Club (JLC). Languages: English. Practice Areas: Litigation; Corporate Law; Debt Restructuring; Contracts; Negligence; Torts; Alternative Dispute Resolution; Bankruptcy; Insurance Law; Civil Litigation; Criminal Law.
Anthony L.P. Hutapea (Member) born Jakarta, Indonesia, December 28, 1967; admitted, 1992, Indonesia. Education: University of Indonesia (S.H., 1992). Member: Indonesian Bar Association (AAI); Bankruptcy Litigation Lawyers Club (BLLC); Jakarta Lawyers Club (JLC). Languages: English. Practice Areas: Litigation; Corporate Law; Intellectual Property Rights; Labor (Labour) and Employment; Alternative Dispute Resolution; Bankruptcy.
Sangti P. Nainggolan (Member) born North Sumatra, Indonesia, August 21, 1968; admitted, 1992, Indonesia. Education: University of Surabaya, Indonesia (S.H., 1992). Member: Indonesian Bar Association (AAI); Bankruptcy Litigation Lawyers Club (BLLC). Languages: English. Practice Areas: Litigation; Corporate Law.
Marx Andryan, S.H., MM. (Member) born Jakarta, Indonesia, September 9, 1975; admitted, 1997, Indonesia. Education: Faculty of Law in Trisaksi University (S.H., 1997); Magister Management in Gadjah Mada University(MM, 2000). Member: Indonesian Bar Association (AAI); Bankruptcy Litigation Lawyers Club (BLLC). Languages: English. Practice Areas: Litigation; Corporate Law.
Mien Hermini (Member) born Cirebon, West Java, Indonesia, May 18, 1972; admitted, 1996, Indonesia. Education: University of Borobudur, Indonesia (S.H., 1996). Languages: English. Practice Areas: Litigation.
Vebby Indrajana, (Member) born Jakarta, Indonesia, June 22, 1977; admitted, 2000, Indonesia. Education: University of Indonesia (S.H., 2000). Languages: English. Practice Areas: Corporate Law.
Indra Prasetia, (Member) born South Sumatra, Indonesia, February 18, 1972; admitted, 1995, Indonesia. Education: Parahyangan Catholic University (S.H., 1995); University of Indonesia (M.H., 2003). Languages: English. Practice Areas: Corporate Law.
Violen Helen Pirsouw, (Member) born Jakarta, Indonesia, May 10, 1979; admitted, 2002, Indonesia. Education: Atmajaya Catholic University (S.H., 2002). Languages: English. Practice Areas: Corporate Law.
Mursid Budiyanto, (Member) born Klaten, Indonesia, November 9, 1974; admitted, 1997, Indonesia. Education: Muhamadiyah University of Yogyakarta (S.H., 1997). Languages: English. Practice Areas: Corporate Law.
Isak Franky P. Napitupulu, (Member) born Tapanuli, North Sumatra, June 14, 1974; admitted, 1997, Indonesia. Education: Parahyangan Catholic University (S.H., 1997). Languages: English. Practice Areas: Litigation.
Rian Raditya, (Member) born Jakarta, May 6, 1980; admitted, 2002, Indonesia. Education: Trisakti University (S.H., 2002). Languages: English. Practice Areas: Litigation; Corporate Law.
Muliawati, (Member) born Jakarta, May 17, 1975; admitted, 2000, Indonesia. Education: University of Indonesia (S.H., 2000). Languages: English and Mandarin. Practice Areas: Corporate Law.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
As Schapelle Corby's band of legal advisers plan her appeal, the "hot-shot Jakarta lawyer" approached for help has offered his expert advice on running the case - the local way. Flamboyant Jakarta lawyer Hotman Paris Hutapea has offered his services to Schapelle Corby's legal team.
Flashing jewels on both hands, Hotman Paris Hutapea, a larger-than-life lawyer famous as much for his chrome-plated handgun as his success rate, says it is time for John Howard to do some serious lobbying on Corby's behalf. But the Prime Minister needs to do it quietly.
Mr Hutapea, who has offered his services to the Corby team free of charge as a "humanitarian mission", says the Australian Government needs to duck round to the back door, the way Indonesians do in a big case.
"They don't have to do it openly, they can do it in a very hidden way," says Mr Hutapea, who knows Corby's chief judge Linton Sirait (they come from the same area in North Sumatra) and says he is happy to arrange a meeting with him.
"You have to understand that in Indonesia there is still a link (between the Government and the judiciary)," he explains. "Under the law, the judiciary and executive are totally separate but the reality of life is they still appreciate each other."
Mr. Hutapea is still not certain if he will be advising Corby in the crucial next stage of her case but says he was approached last week by Perth QC Mark Trowell, who is helping Corby and has called for the services of a "hot-shot Jakarta lawyer".
He was also approached by Corby's senior lawyer, Erwin Siregar, and asked to help but was still unsure whether his services would be required.
He admits to knowing nothing of the case other than what he has seen in the media. But he is certain Corby's best hope is to convince the judges of the Bali High Court to hold a public hearing into the case themselves or to get the judges in the District Court to sit once more.
Convincing them to do that would be very difficult, but not impossible, says Mr Hutapea, who has a masters degree from Sydney's University of Technology and spent a year with Australian law firm Freehills Hollingdale and Page.
If they agree, Corby should attempt to bring to court "all the customs, immigration officials and baggage handlers" who were on duty the day she left so they could be asked about her bag, to create some balance to the powerful prosecution case.
But while Mr Hutapea says he understands that Corby must appeal if she is innocent, he says there is a "huge risk" she could get the death penalty if the judges find against her. "Of course, in cases like this, usually the penalty is the death penalty."
The task for Corby's legal team now was to make sure the judges were onside after the "really damaging" outburst by Corby's mother and relatives who yelled abuse at the bench when they brought down the verdict, Mr Hutapea says.
That damage has to be repaired and he believes he can help. "In Australia it cannot happen but here you can go to the judge's room and talk about the case informally and sometimes it's more effective than fighting in court."
Asked whether money would be a factor, Mr Hotman baulked for a moment and then explained. "I live in Indonesian courts every day, it's unethical if I say something bad about my court, although you know the answer. Everything is possible."
Just before he asked the Bali High Court to re-open Schapelle Corby's case, Paris Hotman Hutapea warned how difficult it would be to get the judges to agree to his request. Despite the obstacles, the brash Jakarta lawyer flew to Bali, met his client and lodged his documents with the appeal court in a blaze of television lights.
Three weeks later, the court not only agreed to his request, but the chief judge, Made Lingga, held a news conference announcing the decision, delivering the widespread coverage Hutapea wanted.
Getting a criminal case like Corby's re-opened might be unusual in Indonesia, but getting the chief judge to call a news conference to discuss it is unheard of.
As long as Hutapea, with his whatever-it-takes approach, is on Corby's case, it's impossible to predict what will happen next, and you won't get many clues by watching what goes on in public.
He's a behind-the-scenes operator. While Corby's new lawyer spends much of his time on the phone convincing journalists to run his deliberately provocative comments, he keeps the real information to himself, like what it took to get the judges onside.
"I can't disclose, it's not open for the public," he said when asked if he had met the High Court judges on his Bali visit.
Anyone who has watched him operate would take that as a "yes", given his candid admissions he meets judges privately to get the result he wants and has sent them money in the past as thank-you gifts.
As well as strings of diamonds, Hutapea reportedly owns 60 houses and 15 cars, including a Hummer that he used to ferry around Schapelle Corby's sister, Mercedes, when he brought her to town a few weeks ago. He doesn't pretend he has won a bunch of highly lucrative commercial cases just by being a good lawyer.
In Indonesia's notoriously corrupt court system you have to pay, to cut a deal, although he prefers not to use language quite as blunt as that: "I live in Indonesian courts every day, it's unethical if I say something bad about my court, although you know the answer. Everything is possible."
For Corby's case, though, he promised to change his ways. "As a lawyer I am not clean, I have to confess that . . . but for this case I am temporarily clean."
Temporarily clean or not, Hutapea has already shown he gets things done.
On face value, his appeal to the High Court against Corby's conviction and sentence appears doomed. He asked the court to re-open the case to bring a dozen new witnesses, including a person who supposedly placed a bag of marijuana in Corby's luggage.
But so far he's got no one to come forward, although he will probably get an Indonesian academic, Professor Indriyanto Seno Adji, to talk about the principle of reasonable doubt.
And if the judges agree, he may also produce the head of the Bali drug squad, Colonel Bambang Sugiarto, and the officer in charge of closed circuit TV at Bali airport, although it's hard to see how this group will say anything to save Corby.
Hutapea admits there is no more prospect now of getting a person who might have planted the marijuana than there was during the original trial, but that hasn't slowed him down.
What he is trying to do is create a climate of activity where there's a sense of new information being disclosed and mounting discontent with an unco-operative Australian Government.
Even a few wobbly witnesses might give the judges something to hang their hat on, enough of a reason for them to succumb to Hutapea's entreaties and give Corby a favourable verdict without being accused of corruption.
Unlike her previous lawyers, Hutapea doesn't claim the Queensland woman is innocent; he just says there is reasonable doubt over her guilt.
With no witnesses who will back up Corby's version of events, he is busy blaming the Australian Government.
Since he took on her case a month ago, he has been firing off angry letters to Justice Minister Chris Ellison and anyone else he can think of, demanding they help find customs officers and baggage handlers on duty the day Corby flew to Bali.
He has never really explained just what evidence he really expects from baggage handlers, if he had the chance to quiz them about a bodyboard bag they might have loaded nine months ago.
The evidence, though, is less important than the atmosphere Hutapea is hoping to create as he fights to give the judges a sliver of a reason to acquit Corby or reduce her sentence.
As the hearing, scheduled for July 20, gets closer, his letters and their distribution list are getting longer. His latest, to Prime Minister John Howard on Thursday, was also addressed to Senator Ellison, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and a Qantas lawyer, as well as Indonesia's President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and the ministers for Foreign Affairs and Justice. Among other things, it added Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty to the witness list.
And while Hutapea's letters might go in the bin in Australia, it would be foolish to underestimate his influence at home. His office wall carries a framed photograph of himself with Mr Yudhoyono (well clear of the one of two G-string-clad women getting well acquainted) nestled among the magazine and newspaper stories detailing his past triumphs.
The six-page letter has also been cc'ed to 13 others, including the top four people at Indonesia's Supreme Court, which Hutapea is already leaning on in preparation for another appeal if he can't get the result he wants from the Bali High Court.
Although efforts have been made to reduce the corruption in the Supreme Court, its decision in the Tommy Soeharto case three weeks ago has convinced many Indonesians there is no sign of success yet.
A panel of judges lead by the head of the whole court, Professor Bagir Manan, cut by five years the 15-year sentence imposed on the son of the former president, who was convicted in 2002 of murdering a judge who had found him guilty of corruption.
With generous remissions and a law allowing his release after serving two-thirds of his sentence, Soeharto is now due for release next year, just five years after he ordered the judge's murder.
Despite such judgements, a Perth QC who was asked by the Federal Government to get involved in Corby's case said the decision to re-open her trial was evidence Indonesia's legal system was honest.
"You see people, I think, were too cynical about the Indonesian legal process," Mark Trowell said. "The judges are competent, they are honest in the way they discharge their duty, and that's been proven by today."
Few lawyers in Indonesia would agree with him.
The Perth lawyer has continued to comment publicly on the Corby case even though Hutapea says he sacked him a fortnight ago, after Trowell ignored his instructions and publicly claimed Corby's then legal team wanted to bribe the judges.
Hutapea, who himself was recommended for the job by Trowell, says the Perth QC sabotaged Corby's case with his claims of bribery.
One of the reasons he keeps attacking Canberra for not doing enough is that he is hoping to make Corby a political issue again so that Australian Government ministers will be forced to lobby on her behalf and make his job easier.
The one real mystery is why Hutapea is doing all this, and for free. He says he always does 10 per cent of his work for no charge and that his only motivation is to help a woman in trouble so that he will be able to look his maker in the eye when the time comes.
Like so much of what Hutapea says, this explanation cannot easily be taken at face value.
A very different take on Corby's fate
While Australians were stunned at the severity of Corby's 20-year jail sentence, Indonesian legal experts can't believe how well she did. "It's a miracle," said Riza Afrizal Hasby, a Jakarta-based lawyer who has handled 10 drug cases, including a number involving foreigners.
"It's without precedent, getting only 20 years for 4.1 kilograms," he said.
Other lawyers were all unable to name a drug smuggler with a similar quantity of drugs who had received a lighter sentence than Corby. "If she was tried in Tangerang Court (in Jakarta), Corby would be dead," Hasby said.
One of his clients, Zulfiqar Ali, is on death row for allegedly owning 300 grams of heroin, even though he was not caught with drugs in his possession. The man who did have the drugs has also been sentenced to death. Both were sentenced at Tangerang Court.
Hasby, like all Indonesian lawyers dealing with drug cases, says money usually decides the sentence more than the quantity of drugs.
"In general, in drug cases, if you don't give money the court will give you the maximum sentence, but if you have money they will give you a lighter sentence."
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
There are Australians actively writing and campaigning against Schapelle Corby
The first entry below is from an Australian woman 25 July 2005 [incredibly ill informed, spouting BS and quite dangerous]
The following two entries are from Indonesian citizens
……………………………………………………………………………………………
I wanted to send this email to your President but could not find his email address
Please tell lawyer Hotman Paris Hutapea that he should move on from thinking he is the ants pants hot and that lots of people in Australia are losing sleep over Schapelle Corby being in jail.
Tell Hutapea he is boring and that smart people can tell by the look on Schapelle's face that she is not the naive innocent 13 year old that she pretends to be.
Most people have been given the drum. Ms Corby has been to Bali some 26 times in recent years which is a lot of holidays for a part time beauty student. And too people with a knowledge of marihuana are saying that what was being taken over was hot and valuable stuff, that a member of ms corby's family has a surf shop etc etc.
Hutapea trying to put pressure on the Oz government is getting all too much.
Across the globe everyday thousands of people who could never afford a holiday to Bali or any other place are dying because they haven't enough money to buy food.
Lawyers and media folk who get off on protecting criminals are losers and should be confronted for their abuse of power and acts of selective indignation.
Tell Hotman to go look for another place to get media attention.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
If you send a letter like this to someone, it's pretty sure it won't be read.
• What is it about?
• What is the background of this?
• What triggered you to post it (outside the fact you can't find the Presidents email)?
• What is the point of discussion?
Just be honest, it doesn't hurt you
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Mr. Hotman Paris is one of the best lawyers in Indonesia, what do gold rings have to do whith that?
Miss Corby had all the luck of the world when she got only 20 years, all others in similar cases got a life sentence.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
I chose these as a sample as being amongst the more benign from an appalling amount of examples of Australians and other Nationalities posting and [campaigning] directly or indirectly against Schapelle Corby.
Also because in essence it shows that the Indonesian persons are by and large to varying degrees defending HPH and therefore perhaps softening towards Schapelle
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND TRADE
CANBERRA
Treaty between Australia and the Republic of Indonesia on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters
(Jakarta, 27 October 1995)
Entry into force: 17 July 1999
© Commonwealth of Australia 1999
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TREATY BETWEEN AUSTRALIA AND THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA ON MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS
AUSTRALIA AND THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA,
DESIRING to extend to each other the widest measure of cooperation to combat crime,
HAVE AGREED as follows:
Article 1
Scope of application
1. The Contracting Parties shall, in accordance with this Treaty, grant to each other assistance in investigations or proceedings in respect of criminal matters.
2. Criminal matters include matters connected with offences which are listed in the Annex to this Treaty.
3. Assistance may also be granted at the discretion of the Requested State for any other act or omission constituting an offence if the offence, according to the laws of both Contracting States, is one for which mutual assistance can be granted.
4. Such assistance shall consist of:
(a) taking of evidence and obtaining of statements of persons including the execution of letters rogatory;
(b) provision of documents and other records;
© location and identification of persons;
(d) execution of requests for search and seizure;
(e) measures to locate, restrain and forfeit the proceeds of crime;
(f) seeking the consent of persons to be available to give evidence or to assist in investigations in the Requesting State, and where such persons are in custody arranging for their temporary transfer to that State;
(g) service of documents; and
(h) other assistance consistent with the objects of this Treaty which is not inconsistent with the law of the Requested State.
5. Assistance shall not include:
(a) the extradition of any person;
(b) the execution in the Requested State of criminal judgements imposed in the Requesting State except to the extent permitted by the law of the Requested State and this Treaty; and
© the transfer of persons in custody to serve sentences.
Article 2
Other assistance
This Treaty shall not derogate from obligations subsisting between the Contracting Parties whether pursuant to other treaties or arrangements or otherwise nor prevent the Contracting Parties providing assistance to each other pursuant to other treaties or arrangements or otherwise.
Article 3
Central Office
1. The Contracting Parties shall each appoint a Central Office to transmit and receive requests for the purpose of this Treaty. The Central Office of Australia shall be the Attorney-General's Department, Canberra and the Central Office of the Republic of Indonesia shall be the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Indonesia, Jakarta. Either State shall notify the other of any change of its Central Office.
2. Requests for assistance shall be made through the Central Offices which shall arrange for the prompt carrying out of such requests.
Article 4
Refusal of assistance
1. Assistance shall be refused if:
(a) the request relates to the prosecution or punishment of a person for an offence that is regarded by the Requested State as:
(i) an offence of a political character except the murder, or attempted murder, of the Head of State or members of his or her family; or
(ii) an offence under military law of the Requested State which is not also an offence under the ordinary criminal law of the Requested State;
(b) the request relates to the prosecution of a person for an offence in respect of which the offender has been finally acquitted or pardoned or has served the sentence imposed;
© the request relates to the prosecution or punishment of a person for an offence which, had it been committed in the Requested State, could no longer be prosecuted by reason of lapse of time, the death of the alleged offender, double jeopardy or could no longer be prosecuted for any other reason;
(d) there are substantial grounds for believing that the request for assistance has been made merely for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing that person on account of that person's race, sex, religion, nationality or political opinions or that that person's position may be prejudiced for any of these reasons; or
(e) the Requested State is of the opinion that the request, if granted, would prejudice its sovereignty, security, national interest or other essential interests.
2. Assistance may be refused if:
(a) the request relates to the prosecution or punishment of a person for an offence where the acts or omissions alleged to constitute that offence would not, if they had taken place within the jurisdiction of the Requested State, have constituted an offence;
(b) the request relates to the prosecution or punishment of a person for an offence which is committed outside the territory of the Requesting State and the law of the Requested State does not provide for the punishment of an offence committed outside its territory in similar circumstances;
© provision of the assistance sought could prejudice an investigation or proceeding in the Requested State, prejudice the safety of any person or impose an excessive burden on the resources of that State; or
(d) the request relates to the prosecution or punishment of a person for an offence in respect of which the death penalty may be imposed or carried out.
3. Before refusing to grant a request for assistance the Requested State shall consider whether assistance may be granted subject to such conditions as it deems necessary. If the Requesting State accepts assistance subject to conditions it shall comply with those conditions.
Article 5
Contents of requests
1. Requests for assistance shall include:
(a) the purpose of the request and a description of the assistance sought;
(b) the name of the competent authority conducting the investigation or proceeding to which the request relates;
© a description of the nature of the criminal matter including a statement of the relevant laws;
(d) except in cases of requests for service of documents, a description of the acts or omissions or matters alleged to constitute the offence;
(e) the court order, if any, sought to be enforced and a statement to the effect that it is a final order;
(f) details of any particular procedure or requirement that the Requesting State wishes to be followed, including a statement as to whether sworn or affirmed evidence or statements are required;
(g) the requirements, if any, of confidentiality and the reasons therefor; and
(h) specification of any time limit within which compliance with the request is desired.
2. Requests for assistance, to the extent necessary and insofar as possible, shall also include:
(a) the identity, nationality and location of the person or persons who are the subject of or who may have information relevant to the investigation or proceeding;
(b) a description of the information, statement or evidence sought;
© a description of the documents, records or articles of evidence to be produced as well as a description of the appropriate person to be asked to produce them; and
(d) information as to the allowances and expenses to which a person appearing in the Requesting State will be entitled.
3. Requests, supporting documents and other communications made pursuant to this Treaty shall be in the language of the Requesting State and accompanied by a translation into the language of the Requested State.
4. If the Requested State considers that the information contained in the request is not sufficient in accordance with this Treaty to enable the request to be dealt with, it may request additional information.
Article 6
Execution of requests
1. Requests for assistance shall be carried out in accordance with the law of the Requested State and, insofar as it is not incompatible with that law, in the manner requested by the Requesting State.
2. The Requested State may postpone the delivery of material requested if such material is required for proceedings in respect of criminal or civil matters in that State. The Requested State shall, upon request, provide certified copies of documents.
3. The Requested State shall promptly inform the Requesting State of circumstances, when they become known to the Requested State, which are likely to cause a significant delay in responding to the request.
4. The Requested State shall promptly inform the Requesting State of a decision of the Requested State not to comply in whole or in part with a request for assistance and the reason for that decision.
Article 7
Return of material to Requested State
Where required by the Requested State, the Requesting State shall return the material provided under this Treaty when no longer needed for the relevant investigation or proceeding.
Article 8
Protecting confidentiality and restricting use of evidence and information
1. The Requested State, if so requested, shall keep the application for assistance, the contents of a request and its supporting documents, and the fact of granting of such assistance, confidential. If the request cannot be executed without breaching confidentiality, the Requested State shall so inform the Requesting State which shall then determine whether the request should nevertheless be executed.
2. The Requesting State, if so requested, shall keep confidential information and evidence provided by the Requested State, except to the extent that the evidence and information is needed for the investigation and proceeding described in the request.
3. The Requesting State shall not use information or evidence obtained, nor anything derived from either, for purposes other than those stated in a request without the prior consent of the Requested State.
Article 9
Service of documents
1. The Requested State shall effect service of documents which are transmitted to it for this purpose by the Requesting State.
2. A request to effect service of a document requiring the appearance of a person shall be made to the Requested State not less than forty five days before the date on which the appearance is required. In urgent cases, the Requested State may waive this requirement.
3. The Requested State may effect service of any document by mail or, if the Requesting State so requests, in any other manner required by the law of the Requesting State which is not inconsistent with the law of the Requested State.
4. The Requested State shall forward to the Requesting State proof of service of the document. If service cannot be effected, the Requesting State shall be so informed and advised of the reasons.
Article 10
Taking of evidence
1. Where a request is made for the purpose of a proceeding in relation to a criminal matter in the Requesting State the Requested State shall, upon request, take the evidence of witnesses for transmission to the Requesting State.
2. For the purposes of this Treaty, the giving or taking of evidence shall include the production of documents, records or other materials.
3. For the purposes of requests under this Article the Requesting State shall specify the subject matter about which persons are to be examined, including any questions to be put.
4. The parties to the relevant proceedings in the Requesting State, their legal representatives and representatives of the Requesting State may, subject to the law of the Requested State, appear and question the person being examined.
5. A person who is required to give evidence in the Requested State under this Article may decline to give evidence where either:
(a) the law of the Requested State permits that witness to decline to give evidence in similar circumstances in proceedings originating in the Requested State; or
(b) where the law of the Requesting State permits that witness to decline to give evidence in such proceedings in the Requesting State.
6. If any person claims that there is a right to decline to give evidence under the law of the Requesting State, the Central Office of that State shall, upon request, provide a certificate to the Central Office of the Requested State as to the existence of that right. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the certificate shall provide sufficient evidence as to the existence of that right.
Article 11
Obtaining of statements of persons
1. The Requested State shall, upon request, endeavour to obtain statements of persons for the purpose of an investigation or proceeding in relation to a criminal matter in the Requesting State.
2. For the purposes of requests under this Article the Requesting State shall specify the subject matter about which it seeks statements from persons including any questions which it seeks to be put to the person.
Article 12
Availability of persons in custody to give evidence or to assist investigations
1. A person in custody in the Requested State may, at the request of the Requesting State, be temporarily transferred to the Requesting State to assist investigations or to give evidence.
2. The Requested State shall not transfer a person in custody to the Requesting State unless the person consents to that transfer.
3. While the person transferred is required to be held in custody under the law of the Requested State, the Requesting State shall hold that person in custody and shall return that person in custody to the Requested State at the conclusion of the matter in relation to which transfer was sought under paragraph 1 of this Article or at such earlier time as the person's presence is no longer required.
4. The Requesting State may request the extension of the period stated in paragraph 3 of this Article if it still needs the presence of the person, if the person so consents.
5. Where the Requested State advises the Requesting State that the transferred person is no longer required to be held in custody, that person shall be set at liberty and be treated as a person referred to in Article 13.
Article 13
Availability of other persons to give evidence or assist investigations
1. The Requesting State may request the assistance of the Requested State in obtaining a person's consent to:
(a) appear as a witness in proceedings in relation to a criminal matter in the Requesting State unless that person is the person charged; or
(b) assist investigations in relation to a criminal matter in the Requesting State.
2. The Requested State shall, if satisfied that satisfactory arrangements for that person's security will be made by the Requesting State, request the person to consent to appear as a witness in proceedings or to assist in the investigations.
Article 14
Safe conduct
1. Subject to paragraph 2, where a person is in the Requesting State pursuant to a request made under Articles 12 or 13:
(a) that person shall not be detained, prosecuted or punished in the Requesting State, for any offence, nor be subject to any civil suit, being a civil suit to which the person could not be subjected if the person were not in the Requesting State, in respect of any act or omission which preceded the person's departure from the Requested State;
(b) that person shall not, without that person's consent, be required to give evidence in any proceeding or to assist in any investigation other than the proceeding or investigation to which the request relates; and
© where that person is a citizen of a third State, the Requesting State shall inform the Representative Office of that State about the matter through the diplomatic channel.
2. Paragraph 1 of this Article shall cease to apply where that person, being free to leave, has not left the Requesting State within a period of thirty days after that person has been officially notified that that person's presence is no longer required or, having left, has returned.
3. A person appearing in the Requesting State pursuant to a request made under Articles 12 or 13 shall be subject to the law of that State relating to contempt of a court or tribunal, perjury and the making of false declarations.
4. A person who does not consent to a request pursuant to Articles 12 or 13 shall not, by reason thereof, be liable to any penalty or be subjected to any coercive measure, notwithstanding any contrary statement in the request or in any document accompanying the request.
Article 15
Provision of publicly available and official documents
1. If requested, the Requested State shall provide copies of documents and records which are publicly available.
2. If requested, the Requested State may provide copies of documents and records that are part of a public register or otherwise which are not publicly available.
3. If requested, the Requested State may provide copies of any official document or record in the same manner and under the same conditions as such document or record may be provided to its own law enforcement and judicial authorities.
Article 16
Certification and authentication
1. Documents or materials supporting a request for assistance involving the use of compulsory measures or the forfeiture of proceeds of crime shall be authenticated in accordance with paragraph 2. Documents or materials furnished in response to a request shall be similarly authenticated, if requested.
2. Documents and materials are authenticated for the purposes of this Treaty if:
(a) they purport to be signed or certified by a judge, magistrate or other officer in or of the State sending the document; and
(b) they purport to be sealed with an official seal of the State sending the document or of a Minister of State, or of a Department or officer of the Government, of that State.
Article 17
Search and seizure
1. The Requested State shall, insofar as its law permits, carry out requests for search and seizure and delivery of material to the Requesting State provided the information supplied, including additional information requested pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 5, if any, would justify such actions under the law of the Requested State.
2. The Requested State shall provide such information as may be required by the Requesting State concerning the result of any search, the place of seizure, the circumstances of seizure, and the subsequent custody of the material seized.
3. The Requesting State shall observe any conditions imposed by the Requested State in relation to any seized material which is delivered to the Requesting State.
Article 18
Proceeds of crime
1. The Requested State shall, upon request, endeavour to ascertain whether any proceeds of a crime are located within its jurisdiction and shall notify the Requesting State of the results of its inquiries. In making the request, the Requesting State shall notify the Requested State of the basis of its belief that such proceeds may be located in its jurisdiction.
2. Where, pursuant to paragraph 1 suspected proceeds of crime are found the Requested State shall take such measures as are permitted by its law to prevent any dealing in, transfer or disposal of, those suspected proceeds of crime, pending a final determination in respect of those proceeds by a court of the Requesting State.
3. The Requested State shall, to the extent permitted by its law, give effect to a final order forfeiting or confiscating the proceeds of crime made by a court of the Requesting State.
4. In the application of this Article, the rights of bona fide third parties shall be respected under the law of the Requested State. Where there is a claim from a third party, the Requested State shall retain the property until a final determination of the authoritative court.
5. The Requested State shall return the property referred to in paragraph 3 of this Article, or the value of that property, to the Requesting State.
6. In this Article "proceeds of crime" means any property suspected, or found by a court, to be property derived or realized, directly or indirectly, as a result of the commission of an offence or to represent the value of property and other benefits derived from the commission of an offence.
Article 19
Subsidiary arrangements
The Central Office of each Contracting Party may enter into subsidiary arrangements consistent with the purpose of this Treaty and with the laws of both Contracting Parties.
Article 20
Representation and expenses
1. Unless otherwise provided in this Treaty the Requested State shall make all necessary arrangements for the representation of the Requesting State in any proceedings arising out of a request for assistance and shall otherwise represent the interests of the Requesting State.
2. The Requested State shall meet the cost of fulfilling the request for assistance except that the Requesting State shall bear:
(a) the expenses associated with conveying any person to or from the territory of the Requested State, and any fees, allowances or expenses payable to that person whilst in the Requesting State pursuant to a request under Articles 9, 12 or 13;
(b) the expenses associated with conveying custodial or escorting officers; and
© where required by the Requested State, exceptional expenses in fulfilling the request.
Article 21
Consultation
The Contracting Parties shall consult promptly, at the request of either, concerning the interpretation, the application or the carrying out of this Treaty either generally or in relation to a particular case, through the Central Offices.
Article 22
Entry into force and termination
1. This Treaty shall enter into force thirty days after the date on which the Contracting Parties have notified each other in writing that their respective requirements for the entry into force of this Treaty have been complied with.[1]
2. This Treaty shall apply to requests whether or not the relevant acts or omissions occurred prior to this Treaty entering into force.
3. Either Contracting Party may terminate this Treaty by notice in writing at any time and it shall cease to be in force on the one hundred and eightieth day after the day on which notice is given.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being duly authorised thereto by their respective Governments, have signed this Treaty.
DONE at Jakarta on the twenty seventh day of October, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-five in both the English and Indonesian languages, both texts being equally authentic.
FOR AUSTRALIA: FOR THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA:
[Signed:] [Signed:]
MICHAEL LAVARCH OETOJO OESMAN
ANNEX
LIST OF OFFENCES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 2
1. wilful murder, murder;
2. manslaughter;
3. an offence against the law relating to abortion;
4. aiding or abetting or counselling or procuring the commission of suicide;
5. maliciously or wilfully wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm, assault occasioning actual bodily harm;
6. assaulting a Magistrate, a police officer or a public officer;
7. assault on board of ship or aircraft with intent to destroy life or cause grievous bodily harm;
8. rape or sexual assault;
9. indecent assault;
10. procuring, or trafficking in, women or young persons for immoral purposes; living on the earnings of prostitution; any other offence against the law relating to prostitution;
11. bigamy;
12. kidnapping; abduction; false imprisonment; dealing in slaves;
13. stealing, abandoning, exposing or unlawfully detaining a child;
14. an offence against the law relating to bribery;
15. perjury; subornation of perjury; obstructing or defeating the course of justice;
16. arson;
17. an offence relating to counterfeiting;
18. an offence against the law relating to forgery or against the law relating to uttering what is forged;
19. an offence against the law relating to taxation, custom duties, foreign exchange control or other revenue matters;
20. stealing; embezzlement; fraudulent conversion; fraudulent false accounting; obtaining property, money, valuable securities or credit by false pretences or other form of deception; receiving stolen property, any offence involving fraud;
21. burglary; housebreaking; any similar offences;
22. robbery;
23. blackmail or extortion by means of threats or by abuse of authority;
24. an offence against the law relating to bankruptcy and insolvency;
25. an offence against the law relating to companies;
26. an offence against the immigration laws;
27. an offence against the environmental laws;
28. maliciously or wilfully damaging property;
29. an act done with the intention of endangering the safety of persons travelling on a railway, vehicle, ship, or aircraft or of endangering or damaging a railway, vehicle, ship or aircraft;
30. piracy;
31. an unlawful act against the authority of the master of a ship or the commander of an aircraft;
32. the unlawful seizure, or unlawful exercise of control, of a ship or aircraft, by force or threat of force or by any other form of intimidation;
33. an unlawful act of any of the kinds specified in paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation;[2]
34. an offence against the law relating to dangerous drugs or narcotics; or
35. aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of, being an accessory before or after the fact to, or attempting or conspiring to commit, an offence described in a preceding item.
[1] Notes to this effect were exchanged at Jakarta 9 February-17 June 1999. The Treaty entered into force 17 July 1999.
[2] Convention of 23 September 1971: ATS 1973 No. 24 Act 1973 No. 34 and 1991 No. 139; SD 19 p. 39; UKTS 1974 No. 10 (Cmnd. 5524); UNTS 974 p. 177 and 1217 p. 404 (corrigendum); TIAS 7570; ILM 10 p. 1151; CTS 1973 No. 6. NZTS 1974 No. 5.
WHAT IS A LETTER ROGATORY: A letter rogatory is a formal request from a court in one country to "the appropriate judicial authorities" in another country requesting compulsion of testimony or documentary or other evidence or effect service of process. Although statutory authority generally refers to the instrument as a "letter rogatory", the terms "letter rogatory" and "letter of request" (which is used specifically in the Hague Evidence Convention) have come to be virtually synonymous in actual practice. (See Epstein & Snyder, International Litigation: A Guide to Jurisdiction, Practice & Strategy, 2nd. Sec. 10.09, p. 10.13 -10.14.; Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1994), Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(2)(B) Advisory Committee's Note (West Supp. 1993).) In some countries which do not permit the taking of depositions of willing witnesses, letters rogatory are the only method of obtaining evidence or serve process. Letters rogatory can be used in civil and criminal matters, and have been used in administrative matters. The execution of a request for judicial assistance by the foreign court is based on comity between nations, absent a specific treaty obligation such as the Hague Evidence Convention or Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (MLAT) treaties. See our general flyer on "Obtaining Evidence Abroad" or the "Hague Evidence Convention" for a further discussion of these subjects. Consular Conventions generally include language which authorizes transmission of letters rogatory through diplomatic channels. This does not obligate the foreign country to execute the request, but simply provides a formal avenue by which the requests may be made. If there is no Consular Convention in force between the United States and the foreign country, letters rogatory are received by foreign authorities on the basis of comity. Letters rogatory are a time consuming, cumbersome process and should not be utilized unless there are no other options available.
HOW IS A LETTER ROGATORY EXECUTED: The foreign court will execute a letter rogatory in accordance with the laws and regulations of the foreign country. In obtaining evidence, for example, in most cases an American attorney will not be permitted to participate in such a proceeding. Occasionally a local, foreign attorney may be permitted to attend such a proceeding and even to put forth additional questions to the witness. Not all foreign countries utilize the services of court reporters or routinely provide verbatim transcripts. Sometimes the presiding judge will dictate his recollection of the witness's responses. See Born & Westin, 305, 308; Ristau, International Judicial Assistance, Sec. 3-2-1 (4), p. 79 (1995 supp.); Epstein & Snyder, Sec. 10.09, p. 10-13 - 10-16 (1994 supp). See discussion below on drafting a letter rogatory which takes these peculiarities into account.
execution to good for her let her rot in jail
Post a Comment
<< Home