Addendum

Addendum Supporting And Evidential Material For Inclusion With The Illustrative Criminal Complaint Regarding Christopher Martin Ellison & Michael Joseph Keelty

Addendum to a formal complaint and report with respect to crimes committed which relate to the Schapelle Corby case

Extracted From The Expendable Project www.expendable.tv

Contents Important Note: All the documents included in this addendum are standalone reports, and were produced by independent investigators and researchers. All items within are verified and are authentic.

1. The Transit Report 2. The Supplementary Report 3. The Mutual Evasion Report 4. The Insider Report 5. The PowderGate Report 6. The Whitewash Report 7. The Political Seizure Report 8. The Candidate Sources Report 9. The FOI Abuse Report 10. The Allan Kessing Interview (online only) ADDITIONAL A1. The Mental Illness Report A2. Further Exhibits

Strictly Confidential

Š Hidden World Research Group

Independent Report Exceptions At Australian Airports With Respect To The Schapelle Corby Case

September 2011 The Expendable Project www.expendable.tv

CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1.1 The Background 1.2 Schapelle Corby

2. Luggage Tags & Screening Records 2.1 Introduction 2.2 The Question Of Weight 2.2.1 The Weight of the Boogie Board Bag 2.2.2 The Overweight Luggage 2.3 Airside: Behind The Scenes 2.4 The Missing Records & The Political Reaction 2.4.1 Withholding of Primary Evidence 2.4.2 Confirmed Awareness 2.5 The Culture Of Cover Up 2.5.1 Allan Kessing 2.5.2 The Keelty Statement 2.5.3 The Cover-Up Culture 2.6 The Fate Of The Boogie Board Bag

3. CCTV Footage 3.1 Introduction 3.2 First Steps 3.3 The CCTV Locations 3.3.1 Brisbane Check-In Area 3.3.2 Brisbane Exterior 3.3.3 Brisbane Airside 3.3.4 Sydney Airside 3.4 Drug Syndication At Sydney Airport 3.4.1 The Mocha Story 3.4.2 A Question of Timing 3.4.3 Government Correspondence 3.4.4 Parliamentary Questions 3.4.5 The Flight Delay Pattern

4. Issues & Findings 4.1 Recorded Anomalies 4.2 Interim Headline Findings

[Introduction]

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 THE BACKGROUND When Schapelle Corby flew to Bali in October 2004, airport security was dangerously inadequate, and corruption was endemic across both Sydney Airport and the police services protecting it.

These are not scurrilous allegations. The long term and persistent nature of this is documented by the hand of Australian institutions themselves, through a series of official reports and documents. These include: THE WHEELER REPORT (September 2005) 'An Independent Review of Airport Security and Policing for the Government of Australia' Under the headline 'Exposed: Airport Security Fiasco', the Sydney Morning Herald reported: "Security at Australia's airports is seriously flawed, no one takes control of policing, agencies fail to share vital information on threats and, if there is a terrorist strike, police and airport staff are unable to communicate effectively". It also confirmed a vast array of crimes being committed, including the movement of cannabis.

THE WOOD REPORT (May 1997) 'Royal Commission In To The New South Wales Police Service' This commission sat over 452 days, heard from 640 witnesses, received 140 submissions, and created almost 47,000 pages of transcript. It was damning. The ABC reported that: "The Wood Royal Commission, through covert surveillance and roll-overs, using non New South Wales police to help ensure the secrecy of its operations, finally confirmed the endemic nature of police corruption - particularly its subversion by the heroin and other illicit drug trade..."

REPORT 409 (December 2006) 'Developments in Aviation Security since the Committee’s June 2004 Report 400: Review of Aviation Security in Australia' This committee report to the Australian Parliament was particularly noteworthy in terms of specifying basic and fundamental security mechanisms, procedures, and practices, which were still not in place at Australian airports, notably Sydney International Airport.

This included CCTV coverage, personnel screening, baggage scanning, and various other aspects which were central to the Schapelle Corby case.

A NATION UNPREPARED (August 2005) From The Leader Of The Opposition The Hon Kim C Beazley MP Kim Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition at the time, described glaring holes and security breaches at Sydney International Airport.

Introduction

Page 1 - 1

[Introduction]

THE COBALT REPORT (December 2005) 'A Report To Parliament On Operation COBALT' Operation COBALT was an investigation by the Police Integrity Commission of New South Wales into the activities of a long serving police officer. In the words of the report itself "the evidence revealed a startling level of corrupt conduct". It also stated that the "conduct occurred over many years". The final report cited a number of police officers with direct involvement.

SECURITY OF AIRSIDE PERSONNEL AT SYDNEY AIRPORT (September 2004) 'Sydney Airport Air Border Security Risk Analysis' Kim Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition, described this as a "Customs report which was completed in September 2004 but only made public when it was leaked to a newspaper earlier this year. It revealed shocking security breaches at Sydney’s Kingsford Smith Airport". It was the report which resulted in the vigorous pursuit and prosecution of Allan Kessing, who was accused of whistle blowing. It identified security holes such as: "passengers’ baggage containing large amounts of narcotics being diverted to domestic carousels to avoid Customs inspections" and, "39 security screeners out of 500 employed at the airport have serious criminal convictions, with a further 39 convicted of minor matters".

There were many other reports and papers within this remit, as illustrated by this extract from an internal AFP letter, which identified a number within Customs, circa 2003-2004:

Introduction

Page 1 - 2

[Introduction]

THE POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS This presented, without doubt, an extremely sensitive political situation for the Australian government.

In 2004, just three years post 9-11, airport security was a high profile matter, not only with respect to the domestic public, but on the international stage. Yet security at Australia's airports was woefully and demonstrably inadequate.

The Australian government had failed to act upon a multitude of reports, or at the very least, had failed to act sufficiently.

The primary contents of the reports had been repeatedly ignored, and the reports themselves had tended to be brushed under the carpet at an early opportunity. This is evidenced by the number of reports which overlap, or cover the same subjects and issues.

These routinely identify exactly the same problems as those previously reported, revealing in themselves the fate of earlier exercises.

In 2004 it is absolutely clear that the security at Sydney, and other Australian airports, remained severely and dangerously lacking.

The threat that other nations would recognize the risks posed to their own security, via these exposures, was thus stark and real. The consequences of this would have been highly damaging to Australia, and of course, politically damaging to the government itself, and to the individuals within.

From a domestic political perspective, the same applied to the corruption within the AFP, and within the New South Wales Police service.

SCHAPELLE CORBY This state of affairs forms the political context and climate to the disturbing events which unfolded in the Schapelle Corby case.

By its very nature, it was a case which threatened to draw significant focus to sensitive issues, both with respect to airport corruption, and the involvement of elements of the police service in the large scale drug syndication in situ.

It is against this background that the events documented in the rest of this report unfolded.

Introduction

Page 1 - 3

[Introduction]

1.2 SCHAPELLE CORBY Schapelle Corby checked her bag in at 05:33 on 8th October 2004. A contemporary media report accurately sets the scene:

At this very moment, however, a script was unfolding airside which Schapelle Corby could not possibly have imagined. A series of events were in play, which are statistically impossible to dismiss as coincidences.

Whilst the saga of the missing CCTV footage, across three airports, has people across the world asking serious questions, we will first examine staggering revelations relating to Schapelle Corby's luggage tags, and missing screening records.

Introduction

Page 1 - 4

[Introduction]

Diagram: Schapelle Corby's luggage tags, excluding those attached to the boogie board bag (these were burned by the Indonesians with all the other material evidence).

Introduction

Page 1 - 5

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

2. LUGGAGE TAGS & SCREENING RECORDS 2.1 INTRODUCTION On the face of it there was nothing extraordinary about the check-in itself. A media report again documents the scene:

The media article reports the standard process for check-in of luggage:

As correctly documented, there were four luggage tags, one for each of the four bags checked in by Schapelle Corby, with her party.

But herein lies the first serious discrepancy, pertaining to the individual and collective weights recorded for these items.

Luggage

Page 2 - 1

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

2.2 THE QUESTION OF WEIGHT Weight is an important issue in aviation, not just total weight, but weight distribution on the aircraft. It is not only a commercial issue, but a serious safety matter.

2.2.1 THE WEIGHT OF THE BOOGIE BOARD BAG The following is the relevant part of the testimony of Brisbane baggage handler Scott Speed, which was given to the Bali court:

In his evidence, Mr Speed states that the expected weight for a boogie board bag inclusive of board is 3-4 kg, and that if it is any heavier the owner would have had to have it checked.

When interviewed during this investigation (October 2010), Mr Speed re-affirmed this, stating that it was the long established practice at Brisbane airport.

However, Schapelle Corby's boogie board bag, without marijuana, exceeded this. Indeed, the following diagram illustrates that the lightest her bag could possibly have been was 5kg, although it was most certainly significantly heavier than this. This should have attracted attention, and triggered the requirement for a check.

Luggage

Page 2 - 2

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

If 4.2kg of marijuana had also been in the bag, the excessive weight would have been almost impossible to miss.

Luggage

Page 2 - 3

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

But there was no trigger, no manual check, and nothing out of the ordinary recorded at all.

[Anomaly #1] The boogie board bag with just body board and flippers was overweight with respect to carrier norms, but despite this it was checked through as normal boogie board weight.

Had it also contained 4.2kg of marijuana, it would have been grossly overweight, almost certainly triggering a manual check.

But this was just the beginning of the story. The following diagram illustrates the path the boogie board bag took on route to the international departure to Bali.

Note that a minimum of nine individuals must have handled the bag at some point, none of whom noticed or reported the pungent and distinctive smell which would have accompanied 4.2 kg of marijuana.

Luggage

Page 2 - 4

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

2.2.2 THE OVERWEIGHT LUGGAGE The maximum luggage weight for economy class passengers for flights to Bali in October 2004 was 20kg. For a party of three, Schapelle Corby and her two friends, the maximum combined weight was therefore 60kg.

But the collective weight of the luggage for the three passengers was 65kg, as confirmed directly and in writing by Qantas themselves, in a formal letter dated 1st December 2004:

On the basis of the charges applicable at the time, this would accrue an excess weight fee of at least $175 at the check-in desk. Further, given the scale of the disparity, it is surely not tenable that a check-in operator would not have noticed that the weight was substantially in excess of the maximum.

But there was no charge paid, and no charge asked for, despite the excess being so significant.

A number of possibilities therefore emerge, including that the weight was actually 60kg or less, but was amended subsequently. This could have been directly after check-in, potentially to take account of 4-5kg of added weight. Or it could have been after the Schapelle Corby case received serious attention.

Access to the bag tagging system is therefore a significant issue, because the data held on the system simply did not reflect the actual events which occurred at Brisbane Airport.

[Anomaly #2] Either the check-in operator for unknown reasons allowed significantly overweight bags to be loaded without a charge or a fuss OR The data reflecting the weight of Schapelle Corby's bags was increased after check-in.

[ADDENDUM: Another noteworthy consideration is that a passenger carrying 4.2kg of marijuana would be extremely unlikely to appear at an airport with overweight bags, with the attention and scrutiny that this would or should inevitably bring.]

From this point, the bags were under the control of various parties in transit, including SACL, and Qantas. Schapelle Corby and her companions proceeded to the departure gate, expecting to retrieve their luggage in Bali.

Luggage

Page 2 - 5

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

2.3 AIRSIDE: BEHIND THE SCENES Initial light on what happened behind the scenes is shed by examining a letter from Schapelle Corby's lawyers, sent a few days after her arrest. Naturally, they were seeking data and information, which would confirm her innocence.

Luggage

Page 2 - 6

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

Luggage

Page 2 - 7

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

Bali Law Chambers were asking very pertinent questions about the baggage system, and providing specific information, including Schapelle Corby's baggage tag numbers.

The reply from Australian Customs was somewhat disappointing:

Luggage

Page 2 - 8

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

Whilst Mr Chapman made some very interesting statements on behalf of Customs, he provided nothing specific relating to Schapelle Corby.

The frustrations of Bali Law Chambers in obtaining information from Australia were only to increase as events unfolded.

Luggage

Page 2 - 9

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

By 1st December, at least a little specific information had arrived, courtesy of Qantas:

Luggage

Page 2 - 10

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

Luggage

Page 2 - 11

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

Luggage

Page 2 - 12

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

With respect to Schapelle Corby's bags, it is particularly noteworthy that: In #2 Qantas confirm that the four bags are present on the system, and that their total weight was 65kg.

In #3 they state that the bags were not x-rayed at Brisbane.

In #8 they produce a substantial list of those parties who had access to the bags in transit to and through Sydney International Airport.

In #5 they state that at Sydney the bags were presented to Sydney Airport Corporation Limited (SACL) for screening.

[ADDENDUM: At Schapelle Corby's appeal hearing two Qantas staff members who were on duty at check-in th

stated that, from the flight record, dated Oct. 8 , 2004, there was nothing wrong with the luggage during check-in, and also that there were no "strong smells" coming from the bag that would have required it to be opened and checked].

THE PROCESS AT THE SYDNEY AIRPORTS The process at Sydney was thus for Qantas to unload the luggage from the domestic flight, and take it to the SACL area at the international airport for screening. On release from SACL, Qantas handling staff would then take the luggage to the baggage holding area for the outgoing flight to Bali.

Therefore, the next port of call for Bali Law Chambers was to write to SACL, providing the baggage tag numbers for the luggage.

[Anomaly #3] Herein, another extraordinary discrepancy emerges: only three out of the four bags were present on their baggage screening system.

The boogie board bag's tag number (0081884193) was missing completely.

Luggage

Page 2 - 13

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

2.4 THE MISSING RECORDS & THE POLITICAL REACTION 2.4.1 WITHHOLDING OF PRIMARY EVIDENCE The following is a recently obtained briefing note, from the AFP to the Minister of Justice and Customs, Christopher Ellison, dated 6th July 2006.

Luggage

Page 2 - 14

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

It clearly confirms that the details of Schapelle Corby's boogie board bag had disappeared from the SACL system, or had never been registered on it.

The specifics are: 1. On 5th July Mr Max Moore-Wilton, CEO of SACL, contacted Minister Ellison stating categorically that Schapelle Corby's boogie board bag tag number was not stored or recorded on the screening system.

2. The number he specified is indeed that of the tag which the system issued to Schapelle Corby for her boogie board bag.

The two possibilities are that: - It was either erased from the SACL system by an unknown party at some point prior to the 5th July 2005, or; - It was never entered on to the SACL system.

Luggage

Page 2 - 15

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

Each of the possibilities is, of course, fundamental to the Schapelle Corby case itself.

One issue can be closed immediately, however. There is no doubt that the baggage tag was correctly placed upon the boogie board bag, and that it remained in good condition.

Prior to the evidence being burned (despite Schapelle Corby pleading for it to be retained), a variety of photographs and images were taken of it. For example, the tag on the boogie board bag is clearly clean and visible on the following photograph, taken in the Bali courtroom:

And again, with the marijuana and space bag:

Luggage

Page 2 - 16

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

[ADDENDUM: Note here that Schapelle Corby had put her full name and address on the bag, a somewhat implausible act had the bag been filled with marijuana]

Continuing with our examination of the AFP's ministerial brief: With (#3), the AFP immediately attaches this issue to the John Ford allegations. This in itself raises a number of questions. Given the seriousness of the new information, why would they instantly attach it to one specific proposition as though discrediting it by association?

Why weren't they discussing the significant revelation that the data had been erased, or that Schapelle Corby's bag was carried by Qantas Airlines without screening, or without even existing on the airport system? Given that this situation may be ongoing, why was there no apparent interest in this, given the serious implications of a bag or bags bypassing the SACL screening system at such a major airport hub?

With (#4) the brief continues, having changed the issue to John Ford.

Point (#5) appears to be somewhat defensive, as though the AFP were being accused of something regarding the baggage tag number.

The brief concludes under the heading of 'Future Action' by more or less declaring the issue to be closed, again via the John Ford route.

[Anomaly #4] In correspondence, why did the AFP dramatically switch the critical focus from such significant information to one specific scenario, at the expense of all others? Equally, why did they switch it from the wider implications of the new information?

Luggage

Page 2 - 17

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

Justice & Customs Minister, Christopher Ellison, now takes up the game:

Luggage

Page 2 - 18

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

It is somewhat curious that this letter, delivered to Keelty by hand, is written in a manner which suggests that it initiated the discussion. However, as it refers to the reference number of the AFP's briefing note, it was in fact a response.

The letter provides further details of Mr Max Moore-Wilton's letter: that data was available for three of the bags Schapelle Corby checked in, but not for the boogie-board bag.

He states that it is not known whether this information was provided to Schapelle Corby's lawyer, who had been led to believe that no data existed for any bag at all on the flight.

Although he confirms that he recognizes the legal and judicial importance of this new information, by commenting that it “may be a relevant factor in any consideration as to whether there was any interference with the bag", he wholly understates it.

He then takes up the tunnel vision theme, introduced by the AFP, that this revelation can only be considered in the context of the John Ford allegations, which the AFP had already dismissed.

ESTABLISHING THE EXTENT OF AWARENESS In the last paragraph Ellison seeks to establish who the AFP has contacted, from amongst those who may be party to information on the baggage tags. This could be interpreted as asking the question: "Who have you discussed this with?"

[Anomaly #5] Why was Ellison concerned about who was aware of the baggage tag information, given that he now knew that Schapelle Corby's boogie board bag was the only bag not recorded on the SACL system?

Note: There is no doubt at all that had Schapelle Corby's lawyers been aware of the issue, it would have been presented as key and central evidence for the defence.

Luggage

Page 2 - 19

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

On the 11th July 2005, Mr Keelty issued the following:

Luggage

Page 2 - 20

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

The response was lengthy, and provided even greater clarity for both Keelty and Ellison:

Luggage

Page 2 - 21

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

This confirmed clearly that: 

All bags destined for Indonesia were mandated to be screened "100% CBS was being applied to passenger flights to Indonesia")



The boogie board bag would have been manually screened ("Oversized bags... are checked through a supplementary CBS machine")



The system was patently open to abuse and corruption (eg: "potential for opportunities to be created", "potential for inconsistency in the system", "area of potential weakness", "potential for system failure").

At this point, Keelty, Ellison and other recipients already knew that Schapelle Corby's boogie board bag, and only that bag, was not screened or even present on the system at all.

They therefore had a comprehensive canopy of evidence which would have been of vital importance to Schapelle Corby and her lawyers. Note also that as a qualified lawyer, Ellison would have been well aware of its crucial importance.

Luggage

Page 2 - 22

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

WITHHOLDING OF EVIDENCE – SCHAPELLE CORBY On July 8th, just two days after discussing the new evidence with Keelty, Ellison wrote directly to Schapelle Corby’s Lawyer, Hotman Paris Hutapea:

Even though he directly referred to the transfer of the bag at Sydney Airport, he withheld the new evidence. Further, the comment that “none of their staff had contact with Ms Corby or her baggage during the transfer” is clearly misleading within the known context.

Luggage

Page 2 - 23

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

On 11th July 2005, just five days after Ellison and Keelty’s exchange, Schapelle Corby’s lawyer, Hotman Paris Hutapea asked Keelty a direct question:

Ellison and Howard also received this correspondence directly (this copy was obtained from the Prime Minister’s office).

Two days later, on 13th July 2005, Ellison replied.

Despite being asked the question directly, Ellison again failed to provide any of the new evidence:

Luggage

Page 2 - 24

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

Indeed, none of these individuals provided the new evidence at any stage. It was denied to Schapelle Corby and her legal team throughout her legal process.

[Anomaly #6] Ellison and Keelty withheld central and potentially critical evidence from Schapelle Corby’s legal team, regarding bag scanning, even when asked directly about it.

Equally, they withheld information, provided by DOTORS, that flights to Indonesia required 100% scanning, and that the situation at Sydney airport was wide open to abuse.

Luggage

Page 2 - 25

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

WITHHOLDING OF EVIDENCE – MISLEADNG PARLIAMENT Given that, just days earlier, they had discussed it, and had acknowledged it specifically, it is not conceivable that Ellison and Keelty didn't understand the critical importance of this information to Schapelle Corby.

However, not only was this not conveyed to Schapelle Corby herself, but just a matter of weeks later the prepared answers to Possible Parliamentary Questions, included the following:

[Anomaly #7] In pre-prepared responses to Possible Parliamentary Questions, there was no reference whatsoever to the central new evidence, which was circumvented by a variety of tangential responses. The information was thus withheld from the Australian Parliament.

MPs, Senators and the public were clearly misled.

Luggage

Page 2 - 26

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

THE LACK OF AFP INVESTIGATION Given that screening data for a large bag, which was carried on an international flight and which contained marijuana upon collection, was either deleted or never created, one might expect a serious police investigation to ensue.

Further, with repeated questions regarding airport security being raised in the public domain, one might expect a high degree of transparency for such an operation.

However, we found no evidence of even a cursory examination.

[Anomaly #8] Despite the serious implications for the welfare of Schapelle Corby, and equally, with respect to wider airport security, we found no evidence that the AFP conducted an investigation into the issue of the missing boogie board bag screening data.

THE KESSING REPORTS It should also be recorded at this juncture that on 1st June 2005, Ellison had asked the AFP to investigate the leaking of the so-called Kessing Report (see Section 2.5). He must therefore have been aware that it revealed that "passengers’ baggage containing large amounts of narcotics being diverted to domestic carousels to avoid Customs inspections" and that dozens of security screeners had "serious criminal convictions".

Referral Note: Customs to the AFP

Further, Allan Kessing has directly confirmed to The Hidden World Research Group that this information had already been uploaded to the AFP systems.

Luggage

Page 2 - 27

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

On 11th July 2005, Schapelle Corby’s lawyer also directly requested a copy of the information contained in this report:

This was never provided.

[Anomaly #9] Neither the AFP, nor Customs, informed Schapelle Corby of the information detailed within the "Kessing Report", despite this being of fundamental relevance and importance to her defence case. As with the crucial bag screening information, it was withheld.

Luggage

Page 2 - 28

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

NOTE: THE RETROSPECTIVE DELETION OF EVIDENCE There is one other possible scenario relating to the AFP's words "baggage tag number 0881884193 (oversized bag) was at no time stored or recorded in their baggage screening system". This is that SACL system data for the boogie board bag was actually created, but was subsequently deleted by a party or parties unknown.

Contact was therefore made with individuals across a number of relevant organizations, including SACL and Qantas. All stated that in 2004 baggage tag data would be created on the SACL system when the bag was checked in at Brisbane Airport. Equally, aviation regulations imposed the following requirements upon Qantas:

[Regulation 2.18 What airport operator’s TSP must contain — checked baggage screening Only screened and cleared checked baggage may be loaded onto an aircraft operating international air screened services (see regulation 4.24).] [ Regulation 4.24 Aircraft operators not to permit checked baggage to be loaded - international air service.

This regulation obliges the operator of an international screened air service to only load checked baggage that has received clearance. Contravention is an offence of strict liability attracting a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units].

Had the boogie board bag not been screened, then by virtue of loading it on to flight AO7829, Qantas would surely have been in breach of these stipulations.

Whilst it is not the purpose of this report to speculate, for the deletion of data proposition it is difficult to look beyond:   

the corrupt baggage handlers seeking to hide incriminating evidence on themselves SACL staff seeking to hide the alarming insecurity evident at Sydney Airport A third party removing proof of an empty bag, with the disastrous ramifications of this scenario regarding the strategic political relationship with Indonesia.

As stated above, there is no evidence to suggest that this aspect was ever investigated by the AFP.

Luggage

Page 2 - 29

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

SUMMARY: THE WILFUL WITHHOLDING OF EVIDENCE As demonstrated above, a variety of information and data, which was of vital importance to Schapelle Corby, was withheld by identified individuals within the Australian government and its agencies.

This included specific information regarding dangerous insecurity at Sydney Airport, involving systemic corruption and drug syndication.

It also included the disclosure by SACL that Schapelle Corby's boogie board bag was the only item for which screening data was missing.

This alarming situation began during her initial trial, as the AFP had already been provided with the Kessing Reports in December 2004 / January 2005 by Allan Kessing himself. Indeed, all the information discussed and revealed in this section was in the hands of a multitude of important players well before the start of Schapelle Corby's final appeal.

Despite the high profile court outcomes, direct requests from lawyers, and the increasingly grave circumstances of Schapelle Corby herself, including descent into serious mental illness, it was never disclosed to her.

The material re-produced above demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that this evidence was wilfully withheld.

FOOTNOTE: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT Subsequent to the production of this report, a Freedom of Information request was submitted to the Customs & Border Protection Service for all materials relating to Schapelle Corby. None of the material known to exist, and already held by The Hidden World Research Group, including the correspondence to and from Justice & Customs Minister Christopher Ellison published in this report, was provided.

It is recommended that this extraordinary lack of retained documentation by a government agency is investigated by an external party.

Luggage

Page 2 - 30

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

2.4.2 CONFIRMED AWARENESS Whilst Ellison and Keelty were central to the events revealed in the previous segment, a number of others played critical roles, or were at least aware of important evidence which was not provided to Schapelle Corby.

PRIME MINISTER JOHN HOWARD John Howard was the Prime Minister of Australia until the 3rd December 2007. His awareness of the missing boogie board bag screening data was revealed by Keelty, who stated that he discussed the issue with him on 8th July 2005.

Note also that, as Minister for Justice and Customs, Ellison reported directly to Mr Howard, and must surely have discussed such a politically sensitive matter with him.

There is also every possibility that he may have discussed the issue with Max Moore-Wilton.

MAX MOORE-WILTON (SACL) Max Moore-Wilton became the CEO of Sydney Airport Corporation Limited (SACL) in December 2002. SACL itself was majority owned by Macquarie Bank, after the government privatised it and gave it a 99 year contract to lease and operate the airport.

Whilst the political difficulties created by the Schapelle Corby situation, for Ellison, Howard and Keelty, are clear enough, and the motive to withhold the information is obvious, the situation for Mr Moore-Wilton was also somewhat awkward.

For example, he had just overseen a substantial $AU 4.25 million upgrade to the SACL system. The last thing he would surely have wanted, therefore, were fingers pointing at it for its failures. The SACL upgrade had been proudly announced in May 2004:

Luggage

Page 2 - 31

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

Project BICEP

www.xylogy.com/documents/bicep_SAirport.pdf

This was published just a few months before Schapelle Corby flew, and the subsequent internal disclosure that SACL held no records at all of her fateful boogie board bag.

[Anomaly #10] Whilst he went to the government with his information regarding the missing data, Moore-Wilton of SACL made no comment at all in public about it, and did not contact Schapelle Corby's family to disclose the disparity between the boogie board bag and the other bags.

It is also worthy of note that Moore-Wilton was the former head of the Prime Minister's Department, under John Howard.

Indeed, the following was stated in Hansard on 21st June 2006: "So the Department of Transport and Regional Services allows Sydney airport to continue an operation that fails to meet the standard which the government itself set and the deadline of 2004 for that standard to be met. It happens to be an issue of speculation—more in the industry than in politics—as to how that conversation went that enabled the corporation that Max Moore-Wilton heads up to get that special exemption, but there are plenty of other people in the industry who have cast a cynical eye over the arrangements that have seen this government allow Sydney airport to operate a less secure screening process than other airports in Australia are obliged to follow."

Luggage

Page 2 - 32

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

CONFIRMED AWARENESS MAP The relationship between those with confirmed knowledge of the new evidence regarding Schapelle Corby's boogie board bag can be represented by the following diagram:

All four of these individuals had varying degrees of vested interest in the status quo being preserved, by virtue of their positions and roles. They all benefited from the information being withheld from Schapelle Corby.

Howard, Ellison and Keelty, however, were also directly involved in other disturbing aspects of the Schapelle Corby case. Equally, in addition to their knowledge of the central importance of the new evidence, they were fully aware of the personal implications for her of its non-disclosure.

It is also noteworthy that all three have been heavily criticized by Schapelle Corby's lawyers with respect to their actions and comments pertaining to a number of other legal facets of the court case itself. See Supplemental Report 1 for further information.

Luggage

Page 2 - 33

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

QANTAS As documented in several sections of this report, the involvement of Qantas was also central to a number of the many disturbing aspects of this case.

The following extract, from a letter from Moore-Wilton to Ellison, indicates that they were also made aware that the screening data was missing only for the boogie board bag:

Moore-Wilton also appears here to be anxious to pass responsibility to that airline, even pressing the point that Qantas issued the tag number as an indirect argument to support this proposition. However, he is unequivocal in stating that Qantas had been passed the information.

If this is the case, Qantas joined Ellison, Howard, Keelty and Moore-Wilton in not providing this vital information to Schapelle Corby or her lawyers.

It should be noted that, as with each of the other four parties, Qantas also stood to benefit from avoiding public awareness of the serious security failures, which disclosure would have guaranteed.

This was particularly the case, given that the news that a number of their Sydney Airport baggage handlers were involved in serious drug syndication was already in the public domain (see Section 3.4).

Luggage

Page 2 - 34

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

2.5 THE CULTURE OF COVER-UP 2.5.1 ALLAN KESSING One aspect of this affair which is absolutely clear is the existence of a culture of secrecy, and cover up of any information which exposed any form of insecurity or corruption. The withholding of evidence, which could have been critical to Schapelle Corby, is only one manifestation of this tendency. Research reveals that it is also exemplified by a substantial volume of correspondence, parliamentary reports, reviews, and similar documentation.

As referenced earlier, one example relates to an article published in The Australian on 31st May 2005. This revealed that a confidential customs report had identified substantial levels of criminal activity at Sydney Airport: "Workers at the nation's largest airport , including baggage handlers with high-level- security clearances have been involved in drug smuggling....", "The report, obtained by The Australian, details serious security breaches and illegal activity by baggage handlers, air crew....".

The government and the AFP immediately concentrated on suppressing the leak and tracking down its source:

Luggage

Page 2 - 35

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

The author of the original report was a customs officer called Allan Kessing. The ABC took up the story as follows: And the government went on a witch hunt, looking for the person who leaked the Kessing reports. In the wash up it fingered Alan Kessing himself who was charged, tried, convicted and sentenced. http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2009/04/03/2534187.htm

This is only one such example of where priority was set, many of which significantly disadvantaged Schapelle Corby.

Indeed, the author of the above article in The Australian stated that: "I did check on that theory and have made contact with the two sources we've been dealing with extensively over the last couple of weeks and put that scenario [drugs inserted into Schapelle Corby's bag at Sydney airport] to them. They support that scenario completely....".

Luggage

Page 2 - 36

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

Allan Kessing himself stated that: "So everybody, during the Schapelle Corby matter, were just running for cover, because if the reports proved one thing, it was that baggage handlers were less than virtuous, shall we say? Sheer terror, I would put it at. A lot of people knew that a lot of other people knew that we knew that the situation was ramshackle."

He further documented the position of the Howard government in 2009. The following is an extract from a radio interview with the ABC:

He continued: "Yes but don't forget that when the first newspaper reports came out, first of all the deputy prime minister at the time John Anderson denied that there were any such reports. The next day they said yes there were some but they were a minor piece of internal documentation. By the third day I think he'd resigned and as you say, sometime later the prime minister, well in order to 'quell public concern' was the actual phrase he used brought out John Wheeler. And the only reason there was any public concern is because of the newspaper reports."

The Shadow Minister for Defence and Homeland Security at the time, Robert McClelland MP, commented as follows: "Today’s report of a Customs investigation into Sydney’s airport virtually shows that our security as at Australia’s airports is a farce. The report suggests widespread involvement in drug trafficking by baggage handlers and other staff. Crew employed overseas are potentially involved in drug smuggling, secret spots at airport utilised are used by these rings and indeed the existence of rings in some cases are ethnically based. These are very, very serious matters. The report says they are not simply indications of criminal conduct but they could in fact be indicators of a potential terrorist event. This is very, very serious." [parlinfo.aph.gov.au, May 2005]

He also referred directly to its relevance to Schapelle Corby: "Well it beggars belief that the contents of this report or at least some of the incidents were not provided to the defence in the Schapelle Corby case." [parlinfo.aph.gov.au, May 2005]

Luggage

Page 2 - 37

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

ALLAN KESSING AFFIDAVIT The following are extracts from an affidavit provided by Allan Kessing (full copy on Expendable.TV): AFFIDAVIT I was an Australian Customs officer for 15 years, with 6 years spent in investigation, Intelligence & Analysis. I was stationed at Sydney Airport from 1994-1996 and again from 2001 until my retirement in 2005. In 2002 I was appointed to compile a report on crime & corruption at Sydney Airport. The process involved collecting, collating & corroborating data from many sources, including Qantas & other airlines as well as the AFP (Australian Federal Police) & State Police data bases and similar organizations. ....

It was clearly demonstrated that crime among airport staff - particularly baggage handlers – at Sydney Airport was a major problem. Significantly for Ms Corby’s case, the long held information showed that airport staff were involved in significant illegal activity, and the new research found this was continuing.

The most common examples were; 1) 2) 3) 4)

tampering with checked-in luggage to move goods from one area to another stealing from checked-in luggage moving drugs through the airport, usually for big drug syndicates baggage handlers involved in crime/moving drugs organized to be rostered on at the same time to work together.

The final reports were submitted to the Australian Customs Service airport management in September 2003, which was more than a year before Schapelle Corby was arrested on October 8th 2004. During Ms Corby’s case, the Australian Federal Police repeatedly stated that there was not a problem with crime/drugs at our airports.

The reports were passed on to the AFP and it was stated in the NSW District Court in 2007 in sworn testimony, that further analysis & confirmation was made by AFP officers.

All available data indicated a major problem with airport crime. It was revealed in police statements given to the NSW District Court in 2005 that an international drug smuggling ring shipped 9.9kgs of cocaine from Argentina through Sydney Airport on October 8th 2004.

The cocaine was in a brief case which was removed by corrupt baggage handlers before it reached Customs. This flight arrived a short time before the loading of transferred luggage onto Schapelle Corby’s flight to Denpasar, Bali.

The crime & corruption at Sydney Airport was well known to the Australian Customs Service, Sydney Airport Corporation management and the Australian Federal Police and further confirmed by my reports – which collated, corroborated and refined existing data as well as establishing new information. However, this did not become publicly known until after the verdict in the trial of Schapelle Corby which resulted in a sentence of 20 years.

Luggage

Page 2 - 38

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

The Australian Federal Government was then forced by public concern, following the media reporting of the situation at Sydney Airport, to commission an official investigation into airport crime – this time by a high profile UK expert in aviation security, Sir John Wheeler, who was brought out from England specifically for the purpose. His report came to the same conclusions as my own and he made a series of recommendations endorsing those made previously by a number of investigators, apart from myself. The Federal Government subsequently promised to implement these recommendations at a cost exceeding $200 million.

In my opinion, it would be almost impossible for a checked-in bag containing 4.2kgs of marijuana to pass undetected through two major Australian airports - Brisbane and Sydney without being detected – unless that bag was assisted by criminally corrupt airport staff.

There are sniffer dogs and x-ray machines at both airports and the bags would have been handled several times by different individuals to load, unload, transfer & reload onto the Denpasar flight before leaving Australia.

The fact that the bag of marijuana was so easily detected by customs in Bali showed that there was no attempt at sophisticated concealment. Ms Corby’s bag was checked-in in Brisbane Domestic Airport, and went through to Sydney Domestic and then Sydney International and then onto Bali, yet nothing was detected in Australia.

It was noted in my reports that Sydney Airport Corporation, the airlines and the police acknowledge that airport staff tamper with luggage and steal from travellers’ bags. If major action was taken to rectify this situation it would cause chaos and Sydney Airport would quickly come to a grinding halt, costing millions of dollars.

The Sydney Airport Corporation tolerates the situation and the airlines are insured for lost/stolen luggage and consequently budget for insurance to cover travellers’ claims.

Mr Kessing re-affirmed this affidavit in March 2011.

2.5.2 FURTHER BAGGAGE HANDLER INFORMATION A significant amount of other baggage handler related information was also withheld from Schapelle Corby, and largely from the media. For example, in 2009 the AFP submitted the following to a Parliamentary Joint Committee:

Note that Schapelle Corby’s case was still in legal process during the period quoted.

Luggage

Page 2 - 39

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

The question of why the baggage handlers, who were dismissed as a result of the Mocha Operation (see Section 3.4.1), were never prosecuted is also frequently cited as evidence of the overriding policy of secrecy adopted with respect to these matters.

With respect to this operation, however, DFAT confirmed that corrupt baggage handlers were in situ at Sydney Airport at the same time as Schapelle Corby passed through:

Luggage

Page 2 - 40

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

2.5.3 THE KEELTY STATEMENT As Schapelle Corby's original trial proceeded towards its conclusion, there is no doubt that pressure was mounting upon SACL, Qantas and Ellison in particular.

Further, if Schapelle Corby was acquitted, the pressure would only increase, as the inevitable questions regarding the source of the marijuana would undoubtedly lead to more rigorous scrutiny of Sydney Airport, and the lack of government and AFP action to address it.

The awareness map and correspondence provided earlier indicate the intrinsic relationships between these parties.

Just a couple of weeks before the verdict, and despite the fact that the AFP had been provided with the Kessing Reports, that they were actually investigating drug syndication at the airport (leading to arrests and charges), and that a catalogue of clear evidence was in wide circulation, Keelty stated that: "There is very little intelligence to suggest that baggage handlers are using innocent people to traffic heroin or other drugs between states".

One can only speculate how much damage this clearly flawed media statement, from Australia's top policeman, did to Schapelle Corby's prospects. The subsequent verdict and grave outcome for her is of course well known.

The Law Council of Australia was very explicit:

They issued the following formal statement:

Luggage

Page 2 - 41

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

One of Schapelle Corby's lawyers stated that: "It's our very firm belief that an enormous amount of damage was done by inappropriate comments (made), not just in the last few days but over the last few months, by Mr Keelty" and “Every step of the way he’s been there to put the boot on to the defence, which is hurting Schapelle. We are floored by it. The day before we are back in court for the last day, he puts the boot in again�

However, what is certain is that with a guilty verdict and a subsequently compliant media (ref: the Expendable Dossier), pressure on Ellison, Moore, Howard and the government itself regarding airport insecurity receded significantly.

Luggage

Page 2 - 42

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

[Anomaly #11] Given that the Kessing Reports had been provided to the AFP earlier in the year, that the AFP were actually investigating drug syndication at Sydney Airport, and that a substantial catalogue of supporting evidence was already in wide circulation, why did Keelty state the following to the media just weeks before the verdict in Schapelle Corby's Bali trial: "There is very little intelligence to suggest that baggage handlers are using innocent people to traffic heroin or other drugs between states"?

Note: During this stage of the investigation we also found that Keelty was in direct contact with a journalist called Keith Moor. Mr Moor was the recipient of leaked information from the police, from which he produced damaging allegations against Schapelle Corby herself (10th December 2005). Whilst the information and allegations were subsequently shown to be entirely false, the source of the leak has never been investigated, despite repeated requests. Equally, a variety of media outlets cited Ellison’s office, prompting him to subsequently deny any role.

We recommend that this matter is now investigated by an external agency. More information on this incident is available on The Expendable Project website.

2.5.4 THE COVER-UP CULTURE Robert McClelland MP: "Clearly there is an indication of criminality involving baggage handlers and drug smuggling in our airports. It beggars belief why this wasn’t provided to or at least some of this information was not provided to the Schapelle Corby defence. That is one thing. Certainly if this report has been available since September - why did the Government remove the inspector of Transport Security in February and two of his staff? In circumstances where there is systematic evidence of systematic criminality suggesting potential terrorist events could take place based on the systems used by these criminals."

Whilst McClelland failed to follow up the issues he raised once in office, his statements are indicative of the wider culture of secrecy, suppression and laissez-faire. As Section 2.4 reveals, this created the climate for the direct withholding of primary and potentially critical evidence, specifically regarding Schapelle Corby's boogie board bag.

It is also within this culture that the whole myriad of alarming incidents occurred, from the clear discrepancies relating to the boogie board bag handling and screening, to the disturbing conduct of individual politicians and police officers, and to the hugely disturbing matter of the unavailability of CCTV footage from three Australian airports (see Section 3).

Luggage

Page 2 - 43

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

2.6 THE FATE OF THE BOOGIE BOARD BAG Having left Australia, the fate of Schapelle Corby's boogie board bag is well documented.

Upon collection in Bali it contained 4.2 kg of marijuana, but as a source of evidence, its value diminished throughout the following months.

Schapelle Corby herself quickly understood that the bag itself was central to her fate. She immediately asked for the bags to be weighed, to demonstrate that they were 4.2kg heavier than when she departed Brisbane. Her requests were refused.

She also understood that the bags and the marijuana might hold vital clues regarding the source of the drugs, such as fingerprints or DNA. Her efforts to prevent Indonesian court officials and others from handling the bag and contaminating it also failed.

Regardless, she continued to use every means at her disposal to seek to have the evidence properly examined, and to have the marijuana tested for country of origin.

She urged the prosecutor, in front of witnesses, to allow forensics tests and fingerprinting:

Courtesy 'My Story' Pan Macmillan

Luggage

Page 2 - 44

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

She formally requested intervention from the Australian consulate:

Her lawyers sought, at every opportunity, to force legal intervention, including last ditch appeals to prevent the Supreme Court from burning the evidence: [Reference: See video footage on www.expendable.tv]

All these efforts, and others, are an indisputable matter of public record.

But she failed. The court refused throughout, and the Indonesian Supreme Court had the bag and its contents burned, so that it could never be tested.

Luggage

Page 2 - 45

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

However, in a letter to one of his constituents, the Justice and Custom's Minister, Chris Ellison, who features heavily in this and other reports, retrospectively represented this situation as follows:

Note that he also downplayed the burning of the evidence, which is most certainly not routine when the defendant is openly asking for it to be tested.

[Anomaly #12] Why did the Justice and Custom's Minister Christopher Ellison, in his letter to a member of the public, contradict what had actually happened in Indonesia with respect to the marijuana and the boogie board bag?

Luggage

Page 2 - 46

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

ADDENDUM: THE APPEAL Whilst it is outside the scope of this report, it is nonetheless noteworthy that Ellison was also linked to the events surrounding Schapelle Corby's unsuccessful appeal.

Two QCs, Mark Trowell and Tom Percy, were pressed on to the Corby family to assist, despite questions of how non-Indonesian speaking Australian lawyers could possibly offer real help. The Sydney Morning Herald edition of 27th June 2005 reported subsequent events as follows:

The eventual State Administrative Tribunal into Trowell's misconduct, stated that:

[The full transcript can be found in the library on www.expendable.tv]

In view of the consequences of the appeal failure for Schapelle Corby, questions have been asked regarding Trowell's role, and in particular, his relationship with Ellison and the government. Given that he told the tribunal that he believed the government was his client, what was, or what did he believe, his mission to be?

No answers have been forthcoming.

It is also a relevant point here that at the appeal itself, the key issues pertaining to the boogie board bag with respect to corruption and insecurity at Sydney Airport, were relatively subdued. Accordingly, media reporting of this aspect in Australia, and elsewhere, was muted.

Luggage

Page 2 - 47

[Luggage Tags & Screening Records]

CUSTOMS MINISTER CHRISTOPHER ELLISON Schapelle Corby’s lawyer was unaware of many of the disturbing matters documented within this report. However, even without this information, he experienced a series of difficulties and obstructions, when seeking to assist his client.

On 12th August 2005, he documented these in a formal complaint to Prime Minister Howard, in which he outlined the disturbing conduct of Ellison throughout the case.

This met with the same fate as his repeated requests for information and assistance.

The full complaint is documented in Supplementary Report 1.

Luggage

Page 2 - 48

[CCTV Footage]

3. CCTV FOOTAGE 3.1 INTRODUCTION The issue of the complete lack of availability of the CCTV footage from Australian airports has caused controversy and disbelief from the outset.

This is not least because the original question, with respect to Schapelle Corby herself, is as relevant today as it was in 2004: If Schapelle Corby was guilty, why would she continually beg Australian airports for CCTV footage which would show her bag bursting with marijuana and thus condemn her?

So what about that CCTV footage? Why was it, and is it, unavailable from three Australian airports (Brisbane, Sydney Domestic, Sydney International)?

Again, a number of internet websites provide a good overview of this aspect:

Let us look a little more closely.

CCTV

Page 3 - 1

[CCTV Footage]

3.2 FIRST STEPS Given the disparity between an almost empty boogie board bag, and one containing 4.2kg of marijuana, Schapelle Corby and her family realized from the start that CCTV footage of her checking her bags in would prove her innocence. Even in the midst of the inevitable chaos, a range of initiatives were taken.

For example, family friend and supporter, Guy Pilgrim, went to Brisbane airport in person on 14th October 2004 in physical pursuit of the footage. He recorded his experience on video through a chat with Schapelle Corby's mother, Rosleigh Rose:

CCTV

Page 3 - 2

[CCTV Footage]

Rosleigh Rose summarized the frustration of her family as follows:

Rosleigh Rose also kept a diary. The following are some sample entries:

CCTV

Page 3 - 3

[CCTV Footage]

Schapelle Corby herself reflected upon the CCTV situation in her book, with the following observations:

My Story - Schapelle Corby with Kathryn Bonella

Her frustrations and despair continued to increase as the answers never came:

CCTV

Page 3 - 4

[CCTV Footage]

My Story - Schapelle Corby with Kathryn Bonella

[Anomaly #13] Schapelle Corby, her family, and her lawyers, were given a range of conflicting stories, as they desperately sought the CCTV footage.

Each story though had the same outcome: no CCTV images were provided.

CCTV

Page 3 - 5

[CCTV Footage]

3.3 THE CCTV LOCATIONS Examination of the situation at each airport reveals the increasingly contradictory positions of the AFP and Qantas.

3.3.1 BRISBANE CHECK-IN AREA Qantas had four cameras in the check-in hall. Their formal position was stated in a letter of 1st December 2004:

But this was not the position of the AFP, as stated by them on many occasions.

For example, the following is a statement made to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee in February 2005:

Another example from many is the following extract from a ministerial brief from the AFP to the Minister for Justice and Customs from April 2005:

CCTV

Page 3 - 6

[CCTV Footage]

[Anomaly #14] Qantas and the AFP provided wholly conflicting stories regarding the fate of the CCTV check-in area footage. The implications of each version with respect to the other party were serious.

This discrepancy, of course, has a number of significant implications. The possibilities are as follows: 3.3.1.1 The Qantas Version Is Correct Let us first presume that the account given by Qantas is correct, noting that they actually operate the equipment and that it is the more detailed of the two.

The first consequence is that when called to account to explain the lack of CCTV footage to assist Schapelle Corby, the AFP did not report the actual reasons provided by Qantas.

Instead of bringing to the attention of their political superiors that the CCTV system at a major airport had not been working properly, or at all, for weeks, if not longer, they claimed a re-write cycle of 7-10 days. This unsurprisingly presented a calm, normal, and secure operation.

Instead of mentioning substantial repairs and data loss, they suppressed the information entirely, claiming it to have been written over, when that was not the case at all. They essentially hid the situation that for an unknown lengthy period there was, at best, intermittent security camera coverage at Brisbane Airport.

Whilst this undoubtedly covered for those responsible for these security exposures, it also deflected attention from Schapelle Corby's immediate need: the CCTV images. If the footage was lost via erasure, the matter itself was self evidently closed, simultaneously closing official pursuit of the images.

3.3.1.2 The AFP Version Is Correct The second possibility is that the AFP version is correct, and that there was a 7-10 day re-write cycle. But if this was the case, why would Qantas have invented such a sophisticated story?

There are several potential resultant scenarios. One is that there was corruption at Brisbane Airport and that the CCTV system was in fact sabotaged. Or another possibly is that rather than "the unit underwent substantial repairs which resulted in the loss of all previously recorded data, including data for 8 October 2004" (Qantas), the data was purposely and not accidentally erased during this process.

CCTV

Page 3 - 7

[CCTV Footage]

3.3.1.3 Another Perspective Another possibility is that the CCTV footage was seized, perhaps by ASIO. This becomes less unlikely when considered in the context that CCTV footage was unavailable from every potential source across three airports.

This suggestion is, of course, supported by the strategic political imperative with respect to international relations with Indonesia, and the need to prevent exposure of related domestic issues.

Whichever scenario is correct, at least one party appears to have provided entirely false information.

Regardless of which party this was, and regardless of how desperately Schapelle Corby and her family pleaded for the footage, it was never forthcoming.

CCTV

Page 3 - 8

[CCTV Footage]

3.3.2 BRISBANE EXTERIOR Rosleigh Rose drove her daughter Schapelle, and her friends, to Brisbane domestic airport in plenty of time for their flight. She dropped them outside the entrance and parked the car for a short stay.

There were a number of cameras in situ.

However, when approached, the car park management company stated that there was limited coverage of the car parking area, that most coverage was directed towards the pay stations, that the cameras were triggered by motion sensors and take still photos and that, critically, the cameras had limited storage memory, storing up to two months footage maximum.

Despite numerous enquiries, no footage of Schapelle Corby was ever obtained.

CCTV

Page 3 - 9

[CCTV Footage]

3.3.3 BRISBANE AIRSIDE In July 2005 Qantas submitted the following comment to an aviation security review by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts & Audit.

"At the time of Ms Corby’s travel, Qantas had no dedicated CCTV camera coverage of the baggage handling areas at either the Qantas Brisbane Domestic Terminal or the Qantas Sydney Domestic Terminal. There are, however, CCTV cameras installed which cover the apron areas where aircraft are parked. The purpose of these cameras is to cover aircraft operations and movements to and from the aerobridges, and they do not provide coverage of baggage handling, loading or unloading activities."

[Anomaly #15] Qantas stated that the purpose of the cameras in the apron areas was to cover aircraft operations and movements. However, regardless of purpose, it is certain that they recorded some baggage movements.

The question therefore arises of why the images from the appropriate cameras were not retained when Schapelle Corby's family and lawyers were making their requests.

In addition, a number of media outlets appeared to contradict the Qantas submission. For example, The Sydney Morning Herald stated the following regarding baggage transfers in Brisbane:

CCTV

Page 3 - 10

[CCTV Footage]

3.3.4 SYDNEY AIRSIDE The media at the time covered this aspect as follows:

Sydney Morning Herald: March 5th 2005

But the situation was in fact rather more sinister than suggested.

Let's consider how the Attorney General describes the CCTV coverage of the baggage makeup areas:

CCTV

Page 3 - 11

[CCTV Footage]

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, QUESTIONS IN WRITING Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport QUESTION 3874 Wednesday, 21 March 2007 John Murphy:

(5) Can the Minister be certain that all sections of the baggage make-up areas of Sydney International Airport were captured by surveillance cameras at all times between October 2004 and March 2005; if so, why; if not, why not.

Philip Ruddock: (5) Refer to Question 1 above. I am unable to answer this question on behalf of other entities at Sydney International Airport.

(1) A combination of fixed and pan tilt zoom (PTZ) cameras are placed to maximise the fields of view of Customs cameras in the baggage make-up area. This arrangement of cameras means there is built in redundancy of view so that if any camera is temporarily out of service, then there is still capacity to cover the entire area.

So, all areas were covered, and there is even built in redundancy to ensure uninterrupted coverage. The Minister for Transport and Regional Services responds similarly: HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, QUESTIONS IN WRITING Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport QUESTION 3259 Wednesday, 9 August 2006

Mr Murphy (Lowe) asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in writing, on 28 March 2006: (1) Does Sydney Airport Corporation Ltd (SACL) have surveillance cameras installed at Sydney International Airport; if so, what are the details and, in particular, does SACL have surveillance cameras installed in the baggage handling areas.

Mr Truss (Wide Bay—Minister for Transport and Regional Services)—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1) Yes. Sydney Airport Corporation Limited (SACL) currently has approximately 800 closed-circuit television (CCTV) surveillance cameras in operation at Sydney Airport, including cameras installed in the baggage handling areas in Terminal One and Terminal Two of Sydney Airport.

CCTV

Page 3 - 12

[CCTV Footage]

[Anomaly #16] Despite the sophisticated nature of CCTV coverage of the baggage areas at Sydney International Airport, including built-in redundancy, not a single frame of CCTV footage was provided to Schapelle Corby or her lawyers. And again, a range of excuses where presented.

Seemingly comprehensive and leading edge equipment, in a security imperative setting, produced nothing whatsoever; not even raw footage to search through.

Some light is perhaps shed upon this mystery by journalist Tony Wilson:

Yet again, Customs Minister Ellison appears to be central to events.

CCTV

Page 3 - 13

[CCTV Footage]

3.4 DRUG SYNDICATION AT SYDNEY AIRPORT 3.4.1 THE MOCHA STORY Knowledge of the Mocha Operation created yet another plethora of issues:

Ref: Hidden Truth, Schapelle.Net

CCTV

Page 3 - 14

[CCTV Footage]

Further details of the police corruption are provided thus:

Ref: Hidden Truth, Schapelle.Net

CCTV

Page 3 - 15

[CCTV Footage]

[Anomaly #17] There was a major drug smuggling operation on the airport, involving corrupt baggage handlers, at exactly the time Schapelle Corby and her boogie board bag passed through.

This was at exactly the same time and in exactly the same baggage make up area.

Or from a different perspective, whilst corrupt baggage handlers were in the process of smuggling drugs, Schapelle Corby's boogie board bag appeared, and what subsequently unfolded was no CCTV footage, missing screening records, and ultimately, even the police who were supposed to be investigating, convicted on corruption charges.

And, of course, 4.2kg of marijuana in a boogie board bag in Bali, and a 20 year sentence for Schapelle Corby.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

In response to a parliamentary question, Attorney General Philip Ruddock described this situation as follows: "Upon arrival at Sydney Kingsford Smith International Airport, (SKSA) luggage containing narcotics was diverted by a baggage handler prior to an Australian Customs Service examination. The narcotics were then supplied to members of the syndicate".

He further stated that: "The corrupt behaviour was discovered when a human source approached the NSWCC in December 2004 and provided details of the methods used by the syndicate to import drugs through the airport. The human source was told this information sometime after June 2004".

It has been speculated that the source came forward when he or she became aware of Schapelle Corby's situation in Bali.

CCTV

Page 3 - 16

[CCTV Footage]

AIRPORT LAYOUT The following is an image of the layout of Sydney International Airport:

LAN801 is the flight upon which the cocaine arrived, whilst AO7829 is the number of the flight Schapelle Corby took to Bali.

The Daily Telegraph explained the situation as follows:

A Brisbane man, identified in court as Gary Macdonald, checked two bags on to a flight from Argentina on October 8, 2004 -- but, while he arrived home, his bags did not. A police informant later revealed baggage handlers were paid to remove the bags in Sydney before Customs could inspect them.

Both bags were taken from the LAN801 stand to the baggage make up area, where, like Schapelle Corby's, they were managed by the corrupt baggage handler crew.

CCTV

Page 3 - 17

[CCTV Footage]

3.4.2 A QUESTION OF TIMING The situation becomes even starker if we examine the actual timings.

The boogie board bag was placed into baggage canister DQF60342QF at Pier C at 08.18, having been hauled from Pier B on a trolley. This would have placed it at the Pier B scanning area perhaps 5-10 minutes earlier, circa 8:08 - 08:13.

LAN801, carrying the two bags, one of which held the cocaine, landed at 07:50, docking at Gate 35 for unloading at circa 8:00. The first pieces of baggage would typically arrive at the baggage make up area five minutes later, at around 8:05.

The timing to suggest interaction could hardly be more perfect.

Schapelle Corby's boogie board bag and the two incoming suspect drug bags were almost certainly in exactly the same place at exactly the same time, in an area being managed by corrupt baggage handlers.

The undeniable fact is that the second bag from LAN801 was never seen again, whilst 4.2kg of marijuana was present in Schapelle Corby's bag when she collected it in Bali... the same bag which was unrecorded on the SACL screening system, to which the same baggage handlers were responsible for submitting.

What followed was a series of arrests, dismissals and the inevitable PR operation on behalf of SACL, Qantas and the government.

As earlier sections have revealed, what also followed was the withholding of vital information and data, by a number of parties whose interests were directly or indirectly threatened.

For Schapelle Corby the outcome was devastating.

CCTV

Page 3 - 18

[CCTV Footage]

3.4.3 GOVERNMENT CORRESPONDENCE The government were well aware of this situation. Indeed, under the weight of public opinion they sent the following letter to Schapelle Corby's lawyers in May 2005:

This clearly acknowledged the situation, and confirmed their awareness of the alarming developments.

Despite this, when the public relations crisis had passed just a few weeks later, they didn't inform Schapelle Corby of key new evidence which directly related to it (see Section 2.4).

It also proved to be increasingly difficult for Schapelle Corby’s lawyers to obtain any information or data from them at all, on any of the relevant issues.

CCTV

Page 3 - 19

[CCTV Footage]

3.4.4 PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS Efforts to extract information in Parliament, by John Murphy MP, were also unsuccessful: Written question by John Murphy MP: Have inquiries been undertaken by (a) the AFP, (b) any government department, (c) Sydney Airport Corporation Limited or (d) any other organisation to (i) establish whether the baggagehandler had acted in unison with other individuals, (ii) ascertain whether there have been other incidents or allegations of corrupt or irregular behaviour by employees of any organisation, the workplace of which is located at Sydney International Airport, within those premises and (iii) establish preventative measures to avert future occurrences of corrupt or irregular conduct involving narcotics at Sydney International Airport; if so, what were the findings, conclusions and recommendations of each inquiry; if no inquiries have been conducted, why not.

Response by Attorney General Philip Ruddock: (a) Yes. (b) I cannot comment if other government departments made enquiries. (c) I cannot comment if the Sydney Airport Corporation Limited made enquires. (d) I cannot comment if any other organisations made enquiries. (i) Evidence will likely be presented in court that persons had contact at SKSA. They may have been Qantas baggage handlers or other staff and they are not specifically identified in the brief of evidence. As this matter is before the courts, it would be inappropriate to comment any further. (ii) I am unable to provide that information. (iii) I am unable to provide that information.

These responses provided far less information than was already available within the public domain, for example via the following media report (extract):

The Daily Telegraph: April 06, 2006 SECURITY cameras in the baggage handling area of Sydney airport have been repeatedly tampered with, raising fresh questions about a string of drug cases and the threat of terrorism. Sydney Labor MP John Murphy –who revealed the scandal to The Daily Telegraph – claimed the security breach cast fresh doubt on the guilt of convicted drug trafficker Schapelle Corby.

It could also have potential implications for other drug matters in recent years, including Operation Mocha in which a syndicate allegedly ran $30 million in cocaine through the airport with the help of corrupt baggage handlers.

The Daily Telegraph can reveal two cameras inside the baggage handling unit were sabotaged on three occasions between October 2004 and May 2005. In answers to questions on notice submitted in Parliament by Mr Murphy, Customs Minister Chris Ellison confirmed the cameras had been deliberately disabled.

CCTV

Page 3 - 20

[CCTV Footage]

"The customs maintenance provider of its CCTV cameras at Sydney International Airport has been required to adjust two of customs' CCTV cameras in the baggage make-up area of the airport on three occasions between October 2004 and May 2005" Senator Ellison said. "These adjustments were required to correct the field of view following reports from customs' control room operators that cameras were pointing in the wrong direction."

The cameras are used to monitor the behavior of baggage handlers as they sift through luggage behind the airport's check. The new revelations come after an internal customs report in September 2004 that revealed large-scale corruption among baggage handlers and other airport staff.

"Intelligence from other law enforcement agencies suggests some Asian-recruited Qantas crew may be involved in narcotics," the report found. The report also revealed baggage handlers would divert bags containing drugs from incoming international flights to domestic carousels so they would not be checked. .

Mr Murphy said the security breach was most relevant to the Corby case and urged her lawyers to act in the light of the new developments.

"I am sure Schapelle Corby and her legal team would like to know when the first breach occurred and how long it took to be brought to the attention of the Customs Minister," Mr Murphy said yesterday. .

"Anyone working in this area could have put heroin in a passenger's luggage at either the domestic or international airport at Sydney and that person would never know."

The same applied to the leader of the parliamentary opposition at the time, Kim C Beazley MP, whose paper, A Nation Unprepared, reported the following in August 2005:

Then, following all that, the emergence of the extraordinary classified Customs report which was completed in September 2004 but only made public when it was leaked to a newspaper earlier this year. It revealed shocking security breaches at Sydney’s Kingsford Smith Airport.

The report identified dangerous holes such as: -

CCTV

passengers’ baggage containing large amounts of narcotics being diverted to domestic carousels to avoid Customs inspections; 39 security screeners out of 500 employed at the airport have serious criminal convictions, with a further 39 convicted of minor matters; theft by airport employees from baggage and aircraft duty free trolleys; engineers with unauthorised duplicate keys; and black spots not under surveillance in the airport’s basement corridors that are used as drug drop off points.

Page 3 - 21

[CCTV Footage]

3.4.5 THE FLIGHT DELAY PATTERN [Anomaly #18] All but two flights departing Sydney International Airport on 8th October 2004, when Schapelle Corby was in transit, were delayed by at least 18 minutes. The delays began within 20 minutes of her luggage reaching the baggage make up area, and continued until shortly after her flight left at 11:12 am.

It is suggested that the sequence of delays of so many consecutive international flights may be partially related to problems with baggage handling, and potentially a desperate search for 4.2kg of marijuana. An alternative suggestion is that the delays may themselves have caused take-off orders to change, and thus difficulties with the planned transfers of incoming drugs.

This diagram illustrates the overall pattern of delays for 8th October 2004 (calculated on the differential from the earliest departure time for each flight in the research period). The bottom of each rectangular bar represents the arrival time of the aircraft at Sydney, whilst the top of the bar represents the earliest/scheduled departure time for that flight. The top of each 'wick' (or line extending from the top of each bar) shows the actual departure time.

Thus the length of wick shows the delay for that flight.

CCTV

Page 3 - 22

[CCTV Footage]

The pattern of delays beginning at approx 08:38 is clear from the extended length of wick for subsequent flights. The following diagram represents a closer view of that period.

Only two local flights to Melbourne, QFA2 and MAS6210, were not delayed during this period [Note that the non-delay of these flights provides an interesting alignment with the testimony of John Ford, which was enthusiastically dismissed by Keelty]. All international flights were delayed. The delay times are as follows: ANZ142 AAR602 ANZ182 QFA2 QFA25 QFA119 QFA123 JAL772

Wellington Seoul Christchurch Melbourne Brisbane Auckland Mumbai Tokyo

29 92 44 0 102 38 110 48

QFA47 ANZ102 FOM410 QFA149 PBI42 ACA034 QFA3 AUZ7829

Wellington Auckland Palmerston Los Angeles Wellington Honolulu Honolulu Denpasar

52 51 56 23 41 55 46 57

HVN782 MAS6210 EVA312 LAN800 QFA127 QFA107 PRZ063

Ho Chi Minh City Melbourne Taipei Auckland Hong Kong Los Angeles Denpasar

31 0 48 30 18 25 32

No other sequence of delays, even remotely resembling this pattern, was found during analysis of a significant period spanning before and after 8th October 2004. Note that the weather was good, and there was no industrial action.

[Research & analysis: Dr Adrian Bradford, Perth]

CCTV

Page 3 - 23

[Issues & Findings]

4. ISSUES & FINDINGS 4.1 RECORDED ANOMALIES Some of the questions, issues and anomalies encountered as listed below:

[Anomaly #1] The boogie board bag with just body board and flippers was overweight with respect to carrier norms, but despite this it was checked through as normal boogie board weight. Had it also contained 4.2kg of marijuana, it would have been grossly overweight, almost certainly triggering a manual check.

[Anomaly #2] Either the check-in operator for unknown reasons allowed significantly overweight bags to be loaded without a charge or a fuss OR The data reflecting the weight of Schapelle Corby's bags was increased after check-in.

[Anomaly #3] Only three out of the four bags checked in by Schapelle Corby were present on the SACL baggage screening system. The boogie board bag's tag number (#0081884193) was missing completely.

[Anomaly #4] In correspondence, why did the AFP dramatically switch the critical focus from such significant new information to one specific scenario, at the expense of all others? Equally, why did they switch it from the wider implications of the new information?

[Anomaly #5] Why was Ellison concerned about who was aware of the baggage tag information, given that he now knew that Schapelle Corby's boogie board bag was the only bag not recorded on the SACL system?

Findings

Page 4 - 1

[Issues & Findings]

[Anomaly #6] Ellison and Keelty withheld central and potentially critical evidence from Schapelle Corby’s legal team, regarding bag scanning, even when asked directly about it.

Equally, they withheld information, provided by DOTORS, that flights to Indonesia required 100% scanning, and that the situation at Sydney airport was wide open to abuse.

[Anomaly #7] In pre-prepared responses to Possible Parliamentary Questions, there was no reference whatsoever to the new evidence, which was circumvented by a variety of tangential responses. The information was thus withheld from the Australian Parliament. MPs, Senators and the public were clearly misled.

[Anomaly #8] Despite the serious implications for the welfare of Schapelle Corby, and equally, with respect to wider airport security, we found no evidence that the AFP conducted an investigation into the issue of the missing boogie board bag screening data.

[Anomaly #9] Neither the AFP, nor Customs, informed Schapelle Corby of the information detailed within the "Kessing Report", despite this being of fundamental relevance and importance to her defence case. As with the crucial bag screening information, it was withheld.

[Anomaly #10] Whilst he went to the government with his information regarding the missing data, MooreWilton of SACL made no comment at all in public about it, and did not contact Schapelle Corby's family to disclose the disparity between the boogie board bag and the other bags.

[Anomaly #11] Given that the Kessing Reports had been provided to the AFP earlier in the year, that the AFP were actually investigating drug syndication at Sydney Airport, and that a substantial catalogue of supporting evidence was already in wide circulation, why did Keelty state the following to the media just weeks before the verdict in Schapelle Corby's Bali trial: "There is very little intelligence to suggest that baggage handlers are using innocent people to traffic heroin or other drugs between states"?

Findings

Page 4 - 2

[Issues & Findings]

[Anomaly #12] Why did the Justice and Custom's Minister Christopher Ellison, in his letter to a member of the public, contradict what had actually happened in Indonesia with respect to the marijuana and the boogie board bag?

[Anomaly #13] Schapelle Corby, her family, and her lawyers, were given a range of conflicting stories, as they desperately sought the CCTV footage. Each story though had the same outcome: no CCTV images were provided.

[Anomaly #14] Qantas and the AFP provided wholly conflicting stories regarding the fate of the CCTV checkin area footage. The implications of each version with respect to the other party were serious.

[Anomaly #15] Qantas stated that the purpose of the cameras in the apron areas was to cover aircraft operations and movements. However, regardless of purpose, it is certain that they recorded some baggage movements.

The question therefore arises of why the images from the appropriate cameras were not retained when Schapelle Corby's family and lawyers were making their requests.

[Anomaly #16] Despite the sophisticated nature of CCTV coverage of the baggage areas at Sydney International Airport, including built-in redundancy, not a single frame of CCTV footage was provided to Schapelle Corby of her lawyers. And again, a range of excuses where presented.

[Anomaly #17] There was a major drug smuggling operation on the airport, involving corrupt baggage handlers, at exactly the time Schapelle Corby and her boogie board bag passed through. Her boogie board bag was in exactly the same baggage make up area at exactly the same time as two incoming bags from the carrier from South America. One bag contained cocaine, the other totally disappeared, whilst the boogie board bag contained marijuana when it was opened in Bali.

Findings

Page 4 - 3

[Issues & Findings]

[Anomaly #18] All but two flights departing Sydney International Airport on 8th October 2004, when Schapelle Corby was in transit, were delayed by at least 18 minutes. The delays began within 20 minutes of her luggage reaching the baggage make up area, and continued until shortly after her flight left at 11:12 am.

[Anomaly #19] The fact that all bags other than the boogie board bag were present and correct on the SACL system was an important new piece of primary evidence, and indeed, was central to the case. Keelty, Ellison and probably Howard were aware of this item of key evidence, which may have significantly aided Schapelle Corby's defence prospects. Ellison even pointed out that her lawyers may have been unaware of it, as indeed was the case.

But instead of bringing it to the attention of Schapelle Corby and her lawyers, all parties withheld it. Further, Parliament, and the public were also blatantly misled on a number of occasions. This pattern was repeated with respect to a number of other evidential matters.

Assessment of the motives for this extremely disturbing aspect is outside the scope of this report.

Findings

Page 4 - 4

[Issues & Findings]

4.2 INTERIM HEADLINE FINDINGS A number of clear headline findings can be reported. These are as follows: 1. The proposition that all the documented anomalies are coincidental is not tenable.

Indeed, it is statistically impossible.

2. Given that Schapelle Corby had no airside access, she had no influence at all over the events that transpired once she checked her bags in.

3. Security at the Sydney airports was dangerously inadequate, and the level of corruption was substantial.

4. The priority of all organizations involved was self interest. Qantas and SACL were primarily concerned with protecting their reputation and brands.

5. The AFP and the government engaged in an exercise of limitation of political damage. This embraced media management to a degree which endangered public accountability and the interests of the flying passenger. Schapelle Corby's interests were disregarded.

6. The government and the AFP withheld key and vital evidence. This evidence would have been highly damaging to SACL and Qantas, embarrassing and difficult for themselves, but invaluable and possibly critical to Schapelle Corby.

7. The Australian Parliament was directly misled on a number of occasions.

8. The media and the Australian public were almost routinely misled on a significant number of issues.

9. The possibility that the marijuana found in the boogie board bag was sourced by Schapelle Corby is almost non-existent.

10. Serious questions exist regarding the relationships and interests of individuals within government and the corporations involved, and how this influenced their decisions and actions at the time.

Findings

Page 4 - 5

[Issues & Findings]

Š Hidden World Research Group

www.hiddenworldresearch.com

Produced in association with Hidden World Films For The Expendable Project www.expendable.tv

Findings

Page 4 - 6

Strictly Confidential

© The Hidden World Research Group

Supplementary Report To The Expendable Project Report “Exceptions At Australian Airports With Respect To The Schapelle Corby Case”

The Expendable Project www.expendable.tv

CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1.1 Introduction 2.2 The Baggage Handling Process at Sydney Airport

2. The Australian Customs Service 3. DOTARS 4. Qantas Airways Limited 5. Sydney Airport Corporation Limited

6. Findings & Conclusions

[Introduction]

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION The Transit Report showed that Schapelle Corby’s boogie-board bag was the only bag not screened at Sydney airport. It proved that both the government and the Australian Federal Police were well aware of this fact. The following letter, from Justice & Customs Minister Christopher Ellison, illustrates this:

It further proved that when Schapelle Corby’s lawyers asked them about it, this vital primary evidence was withheld. Indeed, Schapelle Corby and her family were totally unaware of it until The Transit Report was published, in September 2011.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 1

[Introduction]

It also showed that screening was mandatory for 100% of baggage on flights to Indonesia, that criminal airport staff were smuggling drugs in the same baggage area when Schapelle Corby’s baggage passed through, that her bags were 5kg overweight on the Qantas system but that no charge had been levied, and that the AFP and others produced a range of demonstrably false stories to explain missing CCTV footage from three airport terminals.

This supplementary report, however, examines the role of those organizations with responsibility for the carriage of Schapelle Corby’s baggage, and their reaction to the discovery that only the boogie-board bag had not been screened.

1.2 BAGGAGE HANDLING PROCESS AT SYDNEY AIRPORT The process at the Sydney airports was for Qantas to unload the luggage from the domestic flight, and take it to the SACL area at the international terminal for screening.

On release from SACL, Qantas handling staff would then take the luggage to the baggage holding area for the outgoing flight to Bali.

The following diagram illustrates the handling of Schapelle Corby’s baggage from Brisbane through to Bali.

The following sections cover those parties with responsibility for at least one aspect of carriage, or management of the baggage, from its arrival at the Sydney domestic terminal.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 2

[Australian Customs Service]

2. AUSTRALIAN CUSTOMS SERVICE The Australian Customs Service held prime responsibility, on behalf of the government and nation, to prevent cross border transfer of illegal items, including drugs and explosives.

However, the documentation demonstrates that, from the outset of the Schapelle Corby case, their prime objective was to distance themselves from any responsibility, and effectively, remove themselves from involvement.

The following email was received by Customs just five days after Schapelle Corby’s arrest:

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 1

[Australian Customs Service]

This asked very clear and pertinent questions about the bag screening process, an issue which might be considered to be of fundamental importance to a customs department. But, immediately, Customs sought to deflect the matter to other parties:

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 2

[Australian Customs Service]

The following letter was sent to Schapelle Corby’s lawyer in reply:

On the vital issue of screening, Mr Chapman unhelpfully directed the lawyer to “other agencies”.

The next contribution from Customs was equally evasive of responsibility:

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 3

[Australian Customs Service]

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 4

[Australian Customs Service]

Subsequently, whilst again abrogating any responsibility for themselves, they described the screening process as follows:

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 5

[Australian Customs Service]

The Australian Customs Service offered no further help, or substantive information, to Schapelle Corby or her lawyers.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 6

[DOTARS]

3. DOTARS The Department of Transport & Regional Services (DOTARS) provided a clear overall picture of the process:

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 1

[DOTARS]

This confirmed that: 

All bags destined for Indonesia were mandated to be screened "100% CBS was being applied to passenger flights to Indonesia")



The boogie-board bag would have been manually screened ("Oversized bags... are checked through a supplementary CBS machine")



The system was patently open to abuse and corruption (eg: "potential for opportunities to be created", "a potential inconsistency in the system", "area of potential weakness", "potential for system failure").

The recipients of this, AFP Commissioner Keelty and Justice & Customs Minister Ellison, already knew that Schapelle Corby's boogie-board bag, and only that bag, was not screened, or even present on the SACL system at all. As did SACL itself.

This was the final substantive contribution by the Department of Transport & Regional Services.

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 2

[Qantas]

4. Qantas Airways Ltd The first formal contribution by Qantas was dated 1st December 2004. Question 5 is the first manifestation of their position on the baggage screening issue. This was, essentially, to pass responsibility to Sydney Airport Corporation Ltd (SACL):

By directing Schapelle Corby’s lawyer to SACL “to seek further information in relation to the screening of such baggage” Qantas clearly implied delivery to that organization of Schapelle Corby’s bags, including the boogie-board bag.

There is no indication whatsoever that the bag might not have been provided, by Qantas staff, to SACL for screening.

Expendable.TV

Page 4 - 1

[Qantas]

NOTE: Schapelle Corby checked in normally, without fuss or surcharge. However, when the Qantas records were subsequently examined, they showed the baggage to be 5kg overweight on the system. Hence, either she had inexplicably not been charged (approx $175) in excess baggage, or the weight had been added after check in, perhaps to take account of the addition of 4.2kg of marijuana.

As Qantas will have been well aware of their own weight thresholds, they must have been aware of this anomaly. However, when asked directly about the weight of the bags, they only provided details of the overall weight:

Again, Schapelle Corby and her family were totally unaware of this until The Transit Report was published, in September 2011.

Expendable.TV

Page 4 - 2

[SACL]

5. Sydney Airport Corporation Ltd On being pressed by Schapelle Corby’s lawyer for information on baggage screening, Justice & Customs Minister Ellison wrote to SACL on 27th June as follows:

Expendable.TV

Page 5 - 1

[SACL]

Whilst the terminology could not be considered to be encouraging of a positive response, it did initiate an evidential dialogue.

Expendable.TV

Page 5 - 2

[SACL]

SACL’s formal position was documented in a response dated 5th July 2005:

Expendable.TV

Page 5 - 3

[SACL]

Clearly, informing Schapelle Corby’s lawyer that SACL had no screening data for the boogie-board bag, is significantly different to informing him that it was absent for ONLY the boogie-board bag.

This point was not lost on the recipient of this email, Justice & Customs Minister Ellison, as he referred to it in a subsequent letter to AFP Commissioner Keelty (see The Transit Report for further details).

Also, Moore-Wilton repeatedly distances SACL from the core issue. He states that “none of our staff had direct contact with Ms Corby’s luggage”, and he emphasises the role of Qantas by stating that, “Baggage handling operations is the responsibility of the relevant airline”, and that, “Qantas in this instance was the only entity that could confirm the baggage tag number….”

It is thus not unreasonable to state that the impression created, was that the baggage omission resulted from the non-presentation of the boogie-board bag by Qantas.

Expendable.TV

Page 5 - 4

[SACL]

The core information, that Schapelle Corby’s boogie-board bag was the only one for which screening data was not present on the SACL system, was discussed between Ellison and Keelty, on 6th July 2005:

Expendable.TV

Page 5 - 5

[SACL]

It is clear that at this point, SACL, Qantas, DOTARS, Ellison and Keelty, were all well aware of the situation. Ellison and Keelty were demonstrably aware of its significance to Schapelle Corby.

However, as detailed in The Transit Report, Ellison withheld the information, when directly confronted by Schapelle Corby’s lawyer.

Just two days later, he referred to the baggage collectively: “none of their staff had contact with Ms Corby or her baggage during her transfer”, and made no reference whatsoever to the central discovery:

Expendable.TV

Page 5 - 6

[SACL]

Expendable.TV

Page 5 - 7

[SACL]

Five days later, Ellison again failed to convey the central information, and referred the lawyer to other organisations:

Expendable.TV

Page 5 - 8

[SACL]

Subsequently, the following response was prepared for Parliament, in case he was challenged on the non-screening of the boogie-board bag:

It is clear that yet again, there was no intention to confirm the critical information: that the boogie-board bag was the only one not screening.

As of September 2011, neither Schapelle Corby nor her family have ever been made aware that the boogie-board bag was the only one not screened in Sydney.

Expendable.TV

Page 5 - 9

[Findings & Conclusions]

6. Findings & Conclusions The self interest agenda documented in the previous sections speaks for itself. All parties sought to pass blame and responsibility to others for the serious screening failures, and thus, the undoubted corruption and criminality behind it at Sydney airport.

Schapelle Corby’s interests were simply dismissed, as party after party abrogated responsibility.

Politically, there was also a significant degree of orchestration. The following, for example, illustrates how the government sought to “consolidate” responses from even private commercial entities:

The most pivotal role, however, was that of Justice & Customs Minister Ellison.

He was in regular correspondence with Schapelle Corby’s lawyer, and even when asked directly about baggage screening, he failed to disclose the vital information that only the boogie-board bag wasn’t screened. As a lawyer, he must have been well aware of its significance.

Expenable.TV

Page 6 - 1

[Findings & Conclusions]

He also failed to disclose this information to Parliament or, directly to Schapelle Corby’s family when they approached the government.

Ellison’s role in the overall case is documented throughout The Expendable Project.

However, even without the benefit of this information, Schapelle Corby’s Indonesian lawyer was frustrated enough to call upon the Australian Prime Minister to set up a commission into his conduct:

Expenable.TV

Page 6 - 2

[Findings & Conclusions]

The role of the Australia Federal Police is also worthy of additional note. AFP Commissioner Keelty was aware of all the pertinent facts, along with other critical information, such as the contents of the Kessing Reports. He too failed to disclose this to Schapelle Corby or her family.

Further information on this, and other aspects pertaining to the events at Sydney Airport on 8th October 2004, are documented in The Transit Report: http://www.expendable.tv/2011/09/transit-report.html

Expenable.TV

Page 6 - 3

Š The Hidden World Research Group

www.hiddenworldresearch.com

The Expendable Project www.expendable.tv

Strictly Confidential

© Hidden World Research Group

Forensic Testing Of Schapelle Corby’s Boogie Board Bag And The Marijuana Found Within

An Independent Report The Expendable Project www.expendable.tv

Table Of Contents 1. Introduction 1.1 Forensic Testing & Marijuana 1.2 Schapelle Corby’s Pursuit of Forensic Tests

2. The Australian Government 2.1 The Surface 2.2 Chronology

3. The Indonesian Legal Process 3.1 The Bali Court 3.2 The Destruction of the Untested Evidence

4. Australian Misrepresentation

Introduction

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 FORENSIC TESTING & MARIJUANA The marijuana found in Schapelle Corby‟s bag was central to Schapelle Corby‟s prospects of proving her innocence. This was particularly the case, given the impediments and obstructions which prevented her lawyers from collecting other primary evidence, such as CCTV footage.

Marijuana can be forensically tested. This can reveal who has grown it, handled it, and packed it. Whilst the packaging is particularly useful with respect to the latter, the marijuana itself can also hold valuable clues.

Marijuana can be tested for country and region of origin, which in Schapelle‟s Corby‟s situation was a vital matter. For example, if it was Indonesian, she would have had to be acquitted and released.

In a case as significant as this one, formal forensic testing of the marijuana should have been a priority of the prosecution, and certainly of the court itself. It should also have been a priority of the Australian government, in representing the interests of one of its citizens.

But it wasn‟t. The only party which pursued the issue was Schapelle Corby herself, and her lawyers.

Independent Report

Page 1-1

Introduction

1.2 SCHAPELLE CORBY’S PURSUIT OF FORENSIC TESTS From the beginning, Schapelle Corby instinctively understood that the boogie board bag itself was central to her fate. At the airport, she immediately asked for the bags to be weighed, to demonstrate that they were 4.2kg heavier than when she departed Brisbane.

Her requests were refused.

She increasingly realized that the bags and the marijuana might hold vital clues regarding the source of the drugs, such as fingerprints or DNA, but her efforts to prevent Indonesian court officials and others from handling the bag and contaminating it also failed.

Regardless, she continued to use every means at her disposal to seek to have the evidence properly examined, and particularly, to have the marijuana tested for country of origin.

Independent Report

Page 1-2

Introduction

She urged the prosecutor, in front of a number of witnesses, to allow forensic tests and fingerprinting:

Courtesy 'My Story' Pan Macmillan

She formally requested intervention from the Australian consulate:

Independent Report

Page 1-3

Introduction

Her lawyers sought, at every opportunity, to force legal intervention, and appealed frequently to the Bali court for testing.

They also launched last ditch appeals to prevent the Supreme Court from burning the evidence (see video on Expendable.TV).

Independent Report

Page 1-4

The Australian Government

2. THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT 2.1 THE SURFACE Schapelle Corbyâ€&#x;s open and public efforts to secure something, which was patently fundamental to justice, could hardly have been more high profile. They also placed the Australian government under increasing pressure to respond.

The government responded by telling the media that they had offered assistance to the Indonesian police. This was repeated in Parliament, directly by the Australian Federal Police (AFP):

The police in Indonesia, however, claimed a rather different version of events, as reported by AAP:

Independent Report

Page 2-1

The Australian Government

Schapelle Corbyâ€&#x;s lawyer stated that the Bali Police had actually asked for help, and that the AFP had rejected the approach:

Light is shed upon these apparent contradictions through examination of the governmentâ€&#x;s own correspondence.

Independent Report

Page 2-2

The Australian Government

2.2 CHRONOLOGY The government‟s internal documentation referred to Schapelle Corby‟s efforts to secure testing as early as November 2004. The following is an extract from a DFAT „Talking Points‟ brief dated 2nd November 2004:

It is worth stating that, at the outset, the AFP‟s position with respect to jurisdiction was somewhat misleading.

Australia and Indonesia are signatories to a treaty known as The Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, under the provisions of which one nation can request evidential and other support from the other, for crimes committed within its borders.

As Indonesia was alleging that a crime had been sourced in Australia, the AFP could have investigated this, and the Australian government could have required access to the primary evidence, namely, the boogie board bag and its contents.

DFAT was apparently extremely keen to avoid this hot potato:

By the 18th November 2004, however, DFAT‟s internal position had hardened, as follows:

Independent Report

Page 2-3

The Australian Government

Their position, of ignoring the provisions of the MACM Act and passing responsibility to the Indonesian Police, was thus fully established.

By this time, Schapelle Corby‟s lawyers had travelled to Australia, desperately seeking to bypass this impediment. The media had reported this on 16th November:

The minutes of a meeting held on 22nd November 2004 reveal that Foreign Minister Downer was fully aware of the importance of the testing, and that he stated clearly that the government could pursue it via a direct request:

However, the shortened „brief‟ version of this same meeting repositioned this clear statement entirely differently, re-aligning it with what appeared to be DFAT‟s established policy:

Independent Report

Page 2-4

The Australian Government

By 29th November, DFAT had co-ordinated sufficiently to better align itself with the position of ignoring the MACM Act, and adopting a wholly reactive role of apparent impotence:

Independent Report

Page 2-5

The Australian Government

However, a less visible channel of communication than the above, again contradicted this, by including the following:

Independent Report

Page 2-6

The Australian Government

Schapelle Corbyâ€&#x;s decision, on whether to request the tests, was unequivocal:

She not only re-enforced her original requests for testing, but her lawyers actually provided a detailed list of the specific tests required:

Independent Report

Page 2-7

The Australian Government

The Consulate wrote directly to the AFP on 7th December 2004:

Independent Report

Page 2-8

The Australian Government

Independent Report

Page 2-9

The Australian Government

However, DFAT centrally were simultaneously retaining the position of claimed impotence, and were setting the scene for future outcomes, as illustrated by an internal briefing document dated 9th December 2004:

Schapelle Corbyâ€&#x;s lawyers continued to press. They were aware, and pointed out, that once the case had been passed from the Indonesian police to the Indonesian prosecutors, the prospects of securing testing would be substantially reduced.

This is a matter of legal process in Indonesia, and DFAT, and the Australian government, were well aware of it.

The AFPâ€&#x;s response, however, was not to request access for testing, nor to invoke the MACM Act to require access. It was to approach the Indonesian police with a vague offer of general assistance:

Independent Report

Page 2-10

The Australian Government

This had followed various government approaches to Schapelle Corby, stating that test results could damage her case. These have been interpreted by a number of analysts as efforts to delay, or to intimidate her into withdrawal.

Furthermore, some observers have questioned the role of AFP Commissioner, Michael Keelty, in this scenario.

Keelty was quoted in the media as being a long term friend of the Head of the Indonesian Police in Bali, Made Pastika, whilst his apparently hostile position with respect to the Schapelle Corby case is documented in the report „Exceptions At Australian Airports With Respect To the Schapelle Corby Caseâ€&#x;. He also reported directly to Christopher Ellison, whose own role is documented throughout The Expendable Project. His contact with, and the unknown contents of his communications with, Made Pastika, have also been queried by observers.

On 10th January 2005 it was confirmed that the case had been passed to the Indonesian prosecutor. It was now effectively outside the jurisdiction of the Indonesian police:

Independent Report

Page 2-11

The Australian Government

The expected consequences of this were subsequently confirmed:

The changed situation was reflected, as follows, by a DFAT internal briefing paper:

Independent Report

Page 2-12

The Australian Government

The pertinent facts at this point are now clear: 

There had been no formal request by the AFP or the Australian Government to test the marijuana.



The MACM Act had not been invoked at any stage to require access to perform testing.



The Australian government had failed Schapelle Corby in her increasingly desperate efforts to secure testing of the primary and vital evidence.

Also, contrary to public statements made by the AFP subsequently, the following AFP briefing to Custom‟s Minister Ellison, clearly indicates that the Indonesian police would have received a specific testing request positively:

Independent Report

Page 2-13

The Australian Government

Subsequent to this, however, the Australian government represented the situation rather differently.

For example, Alexander Downer responded to a fellow MP just days after the handover of the case to the Indonesian prosecutor, as follows:

Independent Report

Page 2-14

Indonesian Legal Process

3. THE INDONESIAN LEGAL PROCESS 3.1 THE BALI COURT Despite the lack of support from the Australian government, Schapelle Corbyâ€&#x;s lawyers continued to press for testing at every opportunity during the court case itself. This was logged in various DFAT cables, for example:

Despite constant and repeated pleas to a foreign court by an Australian citizen, to have primary and critical evidence tested, the Australian government offered no further support.

They did not invoke the MACM Act, nor did they press the issue politically.

Independent Report

Page 3-1

Indonesian Legal Process

Their silence on these matters, while frequently and openly endorsing the court proceedings, ensured that evidence, which could have proven Schapelle Corbyâ€&#x;s innocence, was never tested.

“We have no reason to believe that the court is at this stage behaving in an inappropriate way� ~ Alexander Downer, 6th April 2005

Independent Report

Page 3-2

Indonesian Legal Process

3.2 THE DESTRUCTION OF THE UNTESTED EVIDENCE With Schapelle Corby and her lawyers still pleading for testing, and pleading for assistance from the Australian government, the Supreme Court in Indonesia ordered that the evidence should be burned. This was undertaken in March 2006.

The public event attracted the attendance of the prosecutor, who was photographed apparently enjoying the proceedings:

There was no condemnation by the Australian government, no protest, and no criticism whatsoever.

Schapelle Corby had lost any chance of using the central evidence to prove that she was innocent.

Independent Report

Page 3-3

Australian Misrepresentation

4. Australian Misrepresentation With the passing of time, Australian politicians began to represent the events documented in this report in a completely different manner.

For example, the Minister for Justice and Customs, Christopher Ellison, wrote the following, in response to a complaint from a constituent:

Independent Report

Page 4-1

Australian Misrepresentation

This clearly misrepresents the repeated public and private efforts of Schapelle Corby and her lawyers to secure forensic assistance. Mr Ellison appears to have overlooked that it is a matter of official government record that Ms Corby made frequent requests for forensic testing, including to the Bali court.

Equally, his comment, that evidence is routinely destroyed, appears to overlook the fact that in this case the defendant was publicly begging for it to be tested, and that her appeals process had not yet been fully exhausted.

Unfortunately, however, Ellisonâ€&#x;s version of events was subsequently taken up by other Australian politicians.

As with so many of the core issues of the Schapelle Corby case, with the Australian media neither investigating nor reporting the core facts, the Australian public have largely become oblivious to the disturbing and harrowing reality.

FOOTNOTE To the current date, the Australian government has refused to even acknowledge any of the serious issues documented in this report. The open abuse of Schapelle Corbyâ€&#x;s legal and human rights has failed to attract even the mildest criticism from the Australian political establishment.

Independent Report

Page 4-2

Strictly Confidential

© The Hidden World Research Group

Independent Report Australian Intervention In Schapelle Corby’s Appeal

The Expendable Project www.expendable.tv

CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1.1 The Background 1.2 Mark Trowell & Christopher Ellison

2. Trowell & The Appeal 3. The State Tribunal 4. The Outcome

[Introduction]

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 THE BACKGROUND The Australian government‟s efforts to exert a degree of control over Schapelle Corby‟s legal team in Indonesia manifested themselves well before the verdict at the Bali trial.

The relationship with her original defence team was, at best, tense. This created a series of ongoing confrontations, as the lawyers recognised that the government‟s actions did not match the rhetoric they were using in Australia.

Their frustration was particularly evident with respect to Justice & Customs Minister Christopher Ellison, whose role is heavily documented throughout The Expendable Project reports. In April 2005, for Example, the following cable was sent from the Bali Consulate to Canberra:

This was, however, just the tip of a very large iceberg, which spanned a whole range of aspects, as the defence team became acutely aware of a number of the issues documented by the project.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 1

[Introduction]

In March 2005, in addition to engaging in background briefing against the defence lawyers, the Australian government began to press the services of two Australian QCs, Mark Trowell and Tom Percy. Initially, this was through Schapelle Corby‟s Queensland based representatives.

Subsequently, the government increased the pressure through a variety of means, including direct media commentary: “I'm not getting into the business of criticising the defence. People make their own judgements about how they will go about seeking representation. That is matter for them. All I have endeavoured to do is to ensure that they are aware there were other people who'd had experience, were senior legal practitioners, prepared to assist pro-bono and it's really a matter for them as to whether they take that up.” ~ Attorney General Philip Ruddock Foreign Minister Alexander Downer‟s position was described as follows: “Mr Downer came closer to revealing the Government's dismay saying he thought it would have been "wise" to take up the offer”.

The media reported that DFAT were pressing the issue directly to Schapelle Corby within days of the verdict: “When Australia's acting consul-general in Bali, Ross Tysoe, visited Corby on Friday at Kerobokan prison, he told her about the two Perth silks.”

Pressure on the Corby family intensified to the point where they eventually succumbed to it, believing that they were, in effect, being told by the government to accept this assistance.

However, the actual role of the two remained a mystery, not only to the Corby family, but also to the media, who commented as follows, having challenged Trowell directly:

1.2 MARK TROWELL & CHRISTOPHER ELLISON The role of Justice & Customs Minister Christopher Ellison is documented throughout The Expendable Project. He is referenced in many of the core reports, with respect to a range of contentious issues, and Schapelle Corby‟s lawyers had serious reservations regarding his conduct and motives.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 2

[Introduction]

It emerged that Trowell and Ellison had a long standing relationship. Indeed, the media were aware of their friendship, and referred to it accordingly:

It is, therefore, not unreasonable to suggest that Ellison, at the very least, had some input into Trowell‟s briefing on the case.

Regardless, the government had finally succeeded in placing the QC‟s into the heart of Schapelle Corby‟s legal representation in Indonesia.

What subsequently transpired was shocking.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 3

[Trowell & The Appeal]

2. TROWELL & THE APPEAL Mark Trowellâ€&#x;s impact on Schapelle Corbyâ€&#x;s appeal was swift and devastating. The Daily Telegraph reported it in simple and direct terms:

It should be emphasized that every other party vigorously disputed his allegation.

But, with Schapelle Corby's life in the balance, her desperate family sought to limit the damage, by dismissing members of her legal team.

Even this, however, was seized upon immediately by the Australian government, with Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, for example, making the following hostile public remark:

"They're all becoming characters in a sort of soap opera aren't they?"

Many international observers were well aware of the inevitable impact of the statement in Indonesia, but even in Australia, a number of media outlets reported the fallout:

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 1

[Trowell & The Appeal]

Trowell did not expand upon those “reasons”.

The media at the time further highlighted Trowell‟s relationship with Ellison, as well as their political affiliation:

Schapelle Corby‟s legal team complained bitterly to the Australian government:

This was sent to Justice and Customs Minister Christopher Ellison, and Prime Minister John Howard, on 28 June 2005. The transcribed text follows:

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 2

[Trowell & The Appeal]

Your Excellencies Please find enclosed the Corby family statement dated 27 June 2005 on the Corby case.

I need to draw to your attention that Mr Mark Trowell‟s remarks on ATTEMPT FOR BRIBERY is a „disaster‟ and caused al problems for the last week including our legal terms temporary dismissal.

Negative publicity of Mr Mark Trowell‟s remarks caused Schapelle wish to make a fresh start by dismissing al her Indonesian Legal Team. The other negative affect of THE IRRESPONSIBLE REMARKS BY MR. MARK TROWELL is that the judges that may increase the penalty to prove that they are not susceptible to corruption.

Therefore it is very clear that contrary to Mr. Alexander Downer‟s remarks, it is the Australian QC (appointed by the Australian Minister of Justice) and Australian “Senior Government Officials” and not Indonesian legal team, who made the Corby case become a SOAP OPERA. Schapelle Leigh Corby HAS BEEN “ABANDONED” by her own government despite our several requests sent to the Australian Minister of Justice and Customs for cooperation.

We do not ask the Australian Government to intervene in the judicial process. What we ask is The Australian Government‟s assistance to facilitate to get witnesses and evidence especially to talk to witnesses, to encourage witnesses, and to pay their travel expenses and to give us the name and address of al witnesses, or TO APPOINT „SOLICITOR‟ OR “LAW SOCIETY” IN AUSTRALIAN TO GET THESE EVIDENCE. If the witnesses agree voluntarily to give testimony, we do not need any approval from the Indonesian Government as required by the Minister of Justice and Customs of Australia.

We are handling this case on pro bono basis free of charge and therefore it is very unrealistic if Corby‟s own government asks us to do our own investigation in Australia. It is very unlikely the Brisbane custom officer will help us because on the same time “their boss”, who is the Minister of Justice and Customs, say „no‟ to our request.

My understanding is that any citizen is entitled to political and legal protection, but unfortunately Schapelle Leigh Corby doesn‟t enjoy that citizen‟s right.

We also would like to ask to the Australian Government‟s to officially apology to the Indonesian Government and to the Indonesian court including to our client, Ms. Schapelle Leigh Corby and her family, for weak control and lack of supervision of the Australian legal enforcer especially custom officers and Australian police at Brisbane Airport and Sidney Airport which enable mafia and baggage handler put the drugs in passenger‟s bag. (Please read article on “Bag Handler in Court for Drug Tip-Off‟ reported in the Sidney Morning Herald dated 10 June 2005 copy attached).

Thank you for your kind attention.

Yours Sincerely Signature Hotman Paris Hutapea. S.H., M.Hum. Advocate

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 3

[Trowell & The Appeal]

No such apology was forthcoming from the Australian government, and no explanation was given, despite the fact that they had actually pressed Trowell on to Schapelle Corby‟s family.

Trowell himself openly stated that he was working for the government, and that he “had no intention whatsoever in assisting with the appeal”:

Whilst we can only speculate on the full gravity of the impact of Trowell‟s intervention on the Indonesian judiciary, the clear cut nature of his misconduct, not least the open breach of client confidentiality, forced the West Australian State Administrative Tribunal to take subsequent action against him.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 4

[The State Tribunal]

3. THE STATE TRIBUNAL In its report, published almost four years after the event, the West Australian State Administrative Tribunal made many direct comments regarding Trowell‟s conduct.

The following provides a random flavour.

Note that the „practitioner‟ referred to throughout is Mark Trowell: [The practitioner then said he had “never mentioned the bribe” as such. The difficulty with this evidence is that there was never a prospect of the government paying money for bribes nor any evidence of Mr Rasiah “teeing up the judges”. For all these reasons we find that the practitioner never turned his mind to the consequences for Ms Corby. We think it was detrimental to Ms Corby‟s interests to reveal these matters at all and particularly to hint at a suggestion of impropriety in relation to a request for financial assistance by a member of her Bali team.]

[We think his motivation generally in making the statements to the media was the interests of the government and (regrettably) publicising his own personal role and conducting his dispute with Mr Rasiah. At one point the practitioner was asked in cross-examination whether before making a media comment he had made any attempt to contact Ms Corby or her Queensland solicitors. The response was “She wasn‟t my client … I was entitled to make any comments I chose. There was no reason to consult her.” At a later point in his evidence, when questioned by the Tribunal about this statement in his evidence, the practitioner said in effect that in the event of a conflict between what he regarded as the interests of the government and of Ms Corby‟s interests, the government‟s interests had to prevail.]

[We do not think any of the disclosures were made in Ms Corby’s best interests.

Exposing delays on the part of the Bali legal team in getting out the appeal grounds could not assist her. Publishing statements criticising the performance of the Bali legal team was more likely to have distracted them from their task and provided encouragement to the prosecution defending her appeal.]

[It is nonsense to suggest it helped Ms Corby by distancing her from the work of her Bali lawyers. Nor do we see any advantage to Ms Corby in the practitioner publishing the existence and content of the draft and final letters. These requests for finance and assistance with the evidence were matters for private consideration by the Bali legal team, the Perth lawyers assisting them and the government. Further, in his letter to Mr Rasiah dated 8 June 2005, the practitioner stated that the question of obtaining funding was extremely sensitive and was required to be handled quietly and in confidence. It ought not, he believed, be played out in public. Yet the practitioner was here publishing the existence of letters requesting financial assistance] [The draft letter had been received by the practitioner and an explanation sought of its contents before the figures were to be put forward to the government. It was treated by the practitioner, as he explained in evidence, as a draft, unsigned and undated letter. The final letter, signed and dated, did not pursue the request for an amount for lobbying. That is where the matter might have rested.]

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 1

[The State Tribunal]

[This supports the inference we make that there was a measure of reconstruction in the practitioner‟s evidence concerning his conversation with Ms Munro.]

[We do not think any of the disclosures were made in Ms Corby’s best interests or that the practitioner believed they were.]

[We reject the practitioner‟s assertion that these statements were in Ms Corby’s interests or were not detrimental to her. We think they were detrimental to her interests.]

[Worse, he conducted his personal dispute with Mr Rasiah through the press in a manner that was highly prejudicial to Ms Corby’s interests.]

[The starting point in considering this issue must be the situation of Ms Corby, suffering both physical deprivation and the prospect of life in an Indonesian jail and dependent, for some possible relief, upon the success of her appeal. We think that a responsible barrister would have been acutely aware of these facts and conducted themselves accordingly.]

It should also be noted that many of Trowell‟s media comments were made to a particular journalist, Steve Pennells. Pennells‟ long term record, with respect to Schapelle Corby related stories, is considered by many observers to be extremely hostile, and he has been referred to in letters of complaint to the Press Council.

The tribunal commented on Pennells as follows: [Mr Pennells‟ witness statement on the subject is difficult to follow. He gives a generalised account of his conversation with the practitioner (at [15]) followed by a more detailed and rather different version (at [18] - [24])]

In all cases, the full findings, produced in Appendix B, should be read for correct context.

Appendix A provides an independent insight into the proceedings by a highly respected barrister, Stephen Warne.

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 2

[The Outcome]

4. THE OUTCOME MARK TROWELL Given the potential impact upon the welfare of a human being, it would be reasonable to expect that the West Australian State Administrative Tribunal would use the full extent of its powers in terms of sanction. This is particularly the case given some of the damning statements they made above.

However, in view of his "impressive array of references", and similar, he was simply “reprimanded�.

SCHAPELLE CORBY Schapelle Corby is more than seven years into her twenty year sentence in an Indonesian prison.

She is now seriously mentally ill.

THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT Throughout the appeal process, the government successfully avoided fresh scrutiny of the situation at Australian airports, including the wide scale corruption, and the role of the Australian Federal Police.

Through proactive management, they also prevented a re-occurrence of the destabilization of their relationship with Indonesia.

Expendable.TV

Page 4 - 1

[Appendix A]

APPENDIX A

Expendable.TV

Page A - 1

[Appendix A]

Another Case About One Of Schapelle Corby’s Lawyers

Stephen Warne, Barrister th

5 May 2009

From The Australian Professional Liability Blog (www.lawyerslawyer.net)

Expendable.TV

Page A - 2

[Appendix A]

I have previously expressed my disquiet about the Western Australian QC who told the Australian media that Schapelle Corby‟s lawyers were trying to bribe the judges hearing her case. It seems the Bureau de Spanque de l‟Australie de l‟Ouest had in fact got right onto it, initiating an own motion investigation. The resultant prosecution has only just now, almost four years later, ground to a successful halt, with a 60,000 word decision crafted by WA‟s State Administrative Tribunal over the six months during which the decision was reserved. The case is Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee v Mark T QC [2009] WASAT 42. The QC does not come out of it well.

In barest outline, the facts (not all of which I have taken from the reasons) were as follows. The QC had links with the Liberal party which was, of course, in government throughout the Schapelle Corby affair. He had contacts with the Indonesian legal system. In March 2005, the Attorney-General asked the QC if he could do what he could to assist Ms Corby whose legal team was already being paid for by the Australian government. She already had Queensland solicitors acting for her, or holding themselves out as acting for her. In particular, Robyn Tampoe of Hoolihans, who would later refer to the Corbys as „the biggest pile of trash I have ever come across in my life‟, and a Balinese firm, Lily Sri Rahayu Lubis S H & Associates. Irwin Siregar, who did a lot of the advocacy, was not of the firm; he was seconded to it. One member of her Indonesian legal team was a non-lawyer, Vasu Rasiah, styled as „case coordinator‟.

The timing of the government‟s request to the QC is fascinating. Robin Tampoe and that other great character who passed through Camp Corby, Ron Bakir, met with Alexander Downer on 5 March 2005. Perhaps, having met with Tampoe and Bakir, Downer could see into the future and thought that Schapelle, and the government, and Australia, needed help.

According to Tony Wilson‟s book Schapelle; The Facts, the Evidence, the Truth(New Holland, 2008), the QC was responsible for the introduction of Sydney-educated Paris Hotman Hutapea to Camp Corby, but the State Administrative Tribunal found that the Hotman had volunteered his services pro bono, having heard the Australian government had enlisted two top QCs. Hotman has a refreshingly direct appraisal of the world‟s lawyers, telling the ‟7.30 Report‟: „So I‟m not Mr Clean, but for this case temporarily I am clean. … There is no lawyer in the world is clean. All the lawyer usually hypocrisy help and I try to reduce my hypocrisy a little bit. If you keep saying Australian lawyer, American lawyer they are all clean, that‟s totally bullshit.‟

Expendable.TV

Page A - 3

[Appendix A]

The QC enlisted another QC and a junior. The Balinese lawyers did not provide the kind of welcome the Australians were expecting, and did not provide the relevant papers in a timely fashion. In frustration, the QC turned to the Australian media, and made various statements, and therein lies the controversy. He told a journalist that had Ms Corby been assisted by „better quality people‟, he and they might have been able to get some evidence from the Australian government which would have helped Ms Corby‟s appeal. But most significantly, in June 2005 (just a couple of months after delivering a paper to the 19th Biennial Conference of LAWASIA on „The Media and the Criminal Law‟), he told the West Australian„s Steve Pennells that the Balinese lawyers were unprepared for the appeal, should have spent more time preparing and (ironically) less time holding press conferences, and that Rasiah had approached him several times with a view to procuring a half million dollar bribe for the judges from the Australian government (a more precise version of the statements is at para 431 of the decision).

The result was that:

‟433 The allegation of the possible use of bribery in the Corby proceedings caused something of a sensation in the Australian media and, as there reported, in Indonesia. Over the following week the story with various follow-up comments was published in various media outlets in Australia. These included reports in which Mr Rasiah denied that the request for $500,000 was for bribery, [Jakarta advocate Paris Hotman] Hutapea said that he had warned the [QC] against making the allegation and (separately) the allegation might result in an increase in Ms Corby‟s punishment, Ms Corby had „sacked‟ her Bali legal team although subsequently reinstating part of the team and Ms Corby‟s mother said that rather than helping her daughter, the practitioner was making things worse.‟

Whether or not a result of the comments of the QC, Ms Corby would go on to criticise Mr Rasiah in her autobiography, leading to threats of yet more confidences being spilt.

The QC‟s evidence, described on one occasion by the Tribunal as „incredible‟, was that he was no more than a messenger between the federal government and Camp Corby. Indeed, the QC „said in effect that in the event of a conflict between what he regarded as the interests of the government and of Ms Corby‟s interests, the government‟s interests had to prevail.‟ The other Western Australian barristers involved adopted similar positions. The Tribunal was critical of all of the barristers‟ evidence. For example, it said:

Expendable.TV

Page A - 4

[Appendix A]

‟131 We make some general observations on the reliability of the practitioner‟s evidence. The practitioner has had three years to reflect on the events. As a senior barrister closely involved in the preparation of his defence, as we infer, and the tactics of defending the application (some evidence of which was revealed in Mr Percy‟s interview with the LPCC‟s principal legal officer mentioned below), the practitioner knew precisely the „critical path‟ of the LPCC‟s case as formulated and the points at which his evidence would be critical to its outcome. It is noticeable that the changes between his response letter and his later pleadings and witness statement are almost uniformly directed at diminishing the prospect of Ms Corby being his client rather than simply providing a fuller account of the events. There is support for our view, albeit subtle, in the difference in tone, as well as content, between the practitioner‟s response letter, which reflects a measure of concern as to his conduct, and his witness statement, being his revised version of events, which does not. Further, as the practitioner himself expressed, he ultimately felt aggrieved and galled at the outcome of his involvement in the Corby matter. We think that whilst initially the practitioner was flattered to be involved in this high profile case at the request of the Commonwealth government and, to an extent, sought out and enjoyed the media attention, the end result was he was trenchantly criticised by Ms Corby‟s family and in the media generally and faced an inquiry from the LPCC. This sense of being badly treated was reflected in a number of outbursts in his evidence, for example in answers in relation to his press release and as to the costs he bore himself in visiting Ms Corby in Bali. We think these considerations may well have, in a subtle way, affected his evidence.‟

The Tribunal found that, from the outset, he was, as the QC well knew, no mere go between, and that, consistently with what the government was saying about the task it had given him at the time,

„there was an informal arrangement reached between the practitioner and the government. This included, so far as the practitioner understood, that the practitioner in his capacity as a Queen‟s Counsel specialising in criminal law would, at the government‟s request, on a pro bono basis, offer legal advice and assistance to Ms Corby directly or by her Bali legal team, including (after her conviction) in relation to her appeal. It was understood that the services would include facilitating the provision of evidence that might be requested of the government.‟

In fact, the Tribunal found it significant that the QC had complained to the press about being treated like nothing more than a conduit to the government. As a Steve Pennells article quoted him:

Expendable.TV

Page A - 5

[Appendix A]

„”They‟ve never really given us any part to play in their appeal other than being a conduit to the government,” he said. “I‟m disappointed for Schapelle Corby. “There is an expectation in the Australian community that Australian lawyers would have some part to play. And that was the government‟s expectation as well. That‟s obviously why they approached us.” Mr [T QC] and fellow Perth QC Tom Percy had offered to work on Corby‟s case pro bono after being asked to lend their expertise on the appeal. Mr [T QC] said yesterday that the pair had not played much of a role so far and questioned what more they could do when they were not being included in the legal discussions. … “But at no time have we seen any draft appeal grounds. More importantly, we haven‟t seen any transcript of proceedings, in English or Indonesian.” Mr [T QC] criticised the legal team‟s handling of its request last Friday for information from the Australian government to help the case, saying it was made at the last minute and was a rehash of a former request which Corby‟s lawyers knew the government could not deliver. “My criticism is of not being prepared,” he said. “They should be spending more time preparing the appeal than holding press conferences in Jakarta with soapie starlets.”

The Tribunal found that a lawyer client relationship arose when the QC met Ms Corby on 6 June 2005:

1.

‘Ms Corby requested to see the practitioner or Mr Percy in their capacity as Queen’s Counsel;

2.

the practitioner and Mr Laskaris attended in their capacity as Queen’s Counsel and junior at

Ms Corby’s specific request, and pursuant also to a request from the Attorney General for the practitioner to offer whatever legal assistance to Ms Corby he could including in relation to her appeal; 3.

given the presence of the Australian barristers and their ‘client’, the Australian Vice-Consul

deemed it appropriate to and did wait outside during the conference; 4.

the meeting took a substantial time, in the order of two hours;

5.

the practitioner advised Ms Corby that he and Mr Laskaris had met with the Bali legal team

on the Friday to discuss her appeal and with her family on the Saturday and had conveyed to the family the practitioner’s offer to assist Ms Corby; 6.

there was a discussion and an acknowledgment that the practitioner could not represent her

in an Indonesian court in relation to her appeal – that is, in Indonesia; 7.

the practitioner in effect agreed to provide his legal services on a pro bono basis generally to

the extent he was able to assist in relation to the grounds of appeal and specifically with respect to requests from the Bali legal team as to evidence that the Australian government might provide;

Expendable.TV

Page A - 6

[Appendix A]

8.

the practitioner discussed the various anti-Indonesian incidents which had taken place in

Australia and the potential for this to damage her prospects on appeal; 9.

the practitioner provided specific advice in relation to her appeal in respect of not dismissing

her Bali legal team, engaging counsel from Jakarta and as to an appropriate public message to her supporters; 10.

Ms Corby discussed with the practitioner that she felt pressured and under duress by the Bali

legal team in signing media rights in relation to her story; 11.

the practitioner otherwise agreed in effect to provide his legal services generally on a pro

bono basis to do anything which he thought might protect and advance her interests; and 12.

the practitioner made no statement to the effect that he could not offer legal advice or

assistance.

354 On that basis we find on the balance of probabilities, having regard toBriginshaw, that in the course of the meeting on 6 June 2005 there came into existence between the practitioner and Ms Corby the relationship of barrister and client. In that respect, Ms Corby retained the practitioner both in respect of the advice and assistance he gave at the meeting and in respect of the ongoing advice he offered generally and in relation to her appeal.‟

The Tribunal found that the QC had engaged in „unprofessional conduct‟ (the sole species of conduct warranting discipline in Western Australia) in making the disclosures. The Tribunal‟s exposition of the law of professional confidentiality is set out separately in this post. According to the media, however, the QC was reprimanded and not fined. Its reasons for finding that the QC‟s media statements amounted to unprofessional conduct were:

„Ms Corby’s informed consent 393 The LPCC‟s case is that Ms Corby did not give her informed consent to disclosure of any of the identified statements for the purposes either of the confidence rule or the statements to the media rule.

394 … the consent required under both rules is „informed consent‟. … That does not preclude the possibility of an implied authorisation by the client, for instance, in relation to the Bali legal team discussing the grounds of appeal with the Perth barristers or the Perth barristers discussing the appeal between themselves.

Expendable.TV

Page A - 7

[Appendix A]

395 The practitioner submits that each of the statements complained of was made with Ms Corby‟s implied consent. This is on the basis that at their meeting on 6 June 2005, Ms Corby requested of the practitioner that he do whatever he judged to be in her best interests, and in particular anything which he thought might prevent her from being prejudiced by the actions of, in particular, Mr Rasiah.

Specifically, the practitioner says he disclosed certain information because he thought it was in her best interests that he do so:

1.

his criticism of delays in her appeal was made with the object of these being more

expeditiously prosecuted and to make clear that the delay was not her fault, and 2.

to publicly distance Ms Corby from the bribery allegation.

…

397 It is not obvious that Ms Corby‟s instruction to the practitioner authorised in advance statements to the media about her appeal. Statements to the public at large are not generally regarded as the appropriate way of protecting a person‟s interests. In any event, the notion of informed consent requires or suggests that the client know in advance the content of the proposed disclosure. Here that was not the case.

398 In considering this issue, it is to be remembered that on his evidence the practitioner, in error, on our finding, did not regard Ms Corby as his client. We think his motivation generally in making the statements to the media was the interests of the government and (regrettably) publicising his own personal role and conducting his dispute with Mr Rasiah. At one point the practitioner was asked in cross-examination whether before making a media comment he had made any attempt to contact Ms Corby or her Queensland solicitors. The response was „She wasn‟t my client … I was entitled to make any comments I chose. There was no reason to consult her.‟ At a later point in his evidence, when questioned by the Tribunal about this statement in his evidence, the practitioner said in effect that in the event of a conflict between what he regarded as the interests of the government and of Ms Corby‟s interests, the government‟s interests had to prevail.

399 We bear this evidence in mind in our approach to the issue whether the practitioner, in making the disclosures, believed he was acting in Ms Corby‟s interests.

Expendable.TV

Page A - 8

[Appendix A]

Approach to the issue …

401 We consider each of the statements the subject of these disclosures. We address in turn:

1.

whether the practitioner made the statement or the substance of the statement to the

media; 2.

whether the statement was otherwise in the public domain (relevant only to the

gravity of the disclosure); 3.

whether the statement comprised information confidential to Ms Corby; and

4.

whether the statement was made with Ms Corby’s informed consent (as being in her

best interests). … [the fourth statement was discussed]

412 We do not think any of the disclosures were made in Ms Corby‟s best interests. Exposing delays on the part of the Bali legal team in getting out the appeal grounds could not assist her. Publishing statements criticising the performance of the Bali legal team was more likely to have distracted them from their task and provided encouragement to the prosecution defending her appeal. In his evidence concerning expressions of support for Ms Corby‟s legal team made immediately after his visit on 6 June 2005, the practitioner admitted as much. In explaining that no one else was in a position to conduct her appeal, he said there was therefore a need to „keep up appearances‟. To the extent the practitioner was concerned at the Bali legal team‟s delay, the appropriate course was to write privately to them about this. Conducting an argument with, or as he said „putting pressure on‟, the Bali legal team through the medium of the press appeared to us ineffectual (given the previous public dispute between Mr Rasiah and the practitioner it was unlikely to be productive), inappropriate and improper. It is nonsense to suggest it helped Ms Corby by distancing her from the work of her Bali lawyers. Nor do we see any advantage to Ms Corby in the practitioner publishing the existence and content of the draft and final letters. These requests for finance and assistance with the evidence were matters for private consideration by the Bali legal team, the Perth lawyers assisting them and the government. Further, in his letter to Mr Rasiah dated 8 June 2005, the practitioner stated that the question of obtaining funding was extremely sensitive and was required to be handled quietly and in confidence. It ought not, he believed, be played out in public. Yet the practitioner was here publishing the existence of letters requesting financial assistance.

Expendable.TV

Page A - 9

[Appendix A]

As was put to the practitioner in cross-examination, the reference to the draft letter including a request for financial assistance which was subsequently omitted, was likely to arouse the suspicion of the media.

The draft letter had been received by the practitioner and an explanation sought of its contents before the figures were to be put forward to the government. It was treated by the practitioner, as he explained in evidence, as a draft, unsigned and undated letter. The final letter, signed and dated, did not pursue the request for an amount for lobbying. That is where the matter might have rested. At this point, there was no evidence, beyond the practitioner‟s faint suggestion, that the journalists at the time were aware of Mr Rasiah‟s request for bribe money. Neither was there any credible evidence that Mr Rasiah was continuing to pursue a claim for bribe moneys from the government. The practitioner‟s stated concerns about Mr Rasiah „teeing up‟ bribes with the High Court judges had not been mentioned in his response letter nor his witness statement and appeared speculative. This supports the inference we make that there was a measure of reconstruction in the practitioner‟s evidence concerning his conversation with Ms Munro.

413 To the extent the practitioner claims he believed that these disclosures were in Ms Corby‟s best interests or were not detrimental to her interests, we reject that evidence. When asked whether the practitioner considered the effect on Ms Corby of his disclosing the draft letter and the suggestion from Mr Rasiah, the practitioner answered by reference to the consequences if it had been disclosed that bribes had been paid or that Mr Rasiah had approached the High Court with that in mind. The practitioner then said he had „never mentioned the bribe‟ as such. The difficulty with this evidence is that there was never a prospect of the government paying money for bribes nor any evidence of Mr Rasiah „teeing up the judges‟. For all these reasons we find that the practitioner never turned his mind to the consequences for Ms Corby. We think it was detrimental to Ms Corby‟s interests to reveal these matters at all and particularly to hint at a suggestion of impropriety in relation to a request for financial assistance by a member of her Bali team.

414 We find that this disclosure and the statements to the media were made by the practitioner without Ms Corby‟s informed consent.

… [the fifth diclosure was discussed]

Expendable.TV

Page A - 10

[Appendix A]

We make similar findings as for the previous disclosure. There is no evidence that any of the matters the subject of these statements was (except through the practitioner) in the public domain. We regard each of these statements as comprising matters confidential to Ms Corby. We do not think any of the disclosures were made in Ms Corby‟s best interests or that the practitioner believed they were. Neither do we accept, as the practitioner claimed in re-examination that, as he believed, they were not detrimental to her interests. The reference to the draft letter being „not appropriate‟ could only continue to arouse suspicion. We do not think the practitioner turned his mind to whether these disclosures affected Ms Corby‟s interests.

419 We find that this disclosure and the statements to the media were made by the practitioner without Ms Corby‟s informed consent.

… [the sixth disclosure was discussed]

423 As before, our findings are that there is no evidence that any of the matters referred to in these statements was in the public domain, other than through the practitioner. We regard each of these statements as being confidential to Ms Corby. We reject the practitioner‟s assertion that these statements were in Ms Corby‟s interests or were not detrimental to her. We think they were detrimental to her interests. We do not think the practitioner turned his mind to whether these disclosures affected Ms Corby‟s interests. We think the inference to be drawn from the fact that the practitioner was making the same or similar statements to the press on a near daily basis was that, to some extent at least, as the LPCC contended, he courted media attention for its own sake.

424 Having regard to the content of the statements and generally we again do not think this disclosure and statements to the media were relevantly made with Ms Corby‟s informed consent.

Seventh disclosure: statements published on 14 June 2005 – journalist Steve Pennells

425 The complaint is that on about 13 June 2005 the practitioner made the following statements to journalist Steve Pennells which were published on 14 June 2005: 1. The Indonesian legal team were unprepared for the appeal; 2. They [Mr Percy and the practitioner] still had not seen a draft of the appeal grounds or been given any indication of what arguments might be presented;

Expendable.TV

Page A - 11

[Appendix A]

3. He had not been provided with a transcript of the proceedings; [He had not seen a transcript of the proceedings.]

1. The Indonesian legal team request for information from the Australian government was made at the last moment and was a rehash of a former request which the Indonesian lawyers knew the government could not deliver; and 2. The Indonesian lawyers should have spent more time preparing the appeal and had wasted time holding press conferences.

426 … The practitioner explained in re-examination that the last statement concerned Mr Hutapea holding a press conference with a „soapie starlet.‟ This was apparently a television exercise with a view to encouraging public support for Ms Corby‟s case in Indonesia.

…

429 As before, our findings are that there is no evidence that any of the matters referred to in these statements was in the public domain, other than through the practitioner. We regard each of these statements as being confidential to Ms Corby and their disclosure detrimental to her interests. We do not think the practitioner turned his mind to whether these disclosures were in Ms Corby‟s best interests. The view concerning how the Bali legal team had wasted time seems to us unconstructive and provocative.

430 We find this disclosure and the statements to the media were made by the practitioner without Ms Corby‟s informed consent.

Eighth disclosure: statements published on 23 June 2005 – journalist Steve Pennells

431 On 22 June 2005, the practitioner had a further conversation with journalist Steve Pennells. The following statements were reported in an article on 23 June 2005: 1. the practitioner believed that Ms Corby‟s Indonesian legal team had given consideration to using bribery to attempt to secure success in Ms Corby‟s appeal; [Mr Rasiah had given consideration to using bribery and Ms Corby had no knowledge of that, or of any request for money for a bribe, or any proposal to attempt to bribe];

Expendable.TV

Page A - 12

[Appendix A]

1. Mr Rasiah had provided a draft letter for the Australian government which included a request for an amount of $500,000 for lobbying; [Mr Rasiah had produced a draft letter which included a request for the Australian government to provide $500,000]; 1. the practitioner was of the view that the request in the draft letter for $500,000 was for bribes for judges; and 2. when Mr Rasiah passed the final version of the request to the practitioner for on-forwarding to the Australian government the request for $500,000 had been removed.

432 The statements are admitted except, with respect to the first two paragraphs, that they were in the form in brackets. We accept the practitioner‟s evidence in this respect.

433 The allegation of the possible use of bribery in the Corby proceedings caused something of a sensation in the Australian media and, as there reported, in Indonesia. Over the following week the story with various follow-up comments was published in various media outlets in Australia. These included reports in which Mr Rasiah denied that the request for $500,000 was for bribery, Mr Hutapea said that he had warned the practitioner against making the allegation and (separately) the allegation might result in an increase in Ms Corby‟s punishment, Ms Corby had „sacked‟ her Bali legal team although subsequently reinstating part of the team and Ms Corby‟s mother said that rather than helping her daughter, the practitioner was making things worse.

434 In his witness statement and response letter, the practitioner states that on the same day but prior to his conversation with Mr Pennells, he had spoken to another journalist Nick Butterly. Mr Butterly had telephoned to advise that he had written a story to appear in his newspaper based on a conversation with Mr Rasiah, in which Mr Rasiah had admitted asking for $500,000 for lobbying but denied that it was to bribe judges. The practitioner says he made no response. It was however clear to him that Mr Butterly was aware of the contents of the draft letter. It followed that, in the practitioner‟s view, other members of the media might also be aware of the draft letter.

Expendable.TV

Page A - 13

[Appendix A]

435 The practitioner says his views were confirmed when Mr Pennells spoke to him later in the evening of 22 June 2005. As described in his response letter the practitioner says that Mr Pennells told him that Mr Rasiah had asserted that he had never made any request of the Australian government through the practitioner for money to bribe judges. Mr Pennells asked the practitioner to confirm whether Mr Rasiah‟s explanation was true. The practitioner said that he was not prepared to be untruthful about the matter and to be involved in any cover-up in respect of what he believed to be a criminal enterprise to bribe judges of the High Court of Bali. The practitioner told Mr Pennells that Mr Rasiah‟s assertion was untrue and relayed briefly the substance of his conversations with Mr Rasiah. He also told Mr Pennells that these activities of Mr Rasiah were not undertaken with the knowledge of Ms Corby, nor were they countenanced by Ms Corby‟s legal team. In his response letter the practitioner acknowledged that the substance of his comments to Mr Pennells were reflected in the article.

436 Mr Pennells‟ witness statement on the subject is difficult to follow. He gives a generalised account of his conversation with the practitioner (at [15]) followed by a more detailed and rather different version (at [18] - [24]). The explanation for the variance is no doubt because, as he acknowledges, after this length of time his recollection of events surrounding the story was not good. He says he cannot recall how much information he had before the phone call to the practitioner and how much he got from the practitioner, but if the practitioner did not provide the information then he at least confirmed it. He is confident however that the words in the article he put in quotations were those of the practitioner, with the possible exception of the word „lobbying‟. Mr Pennells says that he rang the practitioner once or possibly twice on the evening. Adopting his generalised account, his evidence was that he had some knowledge involving Mr Percy and the practitioner to the effect that the Indonesian lawyers, „especially Vasu Rasiah‟ asked for money from the Australian government for bribes. He put to the practitioner something along the lines that he understood there was a bribe or two made, he understood the practitioner was party to it or a conduit to it and was that correct. Mr Pennells says that the practitioner „confirmed it‟ and he quoted „pretty much what [the practitioner] said‟ in the article. He „used pretty much every quote he gave me‟. Mr Pennells says he also spoke to Mr Rasiah and put the allegation to him and that „he denied it flatly and said the money was requested for a public relations campaign‟.

Expendable.TV

Page A - 14

[Appendix A]

437 There was tendered also a transcript of the LPCC interview of Mr Pennells. This is broadly consistent with his witness statement. What emerges additionally from this document is that prior to his conversation, Mr Pennells was aware of a request for $500,000 and that there was a suspicion that this was for bribes. He believed he had learned from Mr Rasiah of Mr Rasiah‟s request for $500,000. He had learnt from the practitioner that there was a draft letter. He told the practitioner they were running the story anyway that the government had been approached for money, and he could confirm or deny this.

When he put the allegation to Mr Rasiah he had denied this and said the amount sought was for public relations or something like that. He may have rung the practitioner back after that. He believed from his conversation with the practitioner he had now got „hard evidence‟ of a request for bribe money as opposed to rumour.

438 The practitioner … acknowledged that in fact no request for bribe money had been made to the Australian government by way of the draft letter because he had not passed on the draft letter. He was asked why he did not tell that to Mr Pennells or why he did not do as Senator Ellison had done and confirm that the government had not received a request for lobbying or for other purposes and would have rejected such a request. The practitioner quarrelled with the question and did not answer it. As regards the Minister, what the Minister said was literally true but he was aware of the request (because the practitioner had orally advised his staff of it) and he could not speak for him. He emphasised that Mr Pennells had said he was going to run the story with or without the practitioner‟s version. The practitioner disclosed what he did in order to protect his own position, the government‟s position and Ms Corby‟s position. He could not be „untruthful‟ and needed to make the disclosure to protect the integrity of the government, himself and Ms Corby who knew nothing about it. He was asked by the Tribunal whether the effect of what he said was to convert a possible rumour of a bribe attempt into the fact of that. The practitioner said he believed that Mr Pennells had sufficient material to run with the story of a bribe attempt. It was put by Mr Hall that what he had told Mr Pennells became the story. The practitioner thought the journalist may have bluffed him but he had a fair idea what the situation was.

He said he had made it a pre-condition to agreeing to talk to Mr Pennells that he report that Ms Corby was not involved in the attempt. As the LPCC points out, that evidence of a condition was not part of either his response letter nor his witness statement, both of which deal specifically with the subject of Ms Corby‟s lack of knowledge. He referred to Mr Davies‟ account of his conversation with Mr Rasiah at the bar on 10 June 2005 and his fear that Mr Rasiah would approach the judges and „tee them up‟ for the bribes and then ask the government for the money.

Expendable.TV

Page A - 15

[Appendix A]

We think that evidence of both these matters is unsatisfactory for reasons given. Then, „that would have been fatal to her because the money would not have been forthcoming‟. This is a curious suggestion given the practitioner‟s assertion that the Bali judges were not open to corruption. He said Mr Pennells had put to him that the bribe had taken place and that the practitioner was party to it. He regarded himself as in an enormous dilemma and that he had to think quickly about how he was going to respond.

He was not going to be untruthful about it because that would have been a disaster for everybody.

439 When asked about a subsequent report disclosing that Ms Corby had sacked her Bali legal team, the practitioner said in evidence he welcomed the news that she had got rid of the „crooks and charlatans‟ that surrounded her. Asked whether he saw this as a potential benefit of his statements to Mr Pennells, the practitioner said: „I don‟t know now. I just don‟t know.‟ He then said he did not think he made his decision because of an objective to damage Mr Rasiah or to attack the Bali legal team. It was clear from his answers that the practitioner could not say with any conviction that this was not his motive at the time. When asked by the Deputy President whether the disclosure was an escalation of his disagreement with Mr Rasiah, the practitioner answered by reference to the informal conversation between Mr Davies and Mr Rasiah on 10 June 2005. We consider this issue of motive below.

440 We accept that the practitioner felt himself under some pressure when confronted by the journalists about whether there had been a bribe attempt. We also note that the practitioner, questioned by the Deputy President, acknowledged that he did not know whether he made the right decision or not in making the disclosure to Mr Pennells. We are conscious also of Mr McCusker‟s caution that, with the benefit of hindsight, we categorise as unprofessional conduct that which may have been an understandable error of judgment.

441 Our sympathies are limited however. [I have altered the formatting of this paragraph.]

First, we think much of the practitioner‟s dilemma as to how to answer was of his own making. He had generally made himself available to the media to discuss the Corby matter. More directly, he had put out that there was an inappropriate draft letter from Mr Rasiah which had made a claim for an item of money which was subsequently omitted.

Expendable.TV

Page A - 16

[Appendix A]

Second, by this date the appeal had been lodged. Any further assistance the practitioner could give was, it appears, in relation to assisting in obtaining additional evidence. The government had apparently decided not to take Mr Rasiah‟s suggestion of a bribe any further. There seems to us no obvious reason why the practitioner needed to contribute to the subject.

Third, a related point, we think that in the circumstances there was no imperative to provide a detailed account to Mr Pennells of Mr Rasiah‟s suggestion of payment of bribe money. To the extent he was pressed on the matter he could simply have declined to comment as he did with Mr Butterly or answered briefly as the Minister subsequently did (ABC interview on 23 June 2005). At another point in his evidence the practitioner claimed he was „no stranger‟ to dealing with the media. Whatever rumours were circulating amongst journalists would have remained just that, particularly given Mr Rasiah‟s emphatic denial of any claim by him for money for bribery. Mr Pennells‟ evidence suggests that it was the practitioner‟s detailed account refuting the denials of Mr Rasiah‟s which made the matter newsworthy. This supports the LPCC‟s submission that the better characterisation of the matter was the practitioner exposing the story rather than, as the practitioner claimed in evidence, having to defend the charge of being involved in a cover-up of it. Fourth, having reviewed the whole of the evidence it is apparent that the practitioner had formed an extremely hostile attitude toward Mr Rasiah. The manner in which the practitioner spoke about Mr Rasiah both at the time (for instance in his letter to Mr Hutapea) and before us (we have mentioned some only of these references) suggests he felt an intense personal animosity which coloured his decisions. The basis for that hostility as indicated by the practitioner‟s own statements was not just the suggestion of the government paying money for bribes but was Mr Rasiah keeping control of the case and excluding the Perth „team‟. See again his letter to Mr Huapea and his statements to the media to this effect. We have formed the view that the practitioner‟s decision progressively to disclose the bribery claim was motivated, at least in part, because of his intense dislike of Mr Rasiah. That explains why the revelation about the bribery claim went into such detail – covering the initial request, the draft letter, his refusal to convey the draft letter to the government and the subsequent omission of the request from the final letter. It also explains why instead of setting out his concerns in private correspondence with Mr Rasiah or Ms Lubis, or advising the government to take the matter up with the Indonesian authorities, the practitioner made his revelations through the press where it would have maximum impact.

Expendable.TV

Page A - 17

[Appendix A]

Finally, the practitioner had earlier been extremely critical of a Corby supporter (Mr Bakir) for his making bribery allegations. He said these might generate anti-Indonesian sentiment which could affect the mind of an Indonesian judge. The practitioner sought to distinguish those circumstances, they being false allegations, but at the least he must have known that the consequences of his disclosure would cause significant problems for the Bali legal team which could not assist Ms Corby awaiting the completion and outcome of her appeal.

442 We reject the practitioner‟s evidence that when questioned by Mr Pennells, the only options open to the practitioner were to tell him what had happened or to deceive him. We reject also his evidence that his disclosures were necessary to protect his interests, the interests of the government and Ms Corby.

The practitioner might have declined to comment in relation to the matter. It is not as if he or the government had anything to hide. The practitioner had rejected the suggestion of money for bribery from the outset and acting on his belief of the real nature of the claim for lobbying and the status of the draft letter had refrained from passing it on. There is no evidence that Ms Corby knew of the suggestion.

No-one, not the Bali legal team nor the government, had any interest in revealing Mr Rasiah‟s suggestion, but had the issue somehow opened up or been investigated, those facts would have emerged.

As regards the written records, the facts were that the practitioner had received a draft letter making a request for funds including an amount for lobbying. This had not been passed on to the government pending clarification. When the final letter was received it had omitted the request for an amount for lobbying. To the extent it was necessary to mention any of this (and we do not think it was) the practitioner might have confined himself to that. There could be no criticism of his conduct or that of the government or Ms Corby in these circumstances. We think that position would have best served Ms Corby‟s interests.

443 We reject also the assertion that the practitioner was under a professional duty to „tell the truth‟ concerning the bribe allegations. To the extent the government or the practitioner had thought it necessary to reveal Mr Rasiah‟s suggestion, there were appropriate ways the practitioner might have gone about this. Publication to the press was not one of them.

444 The only redeeming feature of the incident is that the practitioner did at least endeavour to protect Ms Corby and her family by stating that they were unaware of the bribery allegations.

Expendable.TV

Page A - 18

[Appendix A]

445 We find that these statements were not in the public domain. We find further that they did comprise matters confidential to Ms Corby and that disclosure was contrary to her interests. That she may not have known about Mr Rasiah‟s suggestion that the government provide money for bribing the judges is not to the point. Lawyers for a client will often discuss matters and tactics relating to the case without the client‟s express knowledge or involvement, acknowledging that these strategies will rarely involve that under consideration. However misconceived the bribery proposal may have been, it was one on its face made to the knowledge of the Bali legal team and pursued by Mr Rasiah on behalf of and in the interests of Ms Corby. We reject the practitioner‟s suggestion at one point in his evidence that the suggestion was made for Mr Rasiah‟s own purposes; that is the money would not have been used for Ms Corby‟s benefit. There was no evidence to support that suggestion and, given the source of the funds, it seems inherently unlikely. We find the statements were not made in Ms Corby‟s best interests and neither was this the practitioner‟s motivation in making the disclosure.

446 We find that the practitioner made this disclosure and the statements to the media without Ms Corby‟s informed consent.

Unprofessional conduct

447 The remaining issue is whether the making of the statements in the circumstances constituted unprofessional conduct. That is, whether the practitioner‟s conduct, as found, to a substantial degree fell short of the standard of professional conduct observed or approved by members of the legal profession of good repute and competence.

448 The findings we have made concerning the making of the statements and the circumstances of and motivation for their making, leads irresistibly to our finding that the practitioner was guilty of unprofessional conduct in relation both to the disclosure of confidential information and in making statements to the media. Whilst it may have been the case that the making of an individual statement might not have constituted unprofessional conduct, when the statements are taken as a whole and the circumstances of their making is considered it is clear that the practitioner was guilty of a serious breach of professional conduct.

Expendable.TV

Page A - 19

[Appendix A]

449 The circumstances relevant to this finding in summary are as follows:

1. Ms Corby was from 6 June 2005 the client of the practitioner. He ought to have appreciated this fact given the circumstances of their meeting as we have found. To the extent he did not, he should at the least have considered this possibility and refrained from making statements to the media or sought her informed consent to do so if satisfied they were otherwise in her best interests; 2. in their meeting of 6 June 2005, the practitioner and Ms Corby agreed a form of words for release to the media of matters which were of direct and immediate concern to Ms Corby and which, because they were of a general nature and intended for the Australian public, were justifiably made through the media. The practitioner ought to have sought her agreement before proposing to make further statements to the media. To the extent there were practical difficulties in directly doing so, he might have sought her approval through her Bali legal team or through her family who were in constant touch with her. It is of interest that in his letter dated 21 June 2005 to Mr Hutapea, the practitioner in effect sought his permission to the practitioner making a further media statement relating to the appeal (that only Mr Hutapea and Mr Siregar handle the appeal); 3. the statements made fall into two main groups. The first group comprise criticism of the Bali legal team for: 4. a. delays in providing a transcript of the trial and reasons, the draft grounds of appeal and requests for (inappropriate) evidence; b. not making the best use of the experience and skills offered; and c. spending insufficient time on the appeal.

The appropriate course for a responsible barrister in the practitionerâ€&#x;s position believing there were these problems which were capable of redress was to have written to the Bali legal team and made known these concerns. If there were difficulties in doing so because the criticism was directed at the Bali legal team, he might have sought to raise them with Ms Corby or her family.

To publish these statements to the media was detrimental to Ms Corby because it appeared to demonstrate a failure on the part of her Bali lawyers and a weakness in their preparation of her appeal. As the practitioner said in effect in his evidence, there was little point in criticising the Bali legal team because no-one else was in a position to take over and prepare the appeal. These statements may have provided comfort to the prosecutors defending the appeal. It was likely to distract the Bali legal team from their task and make it less likely they would include the Perth

Expendable.TV

Page A - 20

[Appendix A]

team in assisting with the grounds of appeal. It is far from clear that the statements promoted the government‟s interests, although the practitioner claimed they did by anticipating the Bali legal team‟s attack on the government. We think the motivation for these public statements was in part the pursuit of the practitioner‟s dispute with the Bali legal team and in particular Mr Rasiah, and the practitioner‟s interest in promoting himself in the media as an expert, approached by the government, whose pro bono services were not being availed of; 1. the second group of statements either foreshadowed or constituted the bribery claim. For reasons given above, we reject the practitioner‟s claim that this was disclosure made in Ms Corby‟s interests. We do not think there was any credible evidence that after 10 June 2005 (the delivery of the final letter to the government) Mr Rasiah was seriously pursuing money for bribery from the government. We do not think the journalists‟ possible story of a bribery claim, rejected by Mr Rasiah, would have had any or sufficient foundation but for the practitioner‟s progressive revelation of the details of Mr Rasiah‟s suggestion. Again, we have doubts whether they promoted the government‟s interests, although the practitioner claimed they did by anticipating a suggestion that the government was the recipient of a request for money for bribery. We again think the motivation for these public statements was in part the pursuit of the practitioner‟s dispute with Mr Rasiah; and 2. in the space of about 11 days the practitioner made five disclosures to the media of statements which directly concerned Ms Corby‟s appeal. They were statements as we find which were not merely of no benefit but were detrimental to the interests of a person who was in an extraordinarily vulnerable situation, and where there was no obvious benefit to the government.

450 The practitioner argued that he did not breach the requisite professional standard to the extent he believed Ms Corby was not his client and further that he made the statements believing them to be in her interests. We have dealt with the second argument. We do not accept it. As to the first, we accept the practitioner‟s evidence that he did not regard Ms Corby as his client. The basis for the practitioner‟s position appears from his evidence to have been based in part, on the fact that the government was his client and its interests may have conflicted with Ms Corby‟s. He was so certain Ms Corby was not his client he felt no need to analyse or discuss or seek advice on whether that belief was sound.

Expendable.TV

Page A - 21

[Appendix A]

451 The starting point in considering this issue must be the situation of Ms Corby, suffering both physical deprivation and the prospect of life in an Indonesian jail and dependent, for some possible relief, upon the success of her appeal. We think that a responsible barrister would have been acutely aware of these facts and conducted themself accordingly. That would require that the barrister pay very careful attention to whether they owed Ms Corby duties of confidentiality. Given that possibility existed, the practitioner ought to have erred on the side of caution and exercised great restraint in making any disclosures or, where necessary, saying anything to the media. He might have made efforts to clear any statements with Ms Corby in the manner suggested, if they were otherwise not detrimental to her position. We think the practitioner manifestly failed to exercise that level of care and restraint. Rather, he sought out media attention and disclosed confidential matters and expressed his personal opinions about her appeal with no or little regard to the consequences for Ms Corby. Worse, he conducted his personal dispute with Mr Rasiah through the press in a manner that was highly prejudicial to Ms Corby‟s interests. In these circumstances, we do not think the practitioner‟s belief that Ms Corby was not his client excuses his conduct.

452 Neither do we think that the disclosures and statements were justified to the extent the practitioner believed they were in the government‟s interest or served a political purpose for which he had been retained and were not inimical to Ms Corby‟s interests. We leave to one side the propriety of the practitioner, in the circumstances, undertaking what he called a semi-political role. In our judgment the practitioner was under an obligation to Ms Corby as his client to protect her confidences, ensure any disclosures were in her interests, and obtain her authority to make statements to the press. Put another way, whatever political or other service the practitioner regarded himself as rendering to the government, from Ms Corby‟s point of view we think she was entitled to expect that a senior counsel advising and assisting her in relation to her appeal against a life sentence would scrupulously comply with his professional obligations to protect matters confidential to her appeal and obtain her informed consent to statements made to the media.

Conclusion

453 For these reasons we find that the charge of unprofessional conduct in respect of both the disclosure of confidential information and statements to the media without the informed consent of Ms Corby as the practitioner‟s client have been made out.‟

Expendable.TV

Page A - 22

[Appendix B]

APPENDIX B

Expendable.TV

Page B - 1

[Appendix B]

The State Administrative Tribunal report can be viewed from the Expendable Library: http://www.expendable.tv/p/library.html

Or, alternatively, directly from Google Docs: http://www.expendable.tv/p/library.html

Expendable.TV

Page B - 2

Š The Hidden World Research Group

www.hiddenworldresearch.com

The Expendable Project www.expendable.tv

Strictly Confidential

Š The Hidden World Research Group

Independent Report

Misinformation and Exploitation of the White Powder Hoax

www.expendable.tv The Expendable Project

CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1.1 The Background 1.2 White Powder Hoaxes

2. Exploitation & Impact 2.1 The Government’s Reaction 2.2 Public Impact

3. Misinformation & Manipulation 3.1 The Picture 3.2 The Chronological Truth

4. Summary

[Introduction]

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 THE BACKGROUND In June 2005, in the wake of the verdict and sentence in the Bali trial, public support for Schapelle Corby was at an unprecedented level.

The public were aware of a number of the fundamental facts of the case, and thus of Schapelle Corby’s self evident innocence.

This placed the government in an extremely difficult position.

They were well aware of the many human rights abuses at the trial. They were also well aware of the systemic criminality at Australian airports, and within the AFP. As documented throughout the Expendable Project, they had also adopted a policy which ultimately entailed the withholding of vital primary evidence, the misleading of parliament, and engagement in a series of other disturbing acts which spiralled them into an abyss.

The expectation of the Australian public, that their government would act to secure the prompt release of Schapelle Corby, therefore created intense pressure.

It was also clear that changing public opinion, through media management, would not be a short term process.

However, a situation arose which they were able to exploit, and manipulate, to make dramatic inroads into altering public perception.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 1

[Introduction]

1.2 WHITE POWDER HOAXES Between 2001 and 2005 there were 360 white-powder hoaxes in Australia. On average, that is one envelope containing harmless powder every few days.

This commonplace type of incident attracts little or no comment from government, and little media interest.

On 1st June 2005, one such envelope arrived at the Indonesian embassy in Canberra: 

The note in the envelope contained no reference at all to Schapelle Corby



It was written in Bahasa, and not English.

.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 2

[Exploitation & Impact]

2. EXPLOITATION & IMPACT 2.1 THE GOVERNMENT’S REACTION The government’s reaction, however, was staggering. They seized upon it instantly.

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer referred to it during the same afternoon as “a biological agent”, and Prime Minister Howard broadly accused Schapelle Corby supporters of “murderous criminality”.

The Prime Minister’s official doorstop interview transcript is copied below:

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 1

[Exploitation & Impact]

1 June 2005

TRANSCRIPT OF THE PRIME MINISTER THE HON JOHN HOWARD MP DOORSTOP INTERVIEW, PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBERRA Subjects: Indonesian Embassy.

JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, a reaction to the incident, a scare at the Embassy this afternoon?

PRIME MINISTER: Well it’s a very serious criminal act. I want to say on behalf of the Australian Government how sorry we are that it’s occurred, it’s recklessly dangerous. It would be the first time, if the preliminary results are confirmed, that such a biological agent has been sent in Australia. It will do great damage in the eyes of many Indonesian people to the relationship between our countries, it certainly won’t help Schapelle Corby, I want to make that very clear and I plead with people if that is the motivation to think again if they really care. The Foreign Minister has spoken to the Indonesian Foreign Minister in Tokyo to convey the concern of the Government and the Foreign Minister happened to be with President Yudhoyono so he was able to convey immediately our concern, he’s appreciative of the expressions of concern and understands how aghast we are at this development. But this is a very serious development for our country and I can’t overstate the sense of concern I feel that such a recklessly criminal act should have been committed.

JOURNALIST: And you do believe that this is a result of the Corby conviction in Indonesia?

PRIME MINISTER: Well it would be a remarkable coincidence if it were not. I mean I can’t prove that. But if it is, can I say to those responsible you will not achieve your objective, quite apart from the murderous criminality of doing something like this and the indifference and contempt for human life that it displays it won’t achieve the objective, it will have the opposite effect.

JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, this definition – biological agent – I mean could this turn out to be a rather benign substance or does that definition…

PRIME MINISTER: No, the advice I have is that the definition does mean the, the reference biological agent, does not mean it’s benign.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 2

[Exploitation & Impact]

As a result of this, headlines screamed across the world that Schapelle Corby's supporters had launched a terrorist attack upon the Indonesian Embassy.

2.2 PUBLIC IMPACT The effect of this on Australian support for Schapelle Corby was immediate and devastating, as the public were alarmed at the association with terrorism.

The tone of many supportive commentators also changed dramatically.

Never again would public support for Schapelle Corby approach the levels it had prior to this series of events.

Subsequently, however, it emerged that there was a far greater degree of government pre-meditation than was clear at the time.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 3

[Misinformation & Manipulation]

3. Misinformation & Manipulation 3.1 THE PICTURE The biological attack story was false. Not only was there no evidence whatsoever to link the incident to Schapelle Corby's supporters, but the powder itself was flour.

The picture, that its exploitation had been a cynical abuse of office by the Howard government, was seen clearly by observers and media commentators alike:

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 1

[Misinformation & Manipulation]

3.2 THE CHRONOLOGICAL TRUTH More details emerged later, including the central involvement of Justice & Customs Minister Christopher Ellison in yet another disturbing incident.

The following report represents an item of investigative journalism, verified as accurate by our own researchers:

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 2

[Misinformation & Manipulation]

Mr Moore summarized his report, on his blog:

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 3

[Misinformation & Manipulation]

The actual document, sent by email to Ellison at 6:35pm on 1st June 2005, still exists:

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 4

[Misinformation & Manipulation]

Despite this originally being reported in December 2006, in the Sydney Morning Herald, no subsequent action was ever taken against Howard, Downer, Ellison or any other party.

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 5

[Summary]

4. Summary The previous section demonstrates that, not only did the Howard administration fuel and create an entirely false story, which undermined the Schapelle Corby's support movement, but they were actually in possession of written documentation which dismissed it prior to allowing it to roll around the world’s media.

They also knew that the accompanying note had made no reference to Schapelle Corby, and that it was written in Bahasa.

Perhaps even more disturbingly, the Australian regime persistently linked Schapelle Corby with Australian hostility in messages to Indonesia. The following cable was sent on 31st May 2005, the day before the PowderGate incident:

Expendable.TV

Page 4 - 1

[Summary]

This politically motivated abuse of position was extremely successful. Pressure on the Australian government receded significantly, with immediate effect. Support for Schapelle Corby has never recovered to its prior levels.

Expendable.TV

Page 4 - 2

Š The Hidden World Research Group

www.hiddenworldresearch.com

The Expendable Project www.expendable.tv

Strictly Confidential

Š The Hidden World Research Group

Schapelle Corby The Role Of The Integrity Commissioner And The Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI)

An Independent Report

The Expendable Project www.expendable.tv

Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2. The ACLEI Assessment 2.1 Part A – Initial Assessment 2.1.1 Enquiries 2.1.2 Comments 2.2 Part B – Director Intelligence 2.2.1 The PROMIS System 2.2.1.1 The Forensic Testing Of The Marijuana 2.2.1.2 The Baggage Handler Interviews 2.2.1.3 The Provision Of Testing Assistance 2.2.1.4 The Strict Limitation Of Investigation 2.2.1.5 The Missing CCTV Footage 2.2.2 Assessment Report Conclusions 2.2.2.1 The Source Of The Marijuana 2.2.2.2 The Baggage Handler Interviews 2.2.2.3 The Strict Limitation Of Investigation 2.2.2.4 The Ray Cooper Allegations 2.2.2.5 The Missing CCTV Footage 2.2.2.6 The Forensic Testing Of The Marijuana

3. The Acting Integrity Commissioner 3.1 The Acting Commissioner’s Role 3.2 The Acting Commissioner’s Conclusions

4. Report Conclusions

Appendix

[Introduction]

1. INTRODUCTION The Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, ACLEI, is a government agency which claims to provide “independent assurance to government about the integrity of prescribed law enforcement agencies and their staff members”.

Specifically, it states that “The Integrity Commissioner, supported by the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (ACLEI), is responsible for preventing, detecting and investigating serious and systemic corruption issues in the Australian Crime Commission and the Australian Federal Police.”

In a nutshell, ACLEI polices the police, for the government of Australia.

It is therefore reasonable to expect that such an organization will conduct itself with the utmost integrity and professionalism, and that its investigations will be performed to the highest and most rigorous of standards.

Furthermore, it is reasonable to expect that it will ensure that its independence always remains beyond question.

SCHAPELLE CORBY This report documents how ACLEI actually handled the most serious of complaints and allegations regarding AFP Corruption, with respect to the Schapelle Corby case.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 1

[The ACLEI Assessment]

2. THE ACLEI ASSESSMENT In 2010, a prominent Schapelle Corby supporter, Mrs Kim Bax, lodged a formal complaint with ACLEI regarding a subset of the many examples of failure of duty, misconduct, and corruption, which are presented by The Expendable Project.

The subsequent ACLEI assessment was documented in a file, which was assigned the identifier CIN 000188:

This is organized into parts, which are described in the subsequent sub-sections.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 1

[The ACLEI Assessment]

2.1. PART A – INITIAL ASSESSMENT The first part is a high level overview, or initial assessment. It provides the following synopsis:

It should be noted that this summary is, in fact, subjective. Mrs Baxâ€&#x;s documented complaints were wider in scope than is suggested here, and were supported by a considerable amount of material.

2.1.1 ENQUIRIES This initial assessment stated that the following enquiries were made:

The second paragraph of this particular segment was obliterated with black ink, to prevent public disclosure.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 2

[The ACLEI Assessment]

2.1.2 COMMENTS The final comments in Part A were as follows:

Here, ACLEI set the tone for the main assessment, by starkly claiming that if the perceived motive of any AFP corruption was not corrupt, it bears no responsibility for the matter.

The implication of this, for example, is that if the motive was political, then any act of corruption is deemed to be out of its jurisdiction.

Given that The Expendable Project demonstrates the clear political agenda of the AFP, this is a central and critical statement.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 3

[The ACLEI Assessment]

2.2 PART B – DIRECTOR INTELLIGENCE The second part is the main assessment form, and is headed Director Intelligence.

The first page of this replays the summary from Part 1, but includes a number of remarks which appear to seek to undermine Mrs Bax. For example:

Regarding the latter, The Hidden World Research Group subsequently interviewed Mrs Bax, who confirmed that this wasn‟t the case at all, and that she referenced the article in her blog simply because she was able to provide a direct web link to it.

The same attitude is illustrated by the liberal use of inverted commas and italics when referring to her correspondence and blog posts.

Note that this is an altogether different approach to that adopted throughout, with respect to AFP officers.

2.2.1 THE PROMIS SYSTEM On page three, the assessor moves on to a meeting with a member of AFP Professional Standards, in which they jointly examined the „Police Real-Time OnLine Management and Investigation System’ (PROMIS), which is an information database.

However, the information retrieved and reproduced in the report, to support the subsequent conclusions, can be shown to be false, highly questionable, or directly disputed by third parties:

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 4

[The ACLEI Assessment]

2.2.1.1 The Forensic Testing Of The Marijuana

The Hidden World Research Group has obtained correspondence from a leading forensics expert, who offered to perform these precise tests at the time. The AFP did not pursue this, and refused to facilitate the testing of the marijuana placed in Schapelle Corby‟s bag, when approached. Note also that such tests were well established at that time.

2.2.1.2 The Baggage Handler Interviews

Citing „no admissions had been made’, as supporting evidence to dismiss serious allegations, is clearly extremely questionable in itself. However, in July 2011, The Hidden World Research Group identified and directly interviewed a Brisbane baggage handler, who categorically denied that all the baggage handlers had been interviewed.

2.2.1.3 The Provision Of Testing Assistance

This, and other entries to the same effect, directly contradict statements made by the Bali police themselves, both to Schapelle Corby‟s lawyers, and directly to the Australian media:

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 5

[The ACLEI Assessment]

2.2.1.4 The Strict Limitation Of Investigation

This starkly suggests that a subjective judgement was taken on the value of Schapelle Corby‟s life, versus cost. Equally, however, it could be suggested that this option was considered to be less damaging than the potential disclosure of AFP and other corruption, which was undoubtedly present at Sydney airport.

Regardless, ACLEI immediately chose to support this central, and extremely disturbing, decision:

This proposition is, in fact, entirely false. Schapelle Corby‟s defence team did not exclude other possible insertion points at all. Her lawyers presented Brisbane as just one possibility, and even this scenario embraced serious criminality, and the transfer of the marijuana, specifically at Sydney airport.

The criticality of an investigation at Sydney was re-enforced by the allegations of former AFP Internal Investigator, Ray Cooper, who actually stated that AFP officers were involved in the drug trafficking there. The assessor was well aware of these, as he actually referred to them earlier in the report:

Equally, both the AFP and ACELI were well aware of the „Mocha’ Operation, and the transfer of South American drugs through Sydney airport at exactly the same time as Schapelle Corby passed through. Again, ACLEI had referred directly to this, just two pages earlier in the report:

It could be speculated that these earlier stark references were overlooked, in the haste to excuse the serious AFP failure just identified.

The crucial need for a full investigation at the two Sydney airports (domestic and international), and the consequential interviewing of the baggage handlers based there, could hardly have been clearer.

Yet the author simply dismissed the idea with the flimsiest of rationale.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 6

[The ACLEI Assessment]

2.2.1.5 The Missing CCTV Footage

This version of events, that the CCTV footage was deleted accidentally during maintenance, is entirely different to the version which the AFP themselves gave to Parliament, and stated in a ministerial brief:

Again, ACLEI failed to identify this direct contradiction, or to refer to it in any way.

The serious issues documented with respect to these matters, were identified, following a preliminary investigation by The Hidden World Research Group. The information obtained, yet completely omitted or ignored by ACLEI, is largely available in the public domain. All of it undermines the position of the AFP, and supports the proposition of serious and systemic corruption.

It is thus clear that, instead of performing the due diligence one might expect of a body charged with serious obligation by a nation state, ACLEI simply accepted the version presented by the AFP as fact. No contrary question was even contemplated.

Even from the outset, ACLEI appear to have been prompting the AFP to direct the script, as illustrated within the early correspondence between them (dated 2nd June 2010):

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 7

[The ACLEI Assessment]

Equally, a host of other related questions were simply ignored. And, for example, the myriad of documentation and primary evidence presented within The Expendable Project was not even identified.

However, it is upon this limited, false, and entirely flawed perspective that the author proceeded to offer his conclusions.

2.2.2 ASSESSMENT REPORT CONCLUSIONS Following this most shallow of exercises, the author again inaccurately summarizes Mrs Bax‟s complaints. He then purports to “address” them: 2.2.2.1 The Source Of The Marijuana He dismisses the AFP‟s complete lack of interest in the source of 4.2kg of marijuana. He openly states that there is no “onus” upon them to investigate such matters. Even with the knowledge of so many other inconsistencies, and the unremitting public allegations, he insists that there can be no reasonable question of corruption:

2.2.2.2 The Baggage Handler Interviews Even though directly disputed by at least one Brisbane baggage handler, he repeats the AFP claim to have interviewed all Brisbane baggage handlers, to dismiss any idea of reluctance to investigate:

2.2.2.3 The Strict Limitation Of Investigation Almost grudgingly, he refers to the fundamental question of omitting the critical Sydney airports from investigation, only to deny, without offering a shred of supporting evidence, that this was motivated by corruption:

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 8

[The ACLEI Assessment]

2.2.2.4 The Ray Cooper Allegations Matters relating to the serious corruption allegations of former AFP officer, Ray Cooper, appear to be deemed too inappropriate for public sight, but he readily dismisses them as “dangerous”:

2.2.2.5 The Missing CCTV Footage His endorsement of the AFP‟s failure to preserve any CCTV footage from three airport terminals is based entirely upon a misconception:

Had ACLEI conducted even cursory research into this matter, it would have quickly discovered that repeated and increasingly desperate requests for CCTV footage had been made by Schapelle Corby‟s family, in the days immediately following her arrest. This was the real context of the AFP‟s failure to seize the potentially critical footage.

The directly contradictory stories, provided by the AFP for the loss of the footage, are another central, and overlooked, issue.

NOTE: Further information on the AFP‟s disturbing role, with respect to the CCTV systems, can be found in Section 3 of the report: „Exceptions At Australian Airports With Respect To The Schapelle Corby Case‟ 2.2.2.6 The Forensic Testing Of The Marijuana He again uses false and flawed information in support of the AFP:

As already referenced, the AFP‟s claim that they lacked the capability to test the marijuana for its country of origin was false. The AFP‟s version of events, with respect to assistance with testing, was also directly contradicted by both Schapelle Corby‟s Indonesian lawyers and the Bali police.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 9

[The ACLEI Assessment]

A comprehensive investigation into this specific issue can be found within The Mutual Evasion Report, on the Expendable.TV website.

THE REPORT CONCLUSION The most flimsy and superficial of investigations, based entirely upon information provided by the AFP themselves, which was false, flawed or disputed, resulted in the inevitable:

The entire assessment comprised just five pages, and can be obtained in full from The Hidden World Research Group.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 10

[The Acting Integrity Commissioner]

3. THE ACTING INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER The assessment report was subsequently submitted to the Acting Integrity Commissioner, Robert Cornall, on 14th January 2011.

However, preliminary research into Mr Cornall himself suggests that he is regarded as a staunch supporter of the Howard government:

Indeed, as Phillip Ruddock‟s secretary at the Attorney General’s Department, Cornall was, in fact, at the heart of the Howard regime when the Schapelle Corby case unfolded.

Given the position and actions of this regime, as documented by The Expendable Project, this in itself raises a number of extremely serious questions.

Effectively, Cornall had the final decision on whether to proceed with, or reject, the complaints being made. Yet he was part of the regime to which the complaints themselves fundamentally referred.

The Hidden World Research Group has not yet been able to establish the circumstances of Cornall‟s positioning as Acting Integrity Commissioner, with respect to this particular complaint.

3.1 THE ACTING COMMISSIONER’S ROLE As Acting Integrity Commissioner, Cornall‟s responsibility was to satisfy himself that the assessment was objectively and rigorously conducted. It was his responsibility to sign off the report itself.

The serious flaws within the report, as documented in the previous section, are clear enough. Many are self evident, not only with respect to the individual conflicts with the real situation, but in terms of the superficial nature of the exercise, and its tenor when simply accepting the AFP‟s version of events.

It would not be unreasonable to expect that an experienced eye would immediately detect that significant and serious issues were evident.

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 1

[The Acting Integrity Commissioner]

3.2 THE ACTING COMMISSIONER’S CONCLUSIONS In his one-sheet decision, Cornall commented as follows:

It should be noted that this, in fact, is not a direct representation of Mrs Bax‟s allegations, but rather, a subjective interpretation.

Cornall concluded that:

This extraordinary statement suggests that issues, such as the wilful destruction of primary evidence, do not amount to “a corruption issue”.

Further, his claim of “having regarded all the circumstances” has been shown to be untrue, as the AFP did not furnish ACLEI with the true material facts, and ACLEI did not research them for themselves.

He endorsed the clearly flawed exercise on 14th January 2011. In his letter informing Mrs Bax of this decision, he took this even further, referring to the most limited and superficial of assessments as “extensive”:

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 2

[Report Conclusions]

4. REPORT CONCLUSIONS Despite high profile and frequent allegations of AFP corruption, over a period of almost seven years, ACLEI failed to initiate even a cursory investigation of its own volition. Only when allegations of corruption were levelled at ACLEI itself, by members of the public, did it embark upon the exercise documented in this report.

By any measure, its assessment was flimsy, unprofessional, and seriously flawed. The exercise itself was skewed to produce an outcome favourable to the AFP. Specifically: The written report, and background notes, obtained by The Hidden World Research Group, demonstrate a hostile, or at the very least, disrespectful, attitude toward the complainant.

The assessor did not interview Mrs Bax to establish the precise details of her complaint.

ACLEI openly and directly positioned itself, such that politically motivated AFP corruption was outside its own scope.

ACLEI failed to investigate the key issues directly for themselves. Instead, it accepted statements made by the AFP without question, and certainly without validation.

Key witnesses, and those who were party to the events of 2005, were not interviewed. There is no evidence to suggest that their research extended significantly beyond a liaison with AFP personnel, and a joint perusal of their limited database.

In many cases, even with only cursory research, the AFPâ€&#x;s version of events can be proven to be entirely false.

The ACLEI assessor demonstrably overlooked significant contrary evidence when declaring his support for the AFPâ€&#x;s inaction and position.

The haphazard and shallow approach adopted, suggests a lack of will to investigate the complaints seriously. This in itself suggests an unbalanced and partial position.

The final decision maker, the Acting Integrity Commissioner, was active in the Howard government when the events occurred, creating a clear conflict of interest.

At the very least, the decision maker did not exercise due diligence when signing off the assessment.

Expendable.TV

Page 4 - 1

[Report Conclusions]

The evidence suggests either gross incompetence, or wilful misconduct on the part of a number of individuals.

From a wider perspective, it suggests an institutional or cultural bias which is wholly inconsistent with the defined functions of the organization.

Given the clear political context, serious questions also arise regarding the possibility of a pre-determined agenda with respect to this case. In laymanâ€&#x;s terms, our findings and conclusions are consistent with those of an alleged cover-up.

Expendable.TV

Page 4 - 2

[Appendix]

APPENDIX Selected Documentation

Expendable.TV

Page A - 1

[Appendix]

The decision form, as completed by the Acting Integrity Commissioner, Robert Cornall:

Expendable.TV

Page A - 2

[Appendix]

Cornallâ€&#x;s letter to Mrs Bax, informing her of his decision:

Expendable.TV

Page A - 3

[Appendix]

The following letter illustrates the cosy relationship between the AFP and ACLEI. When Mark Walters was confronted by Mrs Bax, on whether his predecessorâ€&#x;s allegations of AFP corruption in Sydney had been investigated, he told her that he was unable to give her that information, because it was subject to "secrecy provisions".

Expendable.TV

Page A - 4

[Appendix]

The following is ACLEIâ€&#x;s opening letter to the AFP. The final paragraph indicated the nature of the exercise which was to follow; one in which ACLEI would follow a script broadly dictated by the AFP themselves.

Expendable.TV

Page A - 5

[Appendix]

ACLEI demonstrates the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act.

Expendable.TV

Page A - 6

Š The Hidden World Research Group

The Expendable Project www.expendable.tv

Strictly Confidential

© The Hidden World Research Group

Independent Report The Political Seizure Of Schapelle Corby’s Book Royalties

The Expendable Project www.expendable.tv

CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1.1 Schapelle Corby’s Book: My Story 1.2 The Costs Of Indonesian Imprisonment 1.3 The Proceeds Of Crime

2. The Secret Trails 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Pursuing The Funds 2.3 The Notification 2.4 The Seizure Of The Assets

3. Summary & Conclusions 3.1 Summary 3.2 Covering Tracks

[Introduction]

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 SCHAPELLE CORBY’S BOOK: MY STORY During the early months of her imprisonment, Schapelle Corby was desperate to set the record straight, as best she could, from her squalid cell. The only way she could do this was to recount her own experiences, describe exactly what had happened to her, and articulate her feelings.

Working closely with professional journalist Kathryn Bonella over a 10 month period, spending countless hours hand-writing notes in her cell, providing numerous diary entries, and meeting with Kathryn Bonella in the visiting area to impart her story, Schapelle finally achieved this goal through the book, 'My Story', which was published on 10th November 2006. It was an immediate best seller in Australia.

The book itself was direct and honest. It openly documented interactions with a number of parties, and recorded, in chronological sequence, the questionable involvement of the AFP, SACL, Qantas, and the Australian government, in her tragic situation.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 1

[Introduction]

Given the role of some of these parties, as also revealed by The Expendable Project, it was a book which was greeted with hostility. Qantas, for example, banned all advertising for it in their Australian terminals.

Whilst Schapelle Corby paid an extremely heavy price for her openness, through indirect retribution by the authorities in Indonesia, it is apparent that the Australian government, and establishment, also set upon her with a vengeance.

The hostility towards her and her family, through media channels, was intensified (as evidenced by other Expendable Reports). But further, the government embarked upon a path to deprive her of the much needed funds which ‘My Story’ had started to generate.

1.2 THE COSTS OF INDONESIAN IMPRISONMENT Schapelle Corby's family were not wealthy. Yet, from 8th October 2004, they were confronted with a myriad of substantial costs as they desperately fought for justice for Schapelle, and eventually for her very survival. This was against, what transpired to be, the government apparatus of two nations.

Legal costs, travel costs from Australia, hotel costs, food for Schapelle, and much more, all had to be covered. For a normal working class family this was, quite simply, beyond them, both in the short and long term.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 2

[Introduction]

Whilst initially, some of the costs were covered by media organizations seeking exclusive coverage, it was hoped that the book royalties would free them from such exploitation.

The royalties were also intended to provide for an extraordinary legal appeal, cover Schapelle's physical needs, and pay for the medical treatment of her already deteriorating condition.

The Australian government, however, had their own agenda, and were apparently intent on punishing her, by denying her this crucial form of revenue. Certainly, having adopted a high risk strategy in managing her appeal, a potential opportunity to curtail her future legal recourse would have been self-evident.

1.3 THE PROCEEDS OF CRIME Schapelle Corby's book did not describe drug smuggling or any other crime, other than, perhaps, the crimes against her own human rights. It merely related, from her own perspective, what happened to her following her arrest.

The government was well aware of the wholesale abuses of her human rights during the Bali trial. They were also aware that she was convicted in Indonesia, under Indonesian law, and not under Australian law, where, for example, she would have been presumed innocent until proven guilty.

They were aware that the book was written in Indonesia, not in Australia.

They were aware that the book royalties were derived from a number of nations, not just from Australia. They were aware that the royalties were going to Indonesia to fund Schapelle Corby’s basic needs, and not to Australia.

They were aware that never before, in the history of the nation, had proceeds of crime legislation been used to seize book royalties, let alone, book royalties in such disturbing circumstances.

Yet, without any moral, ethical, or established legal basis whatsoever, the government of Australia embarked on the pursuit of these funds, which Schapelle Corby so desperately needed.

The seizure itself was discussed and initiated from the very top of the Australian government. A number of ministers were involved, both in decision making and in public commentary.

Even members of the opposition party endorsed and encouraged confiscation:

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 3

[Introduction]

INDONESIAN LEGAL PROCESS Even more disturbingly, the action was initiated whilst Schapelle Corby was still in legal process within Indonesia, a fact which the Australian government was well aware of.

The signal to Indonesia, therefore, that the Australian government was initiating an action on the basis that Schapelle Corby had committed a crime, could not have been clearer.

Whilst the impact of this, upon her position before the Indonesian Supreme Court, can only be speculated, it is certain that both the Indonesian judiciary and Indonesian politicians were well aware of it.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 4

[The Secret Trails]

2. THE SECRET TRIALS 2.1 INTRODUCTION Another alarming aspect of the government's efforts to seize Schapelle Corby's money was the method they adopted.

This was no open action, through a fair, honest and transparent judicial system. It was practically the opposite.

The process was pursued behind closed doors, through what, in effect, was a series of secret hearings. Wikipedia attributes the following characteristics to such a process: "The accused is not able to obtain the counsel of an attorney or confront witnesses for the prosecution, and the proceedings are characterized by a perceived miscarriage of justice to the benefit of the ruling powers of the society". It concludes that "Secret trials have been a characteristic of almost every dictatorship of the modern era".

Schapelle Corby and her family were not permitted to represent themselves, or to have any input at all into the proceedings. They were not even aware that such a process had been launched, until the revenue had been frozen.

The legal proceedings were, in every respect, totally secret, with Schapelle Corby having no rights whatsoever, and being given no opportunity to defend herself against this politically driven action.

Her first knowledge of the situation came when papers were served on her in Kerobokan prison by the Indonesian Police, on 16th March 2007, stating that the Australian Federal Police had frozen all her money and assets.

2.2 PURSUING THE FUNDS Schapelle Corby had begged the AFP to investigate the source of the marijuana in Australia. She had urged them to investigate herself, to search her home, property and bank account. But they had refused. When pressed by her family, and by supporters, in subsequent years, they continued to refuse.

However, when it came to an investigation to trace her book royalties, the AFP set about the task with vigour. They embarked on a major project of tracking and surveillance. This embraced not only Schapelle C0rby, but her family, co-author Kathryn Bonella, and her publishers.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 1

[The Secret Trails]

The investigation stemmed from a referral, originally made in November 2006, as confirmed by a prepared AFP response to a Senate committee:

For reasons known only to themselves, they named this large scale police operation 'Operation Bridie'. From this point onwards, a series of secret hearings ensued.

COURT HEARING 1 The case was first presented to the District Court of Brisbane on the 12th December 2006, and was adjourned.

COURT HEARING 2 The case was reconvened on the 15th February 2007, under Judge SC McGill:

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 2

[The Secret Trails]

That the action required considerable departure from the real life situation, and clear misuse of the legislation to succeed, is plainly evident from the partial list of factors referenced earlier. Any one of the aspects discussed could have been used to dismiss the case, and indeed, Judge McGill did so, on the basis that the royalties were not derived in Australia:

This is clearly the case, and Judge McGill was correct. Schapelle Corby was in an Indonesian prison when the book was conceived, written and published. The book was sold widely, and not only in Australia. For example, it was published in New Zealand in late 2006, where it became an instant big seller.

However, rather than accept this legally based judgement, the government immediately sought leave to appeal, in continued pursuit of its political agenda.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 3

[The Secret Trails]

COURT HEARING 3 They made an application to the Supreme Court of Queensland the very next day, accusing Judge McGill of having "erred".

On 2nd March 2007 the Court of Appeal sat to consider the case, again in camera.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 4

[The Secret Trails]

Following the initial judgement, three judges were assigned, who were sympathetic to the government's position: JA Williams, JA Keane and J Helman.

These three individuals overturned the original judicial outcome, freezing not only the book royalties, but the earnings of Schapelle Corby's sister, Mercedes, from a totally independent magazine interview.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 5

[The Secret Trails]

Again, Schapelle Corby and her family were oblivious to these secret court hearings, and they were again totally un-represented.

It’s not known whether Williams, Keane and Helman made any effort to identify how inappropriate the application of the legislation was to Schapelle Corby's situation, but in effect, they gave the government everything they sought.

In addition, they ruled that any future hearing must be held in the Supreme Court, rather than in the original District Court.

Keane: “.... For these reasons, I am respectfully of the opinion that the learned District Court judge erred in taking too narrow a view of s 153(1) and, consequently, of the scope of s 20(1) (d) of the Act." Williams: "I agree with the reasoning of Keane J. The order sought should be made. Any consequential proceedings should be brought in the trial division of the Supreme Court.”

Helman: “I agree.”

This manipulated and convoluted use of the Proceeds of Crime Act instantly prevented any book or similar revenue being transferred to Bali to help Schapelle Corby survive her ordeal, or continue her legal challenge.

2.3 THE NOTIFICATION On 16th March 2007, Schapelle Corby and her family were finally notified of the secret hearings, and their outcome.

Once again the Corby family found themselves confronted by the hostility of their own government.

Once again they were distraught, confronted by an organ of state of their own nation, when the need for support could hardly have been more pressing.

A desperate letter from Schapelle Corby's mother, exemplifies the distress they clearly felt:

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 6

[The Secret Trails]

Within days, the media were reporting the situation, again courtesy of government sources.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 7

[The Secret Trails]

INDONESIA It should be stressed that Schapelle Corby's legal process in Indonesia was far from complete at this point in time.

By launching, and ultimately publicising, their action, the signal to Indonesia could hardly have been clearer. They were, in effect, endorsing the guilty verdict prior to its final delivery under the Indonesian judicial system.

It should also be noted that this action was undertaken, in the context of the withholding of vital evidence by the Australian government from that same Indonesian judicial system, as documented in The Transit Report, and others. It was undertaken in the context of the many hostile and false statements made by the government, which are documented throughout The Expendable Project.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 8

[The Secret Trails]

2.4 THE SEIZURE OF THE ASSETS The AFP immediately set about seizing whatever assets they could. The following is a progress report to the Minister for Justice & Customs, Christopher Ellison:

This also initiated a lengthy period of investigation and intrusive surveillance of Schapelle Corby's family and others, by the AFP, for which the term harassment would not be misplaced.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 9

[The Secret Trails]

With an operation of this nature ongoing, it is little wonder that the Corby family, who had simply sought to help Schapelle survive by managing her book revenue, were reported to have been frightened of the AFP, and persecuted by their own government.

The inevitable outcome of the AFP's actions was eventually reported in the media:

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 10

[The Secret Trails]

The government had succeeded in depriving Schapelle Corby of this essential revenue, thus preventing her from launching an extraordinary legal appeal. This action also contributed to the substantial deterioration in her mental and physical well being.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 11

[Summary]

3. SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS 3.1 SUMMARY There is no doubt that this seizure was politically driven, from a ministerial level, and that it involved the same individuals who were active in a number of the other disturbing aspects of the case.

The requisite re-interpretation of the Proceeds of Crime Act, undertaken behind closed doors, also brought the legislation itself, and the Australian judiciary, into disrepute.

The book covered a fight for justice, not a crime. It was written in a foreign country.

The royalties themselves were earned internationally, not just in Australia, and they were destined for a person in that foreign country, not for someone resident in Australia.

Even the alleged crime itself raised the most basic of issues.

Schapelle Corby was denied a fair and reasonable trial, which the government was well aware of. Her legal and human rights were repeatedly abused, as documented in the report: ‘Breaches of the Indonesian Code of Criminal Procedure, and the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in the Schapelle Corby Trial’.

In addition, the trial became politically charged.

Accepting this as the basis for a ‘proceeds of crime’ seizure, not only endorsed these abuses, but created a precedent, positioning the state of Australia accordingly with respect to similar human rights abuses.

It is also worth re-emphasizing that this occurred before Schapelle Corby's legal recourse in Indonesia had been exhausted, with the clear signal this must have sent to the Indonesians.

Further, the AFP had been requested by Schapelle Corby, and others, to investigate the alleged crime in Australia, but had refused point blank. The contradiction, of refusing to investigate a crime in Australia, but then enthusiastically investigating contrived proceeds of the same alleged crime, is self evident.

Finally, the concrete reality of the impact of the seizure on this Australian citizen was completely ignored. Schapelle Corby's dire circumstance, her desperate need for the funds for medication, her mounting legal costs, and even the need for funding to cover food, were never taken into account.

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 1

[Summary]

Ignoring all the pertinent facts of the situation, the government proceeded, and used this legislation to seize book royalties for the first and only time in Australian history.

It is little wonder that this episode is widely regarded as the purely political seizure of monies which were fundamental to Schapelle Corby's chances of survival.

It is often regarded as a calculated and ruthless political act, designed to prevent Schapelle Corby from launching an extraordinary appeal, which may again have created focus on the situation at Australian airports, and undermined the policy of international appeasement.

3.2 COVERING TRACKS Given the disturbing political agenda which drove the seizure, it is perhaps not surprising that the DPP sought to cover the tracks of those involved, even years later.

As documented within other Expendable Reports, it emerged that the DPP alone held a staggering 7,500 documents relating to Schapelle Corby.

However, when efforts were made to view this material via a Freedom of Information request, the DPP refused point blank to allow access, claiming that it involved too much work. They refused to explain why they held so many documents relating to a single citizen.

In their desire to protect those involved in this seizure, the government, through the DPP, had revoked yet another civil and legal right from Schapelle Corby: the right of a citizen to access information on themselves.

FOOTNOTE: When it became obvious to Schapelle Corby’s family that the book royalty funds would be seized, and therefore lost, they requested that the money seized be used to help others, and donated to the Tweed Heads Palliative Care unit and Cancer unit.

The request was denied.

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 2

Š The Hidden World Research Group

www.hiddenworldresearch.com

The Expendable Project www.expendable.tv

Strictly Confidential

© The Hidden World Research Group

Independent Report

Candidate Sources (Via Sydney Airport) The Marijuana Placed in Schapelle Corby’s Bag The Expendable Project www.expendable.tv

CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. Sydney: The William Miller Affair 2.1 Background: Cobalt & Corruption 2.1.1 Police Corruption 2.1.2 Sydney Airport 2.2 William Walter Miller 2.2.1 The State’s Reaction 2.2.2 Tom Percy QC 2.2.3 Mr Miller’s Litigation 2.2.4 Legal Transcripts 2.2.5 Location & Relationship 2.2.6 The Consistent Story 2.3 Third Party Corroboration 3. Source Propositions 3.1 The Sue Affair 3.1.1 Background 3.1.2 The AFP 3.1.3 The Failure To Investigate 3.2 The John Ford Affair 3.2.1 Background 3.2.2 John Ford 3.2.3 Third Party Corroboration 3.2.4 The Unique Flight Delay Pattern 3.2.5 The AFP 3.2.6 Closing Notes 3.3 The Operation Mocha Affair 3.3.1 Introduction 3.3.2 A Question Of Timing 3.3.3 Government Correspondence 3.3.4 Parliamentary Questions 3.3.5 The Flight Delay Pattern 3.3.6 Closing Notes 4. Summary

[Introduction]

1. INTRODUCTION Given the sheer scale of the corruption and criminality known to have existed at Australian airports, within the police services, and within a number of other related agencies, the potential number of sources of the marijuana found in Schapelle Corbyâ€&#x;s bag in Bali, is huge.

Drug syndication was systemic, as evidenced by a raft of official reports and media articles. Sydney airport alone employed dozens of baggage handlers with criminal records, many of whom have since been shown to have been actively involved in drug smuggling.

Indeed, on the same day, and at exactly the same time as Schapelle Corby passed through Sydney airport, it has also been proven that a large shipment of drugs was passing through exactly the same baggage make up area.

In addition, a number of third parties have volunteered information regarding the source of the marijuana itself.

This paper examines some of these in more detail, specifically, those propositions which source the marijuana, from Queensland, Victoria (via Queensland) and South America.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 1

[The Sydney Airport Proposition]

2. SYDNEY - THE WILLIAM MILLER AFFAIR 2.1. BACKGROUND: COBALT & CORRUPTION In December 2005 the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) presented a report to the Legislative Assembly of the Australian Parliament, titled 'Operation Cobalt'. The following summary is taken directly from it:

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 1

[The Sydney Airport Proposition]

It is noteworthy that the events documented, unfolded prior to, and during, the period in which Schapelle Corby travelled to Bali, and indeed, evidence presentation commenced on exactly the same day she flew, 8th October 2004.

Clearly, it was a report of great significance. It was damning of police corruption, and identified a staggering catalogue of serious criminal activity.

However, whilst one might imagine that the Police Integrity Commission, the NSW State Parliament, and the Federal Parliament of Australia, would address this disturbing matter swiftly and openly, this is not what occurred.

Such was the level of inactivity that some politicians, and the media, eventually began to ask questions:

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 2

[The Sydney Airport Proposition]

It was not until August 2007 that charges were eventually brought, albeit in an extraordinary manner:

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 3

[The Sydney Airport Proposition]

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 4

[The Sydney Airport Proposition]

The Police Integrity Commission's media release, which both confirmed the charges, and the decision to notify Laycock as though "being issued with a speeding fine", was issued on 27th August 2007:

This was clearly a case of the utmost gravity. Indeed, it was a landmark case, embracing a staggering catalogue of police corruption, and a host of extremely serious crimes.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 5

[The Sydney Airport Proposition]

But what happened?

There was no further reference in the Australian media to these charges, to them being dropped, to a court case, or to any other related event, until July 2011, almost four years later, and almost seven years after the publication of the Cobalt Report.

Laycock was then charged with a minority of the less serious offences:

He remained at liberty throughout this period.

The judicial process itself remained unreported until February 2012, despite the serious and significant nature of the trial.

On 9th February 2012, an extraordinary sequence of events occurred, in this already most extraordinary of situations. A 30 page document appeared on the scene, which was so sensitive that sentencing was delayed and the court went into lockdown:

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 6

[The Sydney Airport Proposition]

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 7

[The Sydney Airport Proposition]

The nature of the information, which was too “sensitive” to become public, is limited to a small number of possibilities.

One possibility, which has been suggested in closed groups, is that CL‟s lawyer presented a list of names of powerful individuals, associated with serious offences such as paedophilia and fraud.

Certainly, CL would have had access to such information, given his past contacts and associations.

Equally, the document could have contained information related to the true source of the marijuana found in Schapelle Corby‟s bag, and could have identified who knew about this.

All this is speculation. However, it is clear that a document suddenly appeared, which threw the court into disarray, and which is consistent with the above.

The next hearing, on March 29th, demonstrated the openness and transparency of the Australian judicial system, in all its glory. Members of the public were refused entry to the court. They were even moved away from the courtroom entrance.

The case was not listed on any of the court hearing notices.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 8

[The Sydney Airport Proposition]

Downing Centre Court 2.1, Sydney - 10am, 29th March 2012

Despite this, the media produced a report on the proceedings, written as though the dramatic factual events of the previous hearing had never occurred, and without even a reference to the existence of that „too sensitiveâ€&#x; new evidence.

In the circumstances, the accuracy of this, and other media reports, cannot be assumed.

The media response to the presentation of the document, and to proceedings, was clearly and demonstrably aligned to the demands of the judicial system, and the state, rather than to the actual facts of the situation.

It is also important to note the change of Judge, from Knox, to Williams:

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 9

[The Sydney Airport Proposition]

Despite the gravity and nature of Laycockâ€&#x;s offences, over a very lengthy period, on 4th April 2012 he was sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of just four years, with a maximum of seven.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 10

[The Sydney Airport Proposition]

2.1.1 POLICE CORRUPTION As shocking as this situation may appear to observers outside Australia, the scale of corruption and criminality within Australian policing, in the wider context, was equally alarming.

Frequent and serious allegations of corruption, including drug syndication through Australian airports, were emerging against the AFP, through whistleblowers such as Ray Cooper and Gary Lee-Rogers. The latter was found dead with a blood-stained knife, bloodied pillow, and two white plastic bottles in his right hand, after predicting that he would be murdered because of what he had discovered. This, incredibly, was deemed by the authorities to be death by natural causes.

Then there was the Standen affair. Mark Standen was a former Assistant Director of the NSW Crime Commission. He was also the head of Operation Mocha, a joint investigation by the AFP and the NSW Crime Commission into a drug syndication ring. This embraced the shipment of drugs passing through Sydney Airport at exactly the same time as Schapelle Corby's boogie-board bag. Standen, who had worked in the same office as AFP Commissioner Michael Keelty, in Sydney, was later arrested for conspiring to import $120 million of pre-cursor drugs into Australia. He was convicted in August 2011.

On 7th June 2008, The Australian newspaper reported that Standen "grew up in the inner-west Sydney suburb of Burwood". Burwood was also the old locale of Laycock, Hopes, Dunks, and others cited in the Cobalt Report.

There was also the disturbing situation at Sydney Airport itself. On 31st May 2005, an article was published in The Australian which revealed that a confidential customs report had identified substantial levels of criminal activity at Sydney Airport: "Workers at the nation's largest airport, including baggage handlers with high-level security clearances have been involved in drug smuggling....", "The report, obtained by The Australian, details serious security breaches and illegal activity by baggage handlers, air crew....".

It later transpired that dozens of staff had been hired, who had criminal records, and that significant numbers of these were engaging in criminal activity at the airport, including drug smuggling.

But, post 9-11, the issue of airport security was extremely sensitive from a political perspective. It was also commercially sensitive.

Thus, as documented in other Expendable reports, the government and the AFP immediately concentrated on suppressing the leak and tracking down its source, rather than focussing upon the core issues. A senior customs officer, Allan Kessing, was subsequently charged in relation to whistleblowing.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 11

[The Sydney Airport Proposition]

Despite the stateâ€&#x;s unambiguous position with respect to whistleblowing, examples of police corruption continued to emerge:

Against this background, therefore, the almost laissez-faire reaction of the Australian government and judiciary to the Cobalt Report, and to the role of Laycock and others, is perhaps unsurprising. However, yet another aspect was to emerge.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 12

[The Sydney Airport Proposition]

2.1.2 SYDNEY AIRPORT

On examining Laycock's association with drugs, it is noteworthy that Sydney Airport was indeed within the geographical boundaries of his influence and operation. This is indicated by the disturbing story below, as reported by the ABC:

His association with drug related crime is, perhaps, illustrated by his role in the murder of Andrew John Heavens:

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 13

[The Sydney Airport Proposition]

But, what does this analysis have to do with the drugs inadvertently carried by Schapelle Corby, other than the locale, or „turfâ€&#x;, of the drug-related criminality?

The main direct link is provided by a petty criminal, William Miller, who was also known as William Moss.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 14

[The Sydney Airport Proposition]

2.2 WILLIAM WALTER MILLER With this staggering web of police corruption and serious involvement in drug crime clearly evident, William Miller was introduced to the public, courtesy of a main headline news story in The Daily Telegraph:

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 15

[The Sydney Airport Proposition]

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 16

[The Sydney Airport Proposition]

On the face of it, this story was potentially extremely helpful to Schapelle Corby. The huge contradiction within it, however, is obvious.

The Daily Telegraph presented Mr Miller as an important figure in the case, in its front page „exclusive‟, yet towards the end it almost dismissed its own story.

This bizarre situation is, however, clarified considerably through closer examination.

2.2.1 THE STATE’S REACTION An entire segment of the Expendable Documentary is dedicated to demonstrating the propagandistic role of the ABC with respect to Schapelle Corby. It is, therefore, unsurprising that the ABC chose to use their Media Watch broadcast, of 1st August 2005, to seek to undermine Mr Miller, and the story published by The Daily Telegraph just a few days earlier.

“This week's joke is that Daily Telegraph front page 'exclusive'.

A story that no paper with any self-respect would give any credibility at all”.

Wider consideration of this apparent comment from the establishment, again seeking to quell any semblance of interest, by a newspaper, in presenting material which might help Schapelle Corby, is outside the scope of this report.

However, the use of Media Watch to attack the commercial media for broadcasting anything other than hostile spin, has undoubtedly been a common feature, beginning just days after the trial, and continuing to the present day.

Of relevance to this report is the question of whether The Daily Telegraph discredited its own story before, or after, it learned that this intervention was going to be broadcast.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 17

[The Sydney Airport Proposition]

2.2.2 TOM PERCY QC If the background music was provided by Media Watch, the involvement of Tom Percy QC enabled The Daily Telegraph to dismiss Mr Miller‟s story with apparent authority.

The closing paragraph stated that: “He said he also called Corby‟s Perth-based barrister, Tom Percy QC, but was told his story had no credibility”. However, closer examination paints a rather more ambiguous picture.

Percy was one of two QCs pressed upon the Corby family by the government, following the criticism levelled at them by Schapelle Corby‟s original defence team.

This was resisted, but the government‟s wish prevailed, despite elements of the media openly wondering what practical help they could possibly deliver:

The outcome of this, however, was devastating for Schapelle Corby, as one of them, Mark Trowell QC, attacked her defence team in public, during the appeal:

Several years later, Trowell was “reprimanded” for this shocking intervention, but during the hearing, he stated that he was actually working for the government, and not for Schapelle Corby. This affair is documented in The Insider Report, which can be viewed on the following web page: http://www.expendable.tv/2011/10/insider-report.html Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 18

[The Sydney Airport Proposition]

Tom Percy was far less visible, and apparently, more reluctant to discuss his role in the case. When approached by a volunteer for The Expendable Project, and asked to explain the circumstances of his engagement, he referred to the Trowell case judgement, refusing to add anything.

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH ARTICLE The William Miller story was published on 27th July 2005. This date is important because Mr Miller states categorically that he had never even spoken to Percy prior to the 28th July:

(Court Transcript)

Further, he pressed this repeatedly in court. This included and through examination of the journalistâ€&#x;s notebook, which referred to Percy, but not within a quote from Mr Miller:

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 19

[The Sydney Airport Proposition]

Mr Miller alleged, throughout, that the final paragraph in The Daily Telegraph article could only have been produced through a conversation between The Daily Telegraph and Percy, or by The Daily Telegraph alone.

Mr Millerâ€&#x;s recollection of the actual conversation with Percy, when it did occur, also appears to be very clear. This is illustrated by his responses below:

(The handwritten notes, inserting the date, are those of Mr Miller)

Mr Miller subsequently sought to press this issue outside the court, copying the following to a number of news organizations:

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 20

[The Sydney Airport Proposition]

He was, apparently, so affronted, that he also attempted to serve the following paper on Percy:

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 21

[The Sydney Airport Proposition]

When contacted in March 2012, by a volunteer for The Expendable Project, and asked directly to confirm or deny whether he had ever spoken to Mr Miller before 28th July, Percy refused to do so.

When it was put to him that it could appear that The Daily Telegraph had discussed the issue with him, and subsequently put his words into Mr Miller‟s mouth, to cover this dialogue, he again refused to comment.

2.2.3 MR MILLER’S LITIGATION Independent research reveals significant supporting evidence for Mr Miller‟s story.

However, the hostile words regarding Mr Miller, published in The Daily Telegraph article, inevitably had the effect of discrediting him. Investigation has also revealed a potential fiscal interest for The Daily Telegraph in pulling back on the story.

It has emerged that The Daily Telegraph reports were made against the background of a serious dispute with Mr Miller.

Mr Miller states that he decided to come forward when he heard a cruel joke about Schapelle Corby in a television program. He made contact with The Daily Telegraph, sought immunity from prosecution, and asked to have his costs covered, which included provision to help him leave Sydney, where he feared for his safety. He argued that his welfare could be jeopardised, as he was, by necessity, informing on the criminal activity of others.

From a commercial entity like The Daily Telegraph, whom he presumed routinely paid for stories, Miller asked for a payment commensurate with what he perceived to be its commercial value. He insists that a Daily Telegraph journalist agreed he would be paid $250,000. The Daily Telegraph disputed this, and subsequently presented this dispute in a manner which discredited Mr Miller, and likewise his evidence and story.

Mr Miller was incensed. In fact he was so incensed that he embarked upon a legal course against News Ltd, and their journalists, which spanned years. He pursued this to the point of bankruptcy.

2.2.4 INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS The transcripts from this multitude of legal cases provide a significant amount of information with respect to Mr Miller‟s allegations.

It is also worth noting that the tenacity, consistency, and determination shown by Mr Miller, are not qualities which are normally associated with someone who merely conceived an allegation as a scam.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 22

[The Sydney Airport Proposition]

He pursued the issue through every court he could, usually representing himself. He reacted with clear indignation, as the judicial system repeatedly supported the major corporation he confronted.

However, the legal process itself presented a very detailed picture of Mr Millerâ€&#x;s stated involvement.

His testimony to the courts stated that he received a telephone call offering him a 'jobâ€&#x;. This, essentially, was to make a collection from the airport. He stated that he was offered $50,000 to accept this mission.

He stated that he neither accepted nor turned the job down, but was hesitant. He also stated that he believed someone else may have been found to do the job.

He told The Daily Telegraph that:

However, his court testimony was more explicit:

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 23

[The Sydney Airport Proposition]

He cited a John David Hopes, to The Daily Telegraph, whom he believed to be deceased or under a police protection scheme, and thus unlikely to seek retribution.

To the court, he explained that he had withheld the name of John Robert Dunks:

The circumstantial and background evidence to support Mr Millerâ€&#x;s account is clear from the earlier sections of this report, and the Cobalt Report confirms that Mr Hopes and Mr Dunks are close associates of Christopher Laycock.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 24

[The Sydney Airport Proposition]

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 25

[The Sydney Airport Proposition]

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 26

[The Sydney Airport Proposition]

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 27

[The Sydney Airport Proposition]

Note that Mr Miller did not have access to any of this material on Laycock, Hopes or Dunks, when he made his allegations, as the Cobalt Report was not published until months later.

Mr Miller expanded on his evidence by explaining that the $50,000 he had been offered for the collection was not necessarily just for the single bag of marijuana, as there could have been multiple bags in the pick-up, and/or other items. He possessed and drove a van suitable in size for such bulk collection. The packaging of the marijuana placed in Schapelle Corbyâ€&#x;s bag was, in fact, consistent with such large scale production/distribution norms.

He repeatedly stated that he was subsequently informed that at least some of the drug pickup had ended up in Bali, and that the baggage handler, whose job it was to remove the drugs from the bag in Sydney, believed he was being watched, and thus didn't perform the job.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 28

[The Sydney Airport Proposition]

2.2.5 LOCATION & RELATIONSHIP The locale of Hopes, Dunks, Laycock and others, tends to support this picture, as it broadly covers both the airport, and the home of Mr Miller. For example, the murder of Andrew John Heavens, which involved Laycock in the context of perverting the course of justice, was in the locale of Mr Miller.

The following map demonstrates the proximity of Burwood to Sydney Airport:

The apparent relationship of individuals and location is represented in the diagram below:

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 29

[The Sydney Airport Proposition]

MARK STANDEN The presence of Mark Standen on this diagram is particularly interesting. As referenced earlier in this report, Mr Standen was the New South Wales Crime Commission Assistant Director, who was head of Operation Mocha. Operation Mocha was an investigation into drug syndication, which included the specific incoming shipment of cocaine, which was in exactly the same Sydney airport baggage make up area, at exactly the same time as Schapelle Corby‟s boogie-board bag passed though, on 8th October 2004.

This remarkable fact has been proven through work rosters and flight records. See the Hidden World Research Group report “Exceptions At Australian Airports With Respect To The Schapelle Corby Case” for further details.

As part of the Mocha operation, Standen managed a corrupt baggage handler, code named „Tom‟, as referenced by this billboard for a well known investigative blog:

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 30

[The Sydney Airport Proposition]

But Mark Standen had other close links with the criminal fraternity. He was charged with, and later convicted of, conspiring to import substantial quantities of pre-cursor drugs into Australia.

THE NEW SOUTH WALES CRIME COMMISSION The Hidden World Research Group has also discovered that, on 2nd February 2006, Mr Miller was summoned to appear before the New South Wales Crime Commission with respect to his involvement with Dunks / Hopes / Laycock, and the Sydney airport drug run he had described.

When he attended the hearing, he was confronted and interviewed by Mark Standen himself.

He was interrogated on his Schapelle Corby statements, and the offer of a job to collect from the airport, and was presented with some unexpected evidence (see later in this report).

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 31

[The Sydney Airport Proposition]

2.2.6 THE CONSISTENT STORY Mr Miller has maintained his story during all the proceedings, in various courts, and throughout the years. It has consistently aligned with what he had told The Daily Telegraph at the outset, as confirmed by the transcript of the journalistâ€&#x;s shorthand notes:

In 2008, he understood that a judge had indicated that he believed that the marijuana, found in Schapelle Corbyâ€&#x;s bag, were the drugs he was tasked to collect:

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 32

[The Sydney Airport Proposition]

Whilst the statements are somewhat ambiguous, it again demonstrates Mr Miller‟s consistency.

In 2011 he began proceedings against the ABC, on the basis of their original hostile Media Watch broadcast, which also sought to discredit The Daily Telegraph.

He maintains to this day that the drugs in Schapelle Corby‟s boogie-board bag were intended for collection by himself. He maintains that he was discredited by the media, having reached an understanding that he would be „looked after‟ sufficiently to escape the perceived dangers of Sydney.

[Note: the entire legal process has remained unreported by the Australian media.]

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 33

[The Sydney Airport Proposition]

2.3 THIRD PARTY CORROBORATION In March 2012, the Hidden World Research Group received a number of items of new information from a third party. These included a set of confidential minutes from within the New South Wales Crime Commission (NSWCC):

Within this document was the following segment:

This is worthy of close consideration.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 34

[The Sydney Airport Proposition]

“In July 2005, Gymea investigators released LD material possibly relevant to the Corby Bali drug prosecution” LD is “Listening Device”, meaning that this material was procured via the bugging of a suspect location, which is understood to be Dunks‟ home.

“The information arising from a recorded conversation between Gymea POI John Dunks and William Moss indicated that Moss was awaiting a shipment of cannabis from Queensland that was to be smuggled through Sydney airport about October 2004 when the Corby cannabis seizure occurred” POI is “Person Of Interest”, revealing that John Dunks was under observation.

Dunks, of course, is the very person whom William Miller cited as offering the airport collection job. He is also positioned by the Cobalt Report to be a key member of the Laycock/Hopes gang.

The recording indicated that William Miller was awaiting a shipment of marijuana, suggesting that the shipment was yet to occur. In other words, it suggests that the recording was made prior to the event itself. The Cobalt report also confirms that Dunks was a person of interest prior to the 8th October 2004, when the public hearing commenced. This was also the date on which Schapelle Corby flew to Bali.

A New South Wales Crime Commission hearing, to which William Moss was called, also confirmed the contents of the recording.

This was a private conversation between William Miller, and the person he stated had given him the airport job, in which they discuss that very collection.

The New South Wales Crime Commission clearly recognized that the conversation, and de facto, Dunks himself, corroborated William Miller‟s account.

They stated clearly that this “supported this assertion”.

“This matter has been followed up with Warren Grey from the AFP” The AFP was, therefore, aware of the existence of this potentially critical new evidence, as of July 2005, at the latest.

But again, neither they, nor the New South Wales Crime Commission, including its Commissioner, ever notified Schapelle Corby or her family.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 35

[The Sydney Airport Proposition]

Yet again, potentially vital evidence was wilfully withheld by parties in Australia, even though Schapelle Corby was still in the appeal process, and desperate to present alternative scenarios.

The AFP again played a central and pivotal role in depriving Schapelle Corby of evidence.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 36

[Source Propositions]

3. SOURCE PROPOSITIONS Over the years, a number of claims have been made with respect to the original source of the marijuana. This section examines detailed propositions with respect to Queensland, Victoria, and South America.

3.1 THE SUE AFFAIR 3.1.1 BACKGROUND In June 2011, a professional counsellor approached a legal supporter of Schapelle Corby, Kerry Smith-Douglas, to recount a situation which unfolded in October 2004.

She told the lawyer that she could no longer remain silent, and that she was prepared to make a statement on record. She agreed to make a formal Statutory Declaration, which carries serious legal consequences should it subsequently be shown to be false.

An image of the Statutory Declaration is produced below:

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 1

[Source Propositions]

I Xxxxxx of Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx in the state of Queensland do honestly and sincerely declare that: In mid October 2004 I began a brief relationship with a man named Xxxxxx (real name unknown).

Xxxxxx worked as a baggage handler at Brisbane airport. One day during our relationship we had a conversation about people who worked there. During this conversation Xxxxxx talked about his work mates and their cannabis use.

Xxxxxx told me about one of the workers (an Indian man) who bought a very large bag of Cannabis to work one day. He told me that the guy opened the bag and had it sitting to one side. He then told me that the man was chopping some of the weed up in a dish. Xxxxxx said that when another man showed up one of the other guys told the man that the supervisor was on his way down to them.

Xxxxxx told me that the guy with the Cannabis panicked and hid the bag of cannabis in the first bag he could find. The bags belonged to travellers on the plane flights. At the time he told me I thought this story was amusing and dismissed it as I did not think of the consequences.

This day I‟ve talked about would have been early October 2004 as Xxxxxx had only been in the job a short while. When I first heard of Schapelle Corby‟s arrest I did not connect it to the story Xxxxxx told me. I did not think about it until there was mention of possible baggage handler involvement.

Over the years I have often thought of the possibility of it being the same bag Schapelle was arrested with. I did not say anything at the time because I was not sure and did not want to get anyone into trouble. The more details I have read of Schapelle‟s arrest the more I suspected it was the same bag that the Indian man put the Cannabis in. I still did not say anything as I began to fear the consequences. I am not involved with drugs and I did not want to become a target for drug related people.

Last year I saw a picture on the internet of the bag of Cannabis which was in Schapelle‟s possession. When I saw it, I thought it looked just like the bag of Cannabis Xxxxxx told me about. Since then I have felt even more so, that it may be the same bag.

After reading about the pressures Schapelle is under my conscience has made me decide to finally come forward with this information.

I would like to state that I do not know Schapelle Corby, her family, or any of her friends and I do not have a criminal history.

And I make this sworn declaration conscientiously declaring the same to be true, and by virtue of the Provisions of the Oath‟s Act 1867.

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 2

[Source Propositions]

To protect her identity and privacy, she was given the code name of „Sueâ€&#x;. The news broke to the media at the end of June:

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 3

[Source Propositions]

3.1.2 THE AFP The AFP‟s reaction was, essentially, one of evasion. They refused to comment, other than to state that they had no intention of investigating anything unless Schapelle Corby‟s family made a formal request.

This was, of course, extremely difficult, as Schapelle Corby was, and is, awaiting the outcome of a clemency application in Indonesia, which is based largely upon humanitarian need.

The AFP were well aware that direct association with claims of this nature could be viewed negatively in Jakarta, with disastrous consequences.

They knew that Mercedes Corby was in no position to proceed with such a complaint.

However, Kerry Smith-Douglas, and Sue, took the initiative, and went directly to the AFP‟s offices. Sue made a formal statement, with the most pertinent points copied below:

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 4

[Source Propositions]

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 5

[Source Propositions]

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 6

[Source Propositions]

3.1.3 THE FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE Again, Sue waited with expectation for the AFP to progress the complaint, but to no avail.

In August 2011, the Hidden World Research Group traced Sue and approached her directly. She agreed to support a more proactive approach and was flown to Brisbane to locate the home of her former boyfriend.

Despite many changes to the area since 2004, the building was identified, and was still occupied by his family.

The address and details were subsequently passed on to the still dormant AFP, both directly by Sue, and by the Hidden World Research Group, via an intermediary.

At the time of production of this report, no evidence has emerged to suggest any further activity by the AFP in pursuit of this matter.

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 7

[Source Propositions]

3.2 THE JOHN FORD AFFAIR 3.2.1 BACKGROUND Drug smuggling through Melbourne airport was just as commonplace as at the other major Australian gateways. A similar catalogue of criminality, including of airport employees, is documented both by the media and through official reports.

The general situation, as referred to in the following report, makes for familiar reading:

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 8

[Source Propositions]

Prior to the onset of the hostile media agenda, the Herald Sun provided some further information to Mercedes Corby:

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 9

[Source Propositions]

This presented the background in which John Ford volunteered his information regarding a failed drug syndication operation.

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 10

[Source Propositions]

3.2.2 JOHN FORD John Ford told his story to the Hidden World Research Group, as follows:

MELBOURNE CUSTODY CENTRE & PORT PHILLIP PRISON I was remanded in 2004, met an inmate in the Melb Custody Centre who was arrested on QLD drug warrants and was pilled off his head. He was to be extradited to QLD. About 6 months later I met him in port Phillip Prison, back in jail again (him not me), and the dealing was still going on. Then I heard about Schapelle after I'd moved to another unit. I really did not care at the time, believing drug runners deserve everything they get.

In the course of moving about the jail (still on remand) I heard 2 guys talking about this inmate and Schapelle, about things not in the media. I still did not care. About a fortnight later I heard more on TV and, my God!!!, It was too coincidental and uncannily accurate as to the details I'd heard. So I just about turned myself inside out trying to get this info to her reps.

I also knew of a practice called 'backloading' in the transport industries where any person could put things into planes, trucks, etc between Melb and Brisbane for a favour or a few beers. In addition I'd learned of such practices in drug smuggling to avoid the NSW police checks over the QLD border.

What was apparently supposed to happen was that the marijuana was put on the plane in Brissie, to be removed in Sydney. On the same day the fed police ran a raid in the Sydney airport and oddly, no video footage of secured areas is available. As a consequence, as I understand it, poor Schapelle's bag was not 'emptied out' and the drugs flew on to Bali.

Subsequent media releases and facts have shown my assertions of organised drug dealing from within prison to be true (and thatâ€&#x;s not the half of what goes on).

In addition the Balinese police who spoke to me did not believe Schapelle to be a drug runner. At worst, as one senior officer told me, she should only be guilty of possession as the drugs were found in her bag. There was, according to him, NO evidence of dealing.

There are a lot of other factors here too... about what I was 'told' I could and could not talk about in Indonesian court, by both Australian authorities and Indonesians... about what I was threatened with if I said the 'wrong' thing.. remembering that the Bali nine were under surveillance at this time too and I had been in Bali twice before (many years ago) and had learnt a bit about organised crime there. Funny that. "

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 11

[Source Propositions]

"I met Xxxxxxx in the Melbourne Custody Centre - he was to be extradited to QLD on drug matters. He was planning 'deals' then too. Some months later he came back to Melb (port Phillip) and was involved in dealing within the prison (marijuana, pills, methadone, buprenorphine, etc..). The inmates talking about him were known to me (sharing cell time on court trips etc) and it was no surprise to hear about him dealing/arranging deals interstate - having apparently arranged contacts whilst in QLD. I cannot be deadly accurate about his details or the facts (finer details) of his assertions but it all fits together with what I experienced and learnt in jail. East coast prisons are a mainline dealing contact, recruitment and communications network. Some other inmates had spoken to me about Xxxxxxx after I'd mentioned I'd been with him in the custody centre, and nothing diminishes my beliefs.

Whilst I think about this...the Federal Police told me never to mention a Murray Perrier (think that‟s spelt right) who notably used the same methods of 'smuggling' contraband inside and outside Australia, to the Indonesians, and esp, as at the same time he was still awaiting trial - the excuse was that if I said something it could prejudice his case (for? or against?) and I'd be facing charges if I did. This was at least one of the things I wanted to talk to Schapelle's reps about too. I'd met him on a court escort as a mainstream prisoner and he didn‟t shut up about his case.

The other connecting fact here was that he mentioned a QLD contact, also mentioned by Xxxxxxx and the two who spoke about him 'bragging' whose name I just cannot recall… just to add weight to what I heard..I also spent some time with a drug cook from QLD, who was paroled back to QLD for protection reasons, who thought I was spot on about Schapelle‟s plight.

If I was totally wrong no one would have bothered."

ADDITIONAL MELBOURNE CUST CENTRE & PORT PHILLIP PRISON "Ok… I remember the name of one the guys speaking about Xxxxxxx and his claims about involvement with the drugs… Paul, and the other I can‟t recall but both were named in my statements.

Also, and this never came out during Schapelle‟s trial… another inmate made a statement to the AFP verifying the events around how I came to hear the information.

I don‟t know who that was though, and I think it was much later when he came forward. I'd think Vvvvvvv didn‟t want to ask Xxxxxxx too much due to his own involvement in certain things (so I heard later on the jail grapevine, and from a QLD source). That was something I was told in confidence by a drug cook turned crown witness who I recall was paroled back to QLD for safety reasons. I think I've mentioned this already."

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 12

[Source Propositions]

BALI 2005 "I was told, in Indonesia, by an AFP person (or so I believe) not to talk about Perrier, or things I'd seen in Bali or learnt about drug smuggling (particularly heroin) to the Court. He was accompanied to my cell by an Indonesian officer. I didn‟t get a name.

I do remember later that day the consul and the security escort visiting me for about 10 minutes and wanting to know who'd seen me. I was threatened that if I talked about more than I was there for I might be charged with perverting the course of justice back in Australia as Perrier‟s trial and other matters would be compromised. I didn‟t know then that the Bali nine were under surveillance.

When I was first taken from Australian custody (soon as I stepped off the plane) I was taken to the lockup and kept in an office till the Aussies caught up with where I was (I was still in their handcuffs!!). An officer (who interviewed me twice I recall) told me that if I spoke about heroin or anything else in court (or even trafficking from Java to Bali which I'd known about) I'd get 7 years jail there.

The comment about 7 years jail was repeated by the Judge almost at the start of my testimony as a reminder I think. I remember the words were that if he thought I was lying I'd get 7 years jail in Bali. I was under no misconception that he was reiterating the police threat, due to the way in which it was delivered to me. I was still unhappy that Schapelle‟s reps weren‟t interested!

Later on the local drug squad chief (I think) commended me on my co-operation, and made again the comment he didn‟t believe Schapelle was a drug trafficker. I got a mattress as a reward I guess."

RETURN TO AUSTRALIA After coming back to Aust. I was put into solitary for 3 days in the punishment regime of Charlotte unit. This was at AFP recommendation for my safety. Then I was placed back into Sirius East - a small segregation unit for various reasons (crown witnesses, inmates of high risk to general prison population etc).

A few weeks later, after some various 'incidents' and frequent threats I was in the small exercise yard. There was a lot of distraction and I felt a serious 'pat' on the back a few times.

I went back to my cell, found I'd been slashed and did my best to cover it up, thinking if that‟s the worst I get then I can live with it.

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 13

[Source Propositions]

2 days later during a strip search at visits (I had visits in mainstream times as 'protection' times put me at risk) the wounds were found. I was taken to security etc etc… and returned straight back to the unit. Within 10 minutes I was attacked again and then put immediately back into solitary for a couple of months. The vicpol prison squad only found out thru the media and when they saw me weeks later threatened to punch the shit out of me (quote) if they had me at a police station rather than at the prison.

After solitary I was put (for my own good apparently) into the IDS unit - a large unit of intellectually disabled inmates of varying levels of incapacity. This lasted 14 months with no normal (as such) human interaction. I was told by a reliable source only early last year in Ararat Jail that my first assailant was telling inmates there he was paid to stab me. That‟s it in a nutshell. I expect it will catch up on me again, but that‟s not today‟s worry, not the point of why I'm here now.

The route of the marijuana, as described, is illustrated by the following diagram:

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 14

[Source Propositions]

Relevant extracts from one of John Fordâ€&#x;s statements to the AFP are provided below:

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 15

[Source Propositions]

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 16

[Source Propositions]

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 17

[Source Propositions]

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 18

[Source Propositions]

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 19

[Source Propositions]

Images of Mr Fordâ€&#x;s formal witness declarations are produced below:

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 20

[Source Propositions]

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 21

[Source Propositions]

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 22

[Source Propositions]

DFAT‟s internal summary of Mr Ford‟s testimony at the Bali trial was as follows:

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 23

[Source Propositions]

3.2.3 THIRD PARTY CORROBORATION John Ford‟s testimony was corroborated by another prisoner. The prisoner known as „Paul‟ came forward and made the following supportive statement:

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 24

[Source Propositions]

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 25

[Source Propositions]

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 26

[Source Propositions]

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 27

[Source Propositions]

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 28

[Source Propositions]

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 29

[Source Propositions]

3.2.4 THE UNIQUE FLIGHT DELAY PATTERN As documented in Section 3.3.5, all but two flights departing from Sydney International Airport on 8th October 2004, when Schapelle Corby was in transit, were delayed by at least 18 minutes. The delays began within 20 minutes of her luggage reaching the baggage make up area, and continued until shortly after her flight left at 11:12 am.

Only two flights, QFA2 and MAS6210, were not delayed during this period. The destination of both was Melbourne.

It has been suggested that this was caused by a frantic search for a missing bag of marijuana, and that the Melbourne flights were not affected because Melbourne was known to be the source.

3.2.5 THE AFP Whilst AFP Commissioner Keelty‟s infamous public statements falsely dismissed any idea of baggage handlers using innocent people to traffic drugs, the Hidden World Research Group has since discovered that he also enthusiastically dismissed Mr Ford‟s evidence to government ministers.

See the report „Exceptions At Australian Airports With Respect To The Schapelle Corby Case‟ for information on this, and on Keelty‟s wider hostility and disturbing conduct with respect to Schapelle Corby.

3.2.6 CLOSING NOTES Mr Ford himself has remained steadfast and consistent throughout, with respect to his information.

It is also worthy of note that this proposition compliments, rather than contradicts, the proposition documented in Section 3.1 (The „Sue‟ Affair), as Brisbane Airport forms a constituent part of the route.

Both of these propositions compliment, rather than contradict, the Sydney Airport proposition (Section 2).

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 30

[Source Propositions]

3.3. OPERATION MOCHA This section is an extract from the report “Exceptions At Australian Airports With Respect To The Schapelle Corby Case” (i.e. The Transit Report). The complete report can be obtained free of charge from the Expendable website.

3.3.1 INTRODUCTION The following provides a background and overview:

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 31

[Source Propositions]

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 32

[Source Propositions]

In a nutshell, there was a major drug smuggling operation in the airport, involving corrupt baggage handlers, at exactly the time Schapelle Corby and her boogie-board bag passed through. This was at exactly the same time and in exactly the same baggage make up area.

Or from a different perspective, whilst corrupt baggage handlers were in the process of smuggling drugs, Schapelle Corby's boogie-board bag appeared, and what subsequently unfolded was, no CCTV footage, missing screening records, and ultimately, even the police who were supposed to be investigating, convicted on corruption charges. And, of course, 4.2kg of marijuana in a boogie-board bag in Bali, and a 20 year sentence for Schapelle Corby.

It has been proposed that the marijuana was also imported into Australia, and was contained within a second bag, which was being carried but which disappeared.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

In response to a parliamentary question, Attorney General Philip Ruddock described this situation as follows: "Upon arrival at Sydney Kingsford Smith International Airport, (SKSA) luggage containing narcotics was diverted by a baggage handler prior to an Australian Customs Service examination. The narcotics were then supplied to members of the syndicate".

He further stated that: "The corrupt behaviour was discovered when a human source approached the NSWCC in December 2004 and provided details of the methods used by the syndicate to import drugs through the airport. The human source was told this information sometime after June 2004".

It has been speculated that the source came forward when he or she became aware of Schapelle Corby's situation in Bali.

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 33

[Source Propositions]

AIRPORT LAYOUT The following is an image of the layout of Sydney International Airport:

LAN801 is the flight upon which the cocaine arrived, whilst AO7829 is the number of the flight Schapelle Corby took to Bali.

The Daily Telegraph explained the situation as follows: A Brisbane man, identified in court as Gary Macdonald, checked two bags on to a flight from Argentina on October 8, 2004 -- but, while he arrived home, his bags did not. A police informant later revealed baggage handlers were paid to remove the bags in Sydney before Customs could inspect them.

Both bags were taken from the LAN801 stand to the baggage make up area, where, like Schapelle Corby's, they were managed by the corrupt baggage handler crew.

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 34

[Source Propositions]

3.3.2 A QUESTION OF TIMING The situation becomes even starker if we examine the actual timings.

The boogie-board bag was placed into baggage canister DQF60342QF at Pier C at 08.18, having been hauled from Pier B on a trolley. This would have placed it at the Pier B scanning area perhaps 5-10 minutes earlier, circa 8:08 - 08:13.

LAN801, carrying the two bags, one of which held the cocaine, landed at 07:50, docking at Gate 35 for unloading at circa 8:00. The first pieces of baggage would typically arrive at the baggage make up area five minutes later, at around 8:05.

The timing to suggest interaction could hardly be more perfect.

Schapelle Corby's boogie-board bag and the two incoming suspect drug bags were almost certainly in exactly the same place at exactly the same time, in an area being managed by corrupt baggage handlers.

The undeniable fact is that the second bag from LAN801 was never seen again, whilst 4.2kg of marijuana was present in Schapelle Corby's bag when she collected it in Bali... the same bag which was unrecorded on the SACL screening system, to which the same baggage handlers were responsible for submitting.

What followed was a series of arrests, dismissals, and the inevitable PR operation on behalf of SACL, Qantas and the government.

As earlier sections have revealed, what also followed was the withholding of vital information and data, by a number of parties whose interests were directly or indirectly threatened.

For Schapelle Corby, the outcome was devastating.

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 35

[Source Propositions]

3.3.3 GOVERNMENT CORRESPONDENCE The government were well aware of this situation. Indeed, under the weight of public opinion, they sent the following letter to Schapelle Corby's lawyers in May 2005:

This clearly acknowledged the situation, and confirmed their awareness of the alarming developments.

Despite this, when the public relations crisis had passed just a few weeks later, they didn't inform Schapelle Corby of critical new evidence which directly related to it (see The Transit Report).

It also proved to be increasingly difficult for Schapelle Corbyâ€&#x;s lawyers to obtain any information or data from them at all, on any of the relevant issues.

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 36

[Source Propositions]

3.3.4 PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS Efforts to extract information in Parliament, by John Murphy MP, were also unsuccessful: Written question by John Murphy MP: Have inquiries been undertaken by (a) the AFP, (b) any government department, (c) Sydney Airport Corporation Limited or (d) any other organisation to (i) establish whether the baggage-handler had acted in unison with other individuals, (ii) ascertain whether there have been other incidents or allegations of corrupt or irregular behaviour by employees of any organisation, the workplace of which is located at Sydney International Airport, within those premises and (iii) establish preventative measures to avert future occurrences of corrupt or irregular conduct involving narcotics at Sydney International Airport; if so, what were the findings, conclusions and recommendations of each inquiry; if no inquiries have been conducted, why not.

Response by Attorney General Philip Ruddock: (a) Yes. (b) I cannot comment if other government departments made enquiries. (c) I cannot comment if the Sydney Airport Corporation Limited made enquires. (d) I cannot comment if any other organisations made enquiries. (i) Evidence will likely be presented in court that persons had contact at SKSA. They may have been Qantas baggage handlers or other staff and they are not specifically identified in the brief of evidence. As this matter is before the courts, it would be inappropriate to comment any further. (ii) I am unable to provide that information. (iii) I am unable to provide that information.

These responses provided far less information than was already available within the public domain, for example, via the following media report (extract):

The Daily Telegraph: April 06, 2006 SECURITY cameras in the baggage handling area of Sydney airport have been repeatedly tampered with, raising fresh questions about a string of drug cases and the threat of terrorism. Sydney Labor MP John Murphy –who revealed the scandal to The Daily Telegraph – claimed the security breach cast fresh doubt on the guilt of convicted drug trafficker Schapelle Corby.

It could also have potential implications for other drug matters in recent years, including Operation Mocha in which a syndicate allegedly ran $30 million in cocaine through the airport with the help of corrupt baggage handlers.

The Daily Telegraph can reveal two cameras inside the baggage handling unit were sabotaged on three occasions between October 2004 and May 2005. In answers to questions on notice submitted in Parliament by Mr Murphy, Customs Minister Chris Ellison confirmed the cameras had been deliberately disabled.

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 37

[Source Propositions]

"The customs maintenance provider of its CCTV cameras at Sydney International Airport has been required to adjust two of customs' CCTV cameras in the baggage make-up area of the airport on three occasions between October 2004 and May 2005" Senator Ellison said. "These adjustments were required to correct the field of view following reports from customs' control room operators that cameras were pointing in the wrong direction."

The cameras are used to monitor the behavior of baggage handlers as they sift through luggage behind the airport's check. The new revelations come after an internal customs report in September 2004 that revealed large-scale corruption among baggage handlers and other airport staff.

"Intelligence from other law enforcement agencies suggests some Asian-recruited Qantas crew may be involved in narcotics," the report found. The report also revealed baggage handlers would divert bags containing drugs from incoming international flights to domestic carousels so they would not be checked. .

Mr Murphy said the security breach was most relevant to the Corby case and urged her lawyers to act in the light of the new developments.

"I am sure Schapelle Corby and her legal team would like to know when the first breach occurred and how long it took to be brought to the attention of the Customs Minister," Mr Murphy said yesterday. .

"Anyone working in this area could have put heroin in a passenger's luggage at either the domestic or international airport at Sydney and that person would never know."

The same applied to the leader of the parliamentary opposition at the time, Kim C Beazley MP, whose paper, A Nation Unprepared, reported the following in August 2005:

Then, following all that, the emergence of the extraordinary classified Customs report which was completed in September 2004 but only made public when it was leaked to a newspaper earlier this year. It revealed shocking security breaches at Sydney’s Kingsford Smith Airport.

The report identified dangerous holes such as: -

passengers’ baggage containing large amounts of narcotics being diverted to domestic carousels to avoid Customs inspections; 39 security screeners out of 500 employed at the airport have serious criminal convictions, with a further 39 convicted of minor matters; theft by airport employees from baggage and aircraft duty free trolleys; engineers with unauthorised duplicate keys; and black spots not under surveillance in the airport’s basement corridors that are used as drug drop off points.

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 38

[Source Propositions]

3.3.5 THE FLIGHT DELAY PATTERN All but two flights departing Sydney International Airport on 8th October 2004, when Schapelle Corby was in transit, were delayed by at least 18 minutes. The delays began within 20 minutes of her luggage reaching the baggage make up area, and continued until shortly after her flight left at 11:12 am.

It is suggested that the sequence of delays of so many consecutive international flights may be partially related to problems with baggage handling, and potentially a desperate search for 4.2kg of marijuana. An alternative suggestion is that the delays themselves may have caused take-off orders to change, and thus difficulties with the planned transfers of incoming drugs.

This diagram illustrates the overall pattern of delays for 8th October 2004 (calculated on the differential from the earliest departure time for each flight in the research period). The bottom of each rectangular bar represents the arrival time of the aircraft at Sydney, whilst the top of the bar represents the earliest/scheduled departure time for that flight. The top of each 'wick' (or line extending from the top of each bar) shows the actual departure time. Thus the length of wick shows the delay for that flight.

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 39

[Source Propositions]

The pattern of delays beginning at approx 08:38 is clear from the extended length of wick for subsequent flights. The following diagram represents a closer view of that period.

Only two local flights to Melbourne, QFA2 and MAS6210, were not delayed during this period.

Note that the non-delay of these flights provides an interesting alignment with the proposition documented in Section 3.2.

All international flights were delayed. The delay times are as follows: ANZ142 AAR602 ANZ182 QFA2 QFA25 QFA119 QFA123 JAL772

Wellington Seoul Christchurch Melbourne Brisbane Auckland Mumbai Tokyo

Expendable.TV

29 92 44 0 102 38 110 48

QFA47 ANZ102 FOM410 QFA149 PBI42 ACA034 QFA3 AUZ7829

Wellington Auckland Palmerston Los Angeles Wellington Honolulu Honolulu Denpasar

52 51 56 23 41 55 46 57

HVN782 MAS6210 EVA312 LAN800 QFA127 QFA107 PRZ063

Ho Chi Minh City Melbourne Taipei Auckland Hong Kong Los Angeles Denpasar

31 0 48 30 18 25 32

Page 3 - 40

[Source Propositions]

No other sequence of delays, even remotely resembling this pattern, was found during analysis of a significant period spanning before and after 8th October 2004.

Note that the weather was good, and there was no industrial action.

[Research & analysis: Dr Adrian Bradford, Perth]

3.3.6 CLOSING NOTES It cannot be disputed that the probability of Schapelle Corby's boogie-board bag, and the two incoming suspect drug bags, passing through exactly the same make up area at exactly the same time, through sheer random chance, is extremely low indeed.

Nor can it be disputed that this area was being managed by corrupt baggage handlers.

The second bag from LAN801 has neither been located, nor explained, to this day.

Equally, the whole raft of new evidence regarding Schapelle Corbyâ€&#x;s boogie-board bag is supportive of the proposition. For example, it was the only bag unrecorded on the SACL screening system.

The blatant unwillingness of the government of the time to engage openly and transparently, even when pressed from within parliament, itself raises many questions, not least with respect to the role of the Minister for Justice and Customs, Christopher Ellison, and the commercial sensitivity of the issue for SACL in particular.

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 41

[Summary]

4. SUMMARY In some respects this report represents a surface scratch on the situation at Australian airports circa 8th October 2004. The airports were simply awash with drugs, with large scale syndication being rife. Official reports confirm this, as do media reports, and as does the never ending anecdotal evidence of those working in sensitive locations.

Accounts from those involved in drug crime at the time, or in contact with those involved in crime, all paint exactly the same picture.

Other reports in The Expendable Project series cover different aspects of this, and illustrate that the AFP were well aware of the immense scale of the problem.

Indeed, they had even been in receipt of the Kessing Reports, some months prior to AFP Commissioner Keeltyâ€&#x;s false and hugely damaging media statement, just prior to the verdict in Schapelle Corbyâ€&#x;s Bali trial: "There is very little intelligence to suggest that baggage handlers are using innocent people to traffic heroin or other drugs between states".

The assertion that this constituted the wilful sabotage of Schapelle Corbyâ€&#x;s defence, to deflect attention from the open criminality at Australian airports, is outside the scope of this particular report. However, there can be no doubt that the specific cases of corruption, identified throughout this report, were also broadly known to the police prior to that statement being made.

NON-INVESTIGATION In terms of the police investigation of the allegations documented in previous sections, this was at best, thin, and in some cases, did not occur at all. Indeed, the eagerness of the AFP to dismiss them is all too clear, as demonstrated through a number of exhibits presented in other Expendable Project Reports.

Yet the accounts are broadly supported, not only through circumstantial evidence, but in a number of cases, by events which the central figures could not have known anything about. Furthermore, the accounts broadly complement, rather than contradict, each other, and a number are corroborated by independent third parties.

But the Australian police and authorities have expended the absolute minimum of resources and effort to investigate what are extremely serious allegations and crimes.

In most instances, they have failed to take even the basic steps employed by the Hidden World Research Group in seeking to identify the truth. The terminology and language evident within internal correspondence and documentation suggests a complete lack of will to undertake any serious investigation at all.

Expendable.TV

Page 6 - 1

[Summary]

SCHAPELLE CORBY The most important factor of all, however, is that it is patently clear that the marijuana found in Schapelle Corby‟s boogie-board bag in Bali could have been placed by a large number of individuals, in a multitude of different locations.

Accounts, and supporting evidence for such placement, have been forthcoming with respect to at least four airports. In addition, multiple drug syndicates have been shown to have been operating in all four.

Furthermore, it is also known that at least one drug syndicate was active on exactly the same day, at exactly the same time, and in exactly the same place, as Schapelle Corby‟s bag, as it passed through Sydney on 8th October 2004.

Yet, consistent with the other reports in The Expendable Project series, the Australian authorities have shown little or no interest in pursuing any of this. Rather, they have proactively and demonstrably sought to suppress information revealing the true extent of the criminality at the airports and within key institutions.

Further, they have wilfully adopted this position in full knowledge of the terrible consequences for Schapelle Corby herself.

“The Australian Federal Police (AFP), Qantas, and Sydney airport knew almost from day one that they had strong, compelling information that might help to back up my story. But they also realised that this piece of information was far more sinister and frightening than the issue of lax security.”

“I was a fly in the ointment. Apart from scaring people with my story, I was putting Australia‟s busiest international airport in the firing line.” ~ Schapelle Corby 2005

Expendable.TV

Page 6 - 2

Š The Hidden World Research Group

www.expendable.tv

Strictly Confidential

Š The Hidden World Research Group

Independent Report The Abuse & Failure Of The Freedom Of Information Act With Respect To The Schapelle Corby Case The Expendable Project www.expendable.tv

CONTENTS

1. Introduction 2. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) 3. The Customs & Border Protection Service 4. The Commonwealth Director Of Public Prosecutions (DPP) 5. The Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade (DFAT) 6. The Department of Infrastructure & Transport 7. The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) 8. The Prime Minister's Department 9. The Australian Federal Police (AFP) 10. Summary & Conclusions

[Introduction]

1. INTRODUCTION In Australia, the Freedom of Information Act is presented as the vehicle to enable the public to access information held by the government. It is styled as follows: "The objects of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act) are to give the Australian community broad access to information held by the Government by requiring agencies to proactively publish certain information and giving citizens a right of access to Government held documents. Information held by the Government is to be regarded as a national resource and treated accordingly."

(Attorney-General's Department) "The Commonwealth’s FOI Act applies only to the federal public sector."

(Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet) Access to information, through the FOI Act, has been heralded by a number of politicians as a fundamental principle of democratic freedom.

SCHAPELLE CORBY It is difficult to imagine a more clear case of a citizen in desperate need of access to information held by government.

As revealed by The Expendable Project, and earlier research, the Australian government was central to a substantial series of events which are disturbing in the extreme.

Formal Freedom of Information requests were therefore made, on her behalf, to a variety of federal departments and agencies.

However, as the following sections will demonstrate, they used a variety of means to deny Schapelle Corby access to material about herself, including information which may have been critical to her welfare and the protection of her human rights.

Whilst these measures were initially ad hoc, and generally conducted on a department by department basis, it became increasingly clear that a degree of collusion was developing.

The net result was that, in practice, Schapelle Corby's legal rights to access information were denied.

In this most pressing of cases, the Freedom of Information Act was shown to be nugatory, and subject to pre-meditated and systemic abuse.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 1

[The Australian Broadcasting Corporation]

2. THE ABC The ABC is part of the federal public sector, and is thus demonstrably within the provision of this legislation. However, when a formal Freedom of Information request was submitted on behalf of Schapelle Corby, late in 2010, the following response was forthcoming:

The ABC had simply exempted itself from the Freedom of Information Act.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 1

[The Australian Broadcasting Corporation]

In response to a complaint about this, they elaborated as follows:

However, as the ABC broadly exist to produce and broadcast programs, all the information they hold must therefore be "program-related material", which is thus, according to them, exempted.

The ABC even refused to provide a list of the material it held:

This provision alone makes it impossible to challenge any specific decision regarding disclosure, as only ABC personnel are aware of the actual material which exists and has not already been destroyed.

The ABC simply exempted itself from providing any information at all. With respect to Schapelle Corby, they exempted themselves from the Freedom of Information Act, and effectively, from Australian law.

Consequently, the ABC is free to state whatever it wishes, and hold and use any information whatsoever, in absolute secrecy. This applies regardless of the nature of the information, embracing wholly false and politically or maliciously created data.

The ABC is wholly unaccountable with respect to Schapelle Corby.

STRATEGY & APPROACH ADOPTED The ABC exempted itself entirely from the Freedom of Information Act. .

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 2

[Customs & Border Protection Service]

3. CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION By 2011 Schapelle Corby's serious mental illness was well known. She had been diagnosed by one of Australia's most eminent psychiatrists in 2009, and stories of her deterioration regularly appeared in both print and broadcast media. Mercedes Corby was therefore granted Power of Attorney over her affairs. The official documentation confirming this accompanied all FOI requests.

Customs' opening gambit was to ignore this, and instead, place new and difficult requirements upon both Mercedes and Schapelle Corby, in order to proceed:

Mercedes Corby was forced to try to explain to her mentally ill sister that she needed to sign a consent document, in relation to matters which she almost certainly did not fully comprehend.

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 1

[Customs & Border Protection Service]

However, having jumped through the hoops, the outcome was as follows:

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 2

[Customs & Border Protection Service]

Customs claimed that they had identified just 11 documents. This was confirmed again in an email dated 1st March 2011:

The 11 documents listed were not of huge significance, and were largely public domain.

However, it was already known that Customs held a substantially greater number of documents than this.

A simple check of materials obtained through other channels readily identified a number which were omitted, including extremely significant items such as the following, a letter in which the minister for Justice and Customs discusses primary evidence which was withheld from Schapelle Corby during her trials:

One would assume that significant correspondence between a Minister of State and the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, relating to the role of Customs at Sydney airport, would be retained and archived, and never deleted. One would also assume that this correspondence would be held within Customs itself.

Equally, given its gravity, one would assume that it is filed and accessible.

Another example follows, this time to a party external to the government:

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 3

[Customs & Border Protection Service]

It is thus difficult to understand why this would not be held within the department pertinent to the issue, which Christopher Ellison was the minister for. Equally, it is difficult to comprehend how even a cursory search could overlook this, as well as other correspondence and material like it.

A complaint was thus lodged, and an internal review requested, as confirmed below:

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 4

[Customs & Border Protection Service]

The outcome remained unchanged.

STRATEGY & APPROACH ADOPTED Critical and important material, which was known to exist, was not provided or acknowledged.

Barriers and hurdles were created, including the disputing of legal documentation which was witnessed by another government department.

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 5

[The Director Of Public Prosecutions]

4. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS As with several other departments, the DPP's first attempt to divert the FOI request was to contend the legal documentation provided:

Like the other departments, this was done with full knowledge of Schapelle Corby's serious mental illness and grave circumstance. It should be noted that the POA is a formal legal document, and was confirmed and witnessed as such by the Australian Consulate in Bali.

In addition, they demonstrated their indifference and insensitivity further by suggesting that Schapelle Corby may wish to send a request by email herself:

In response to this, the situation was explained thus:

Expendable.TV

Page 4 - 1

[The Director Of Public Prosecutions]

Mercedes Corby was, once again, forced to manage a series of administrative tasks, visit the consulate, and engage her seriously mentally ill sister in matters which can only have confused her.

As if these were not enough, even more barriers were created:

Here, the DPP were demanding that Mercedes Corby identify the documents they actually held, in advance of considering their release.

Clearly, this was an impossible task, as the response explained:

Whether the minister was contacted, or not, is not known, but the subsequent response is provided below:

Expendable.TV

Page 4 - 2

[The Director Of Public Prosecutions]

Page 1:

Expendable.TV

Page 4 - 3

[The Director Of Public Prosecutions]

Page 2:

The DPP was now admitting clearly that they held "25 files directly relating to Ms Corby containing some 7,500 documents".

One might consider that Schapelle Corby had every right to know why they held so much material, and what was in it, but the DPP were denying access on the basis that provision of the information would cause too much work for them.

They again stated that they were refusing to accept the Power of Attorney, despite previous correspondence urging them to contact the Australian Consulate, who actually witnessed it.

Expendable.TV

Page 4 - 4

[The Director Of Public Prosecutions]

The response given, made these points directly:

Expendable.TV

Page 4 - 5

[The Director Of Public Prosecutions]

Expendable.TV

Page 4 - 6

[The Director Of Public Prosecutions]

Unfortunately, the DPP did not engage at all on any of the points made in this correspondence. They simply ignored them.

Their reply detailed their decision:

The request was rejected on the basis that it involved too much work. Schapelle Corby was flatly denied the right to know why the DPP held such an extraordinary amount of information on her, and what it constituted.

STRATEGY & APPROACH ADOPTED The DPP created a myriad of barriers and hurdles, including disputing legal documentation witnessed by another government department.

They created an impossible requirement (identification of some 7,500 documents).

They refused to engage discussion or debate.

They claimed that the exercise of fulfilling a legal and democratic right constituted too much work.

Expendable.TV

Page 4 - 7

[The Department Of Foreign Affairs & Trade]

5. DFAT The freedom of information request submitted to DFAT was met with a similar attempt to contest the Power Of Attorney held by Mercedes Corby:

DFAT continued to cite their unwillingness to accept the legally validated Power of Attorney, even when provided with the full copy. In their eagerness to manufacture an obstruction, DFAT appeared to overlook the fact that the Power of Attorney had actually been legally witnessed by DFAT themselves, via the Consulate in Bali:

Expendable.TV

Page 5 - 1

[The Department Of Foreign Affairs & Trade]

In addition, DFAT extended this burden by requiring consultation with the father of Schapelle and Mercedes Corby, or his Executor. That Michael Corby Senior was deceased, was a fact which DFAT were well aware of.

Fortunately, Mercedes Corby was also the Executor of his estate, but this nonetheless imposed further burden upon her, in addition to her role of visiting and nursing her sister, on an almost daily basis.

However, the efforts exerted by Mercedes Corby in addressing these matters proved to be fruitless, as DFAT simply rejected the request on the basis that it created too much work for them:

Again, it emerged that a government department held an enormous number of documents on Schapelle Corby:

Their decision, like that of the DPP, was to deny Schapelle Corby the right to know why they held such an extraordinary amount of information on her, and what it constituted.

Expendable.TV

Page 5 - 2

[The Department Of Foreign Affairs & Trade]

Despite the blunt nature of their response, an effort was made to accommodate DFAT, by breaking down the request into smaller units:

Even this proved to be futile, and was rejected outright by DFAT, as follows:

STRATEGY & APPROACH ADOPTED DFAT created a number of barriers and hurdles, including disputing legal documentation witnessed by the Bali Consulate, which is a part of DFAT itself.

They claimed that the exercise of fulfilling a legal and democratic right was too much work.

They flatly rejected a proposal to submit the request in smaller units.

Expendable.TV

Page 5 - 3

[The Department Of Infrastructure & Transport]

6. DEPT OF INFRASTRUCTURE & TRANSPORT In 2003, Allan Kessing wrote two reports on Sydney airport security, which included, amongst other things, information about drug trafficking. When these were leaked to the media a few days after Schapelle Corby's trial, the government accused him of whistle blowing and pursued him relentlessly.

As information relevant to Schapelle Corby might be held, a Freedom of Information request was submitted to the Department of Infrastructure and Transport, with the blessing of Allan Kessing himself.

The result of this FOI was, predictably, the censorship of the vast majority of information, including everything which might assist. What was left was, by and large, nonsensical and meaningless.

But, this wasnâ€&#x;t all. The Department of Infrastructure and Transport even censored information which was feely available in the public domain.

Take the following segment:

Expendable.TV

Page 6 - 1

[The Department Of Infrastructure & Transport]

Here is exactly the same information, the openly accessible 'Questions on Notice Additional Budget Estimates 2009-2010', from the parliamentary internet site.

In this example, there were 20 pages of public content carefully blanked out. This was replicated in document after document.

All this material was presented to everyone in the world via the internet, but for representatives of Schapelle Corby, a government bureaucrat had spent hours, at tax payer's expense, using a black pen to hide it.

STRATEGY & APPROACH ADOPTED Selective, extreme and unjustified censorship.

Expendable.TV

Page 6 - 2

[The Australian Communications & Media Authority]

7. ACMA Over a period of seven years, the ACMA has overseen and endorsed a multitude of broadcasting media incidents which have breached all levels of decency and civilised behaviour, with respect to Schapelle Corby. These have even included abuse of Schapelle Corby's human rights in her own prison cell.

A Freedom of Information request was therefore submitted on behalf of Schapelle Corby, to retrieve information regarding the ACMA itself, and details of their interactions with the offending broadcasters. It is worthy of note that the ACMA has, to this day, supported the broadcasters in every single complaint ever submitted.

Regrettably, the ACMA's position was every bit as obstructive as the other government agencies.

TOO MUCH WORK Their initial response employed the “too much work” device:

Like a number of other departments, the ACMA were seeking to exclude material by presenting an impossible proposition: that Schapelle Corby‟s representative eliminate most of the material, without even knowing what it pertained to. The ACMA refused to identify the documents.

Expendable.TV

Page 7 - 1

[The Australian Communications & Media Authority]

As the ACMA were the only party aware of the contents of this material, this strategy effectively created a position in which they were able to censor freely, unhindered and undetected. This is precisely what transpired:

Of the 600 documents within the scope of the request, they unilaterally dismissed 423 of them. A complaint was therefore lodged: ["The ACMA's decision to include only 177 of the original 600 documents identified is of serious concern. It appears to be ad hoc, and indeed, no rational basis has been provided for the omission of any of the missing 423 documents.

Clearly, these were initially considered to be relevant. Thus, it is entirely reasonable to presume that a degree of censorship has occurred. Without notification of the content of the reports it is impossible to establish any other basis for this.

I would therefore request that the documents themselves are provided as originally identified, along with a full schedule."].

This was flatly rejected.

The Hidden World Research Group has since been independently informed that a number of the censored documents relate to complaints, made by proxies for the Howard government. These were made against those broadcasters who criticized the Indonesian judiciary, thus highlighting the human rights abuses that occurred throughout Schapelle Corbyâ€&#x;s trial.

INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE The material supplied by the ACMA was remarkably devoid of internal correspondence, or similar. This was pointed out as follows: ["We also find that there is little or no provision of material internal to the ACMA itself. For example, minutes, internal notes, memo's, emails, and similar. The ACMA would therefore have us believe that the matters raised within these complaints were not discussed internally, including between staff and officers, and between ACMA personnel and politicians."]

This issue was simply ignored.

Expendable.TV

Page 7 - 2

[The Australian Communications & Media Authority]

BUSINESS INFORMATION The ACMA further protected the interests of offending broadcasters by suppressing a range of data which they defined as „business information‟:

It is noteworthy that they made no reference to any consideration for the interests of the requestor of this information, Schapelle Corby.

PUBLIC INTEREST Even more alarmingly, the ACMA openly placed its own interests above public interest:

The response to this was as follows: ["The ACMA seek to justify exemption on the basis that provision could prejudice the future supply of information to the ACMA. This is clearly placing the interest of the ACMA above the public interest.

Indeed, the respondent states this directly: "I have decided that this factor outweighs any public interest that may exist in favour of disclosing this information". …….

Ms Zurnamer is a public servant. The ACMA is supposed to serve the public. For the ACMA to place its own interests above the interests of the public it is supposed to serve, and by definition, the life and welfare of Schapelle Corby, is absolutely appalling. I request that this is escalated, as a matter of urgency, to the appropriate minister"]

Again, this was dismissed.

Expendable.TV

Page 7 - 3

[The Australian Communications & Media Authority]

ANOTHER DEVICE The ACMA also dismissed information pertaining to Schapelle Corby on the basis that she was not the main subject matter of the relevant broadcasts.

This was contended as follows: ["I would suggest that this route has been used to apply significant and wide scale censorship of relevant information. There is no provision which states that a Freedom of Information request is limited to broadcasts on which the main subject matter is the individual the request pertains to. The act embraces all information on the subject".]

As referenced earlier, some of these documents related to broadcasts pertaining to the Indonesian judiciary, and the disturbing nature of Schapelle Corbyâ€&#x;s Bali trial.

This device, however, enabled complaints instigated by government proxies to remain hidden. It prevented disclosure of the pressure which the government applied to broadcasters, in pursuit of its relationship with Indonesia, and at Schapelle Corbyâ€&#x;s expense.

Yet again, the ACMA rejected any criticism of these disturbing manoeuvres. It continues, to this day, to support offending broadcasters, irrespective of the nature of the complaint (see The Expendable Project website), and continues to hide political agenda and intervention.

STRATEGY & APPROACH ADOPTED The ACMA claimed that the exercise of fulfilling a legal and democratic right was too much work.

They created an impossible requirement in order to proceed (identification of some 600 documents).

Important material, which was known to exist, was withheld and not acknowledged.

They openly placed the interests of the ACMA above public interest.

They engaged in extreme censorship, using a number of unconstitutional devices.

Expendable.TV

Page 7 - 4

[The Prime Minister’s Department]

8. THE PRIME MINISTER’S DEPARTMENT Given the vocal commitment to the Freedom of Information Act, a request was submitted to the Prime Minister's Department with more optimism than most.

However, its fate was familiar, with the original request rejected:

The most striking aspect of this, however, was the identity of the decision maker:

It is not known whether this is a normal state of affairs, but the counter terrorism reference was somewhat surprising.

STRATEGY & APPROACH ADOPTED The Assistant Secretary of the Border, Counter-Terrorism and Strategic Planning Branch, claimed that the exercise of fulfilling a legal and democratic right was too much work.

Expendable.TV

Page 8 - 1

[The Australian Federal Police]

9. THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE Following an exceedingly long process, material was eventually released by the AFP in response to a formal request on behalf of Schapelle Corby. A subsequent request yielded the same type of result. This was characterised by extreme censorship:

This was a typical page, the sequence in the middle representing the reason for exemption (censorship).

Expendable.TV

Page 9 - 1

[The Australian Federal Police]

This was the nature of most pages provided.

As for the rest, the vast majority were items which had already been published in the public domain, such as media monitor pages.

Essentially, almost all meaningful information was suppressed, and censored.

A range of reasons were provided, with the following being prominent:

Expendable.TV

Page 9 - 2

[The Australian Federal Police]

Remarkably, the AFP were stating clearly that Schapelle Corby's right to access information about herself would damage the relationship of Australia with Indonesia.

They were also withholding information to hide the opinions and input of politicians, as well as senior AFP personnel, presumably to save the AFP from embarrassment, and prevent public disclosure of their actual role in the case.

Considered third party opinion, regarding the full list of exemptions, produced the following: PUBLIC INTEREST Throughout the decision Ms Matan referred to 'public interest'. This has appeared in a range of contexts, but in almost all cases it amounts to opinion. Public interest is never actually defined, nor is its application to each specific scenario ever established, and certainly not in any detail.

Even more seriously, in many cases, the wholly ambiguous public interest cloak is used to protect AFP Interest, or even, the interests of individuals in specific posts or positions at the given time.

The AFP's interests, and the interests of certain individuals, are not public interest at all. Indeed, in many cases these contradict each other.

This is probably a manifestation of the fact that decisions like these, which pertain to the activities of the AFP and its personnel, should not be taken from within the AFP itself. Whilst they are taken internally, it is inevitable that these conflicts of interest will arise.

In a situation in which the AFP are being openly and internationally accused of corruption, and of political complicity with a foreign state, with respect to the Schapelle Corby case, public interest is not best served by covering up information requested on behalf of Schapelle Corby herself.

In this situation public interest is best served through transparency, accountability, and in establishing the trust of the domestic and international public through openness.

These critical matters appear to pass Ms Matan and the AFP by completely. Public interest is not AFP interest, nor is it the interest of individuals. Public interest is clearly best served by the release of all the documents requested. I submit that these should be released with immediate effect.

SCOPE I submit that the scope was not wide enough. For example, Ms Matan specified that she searched on keywords "Shapelle Corby", "Schapelle Corby", "I Made Mangku Partika" and "Pastika".

However, it is clearly evident that many other terms were pertinent, and perhaps more so. For example, given the hostility of certain parties to Schapelle Corby they tended to use the name "Corby" when referring to her. None of the searches above will have found these references, and the sources will therefore have been omitted.

I submit that this is an extremely serious and significant omission. I further submit that there are other serious omissions.

Expendable.TV

Page 9 - 3

[The Australian Federal Police]

DOCUMENTED REASONS FOR NON-DISCLOSURE I would also like to examine some of the reasons cited for censoring the information.

22(1)(a)(ii) 22 Deletion of exempt matter or irrelevant material (a) an agency or Minister decides: (ii) that to grant a request for access to a document would disclose information that would reasonably be regarded as irrelevant to that request; Ms Matan's comments are wholly subjective, and openly state that she has determined and decreed its irrelevancy. Yet this is an extremely complicated case, involving a myriad of complex issues, both international and domestic, which Ms Matan is not a party to, aware of, or has sufficient knowledge of.

I submit that Ms Matan is not best positioned to make this decision, and as such, should have erred on the side of disclosure, rather than secrecy.

33(1)(a)(iii) 33 Documents affecting national security, defence or international relations (1) A document is an exempt document if disclosure of the document under this Act: (a) would, or could reasonably be expected to, cause damage to: (iii) the international relations of the Commonwealth; or There are a range of assumptions and value judgements in response here.

Ms Matan states that information was supplied with the expectation of confidentiality: blatantly assuming that the foreign state was not aware of Australian FOI legislation or Australian values.

This is an assumption only, and there is no evidence to support it.

Ms Matan's value judgement is also that political expediency should trump the rights of Australian citizens with respect to information which relates to them. In this case, that political expediency should deprive a citizen who is seriously ill in a third world jail cell from information pertaining to her own case. One could even characterize it as political expediency trumps human rights.

That is Ms Matan's opinion only. I will refrain from commenting upon what I think of that, but I will state clearly that Ms Matan is not best positioned to make such a judgement, and should not be making it. This is particularly moot given the AFP role in some of the matters covered.

33(1)(b) 33 Documents affecting national security, defence or international relations (1) A document is an exempt document if disclosure of the document under this Act: (b) would divulge any information or matter communicated in confidence by or on behalf of a foreign government, an authority of a foreign government or an international organization to the Government of the Commonwealth, to an authority of the Commonwealth or to a person receiving the communication on behalf of the Commonwealth or of an authority of the Commonwealth.

Expendable.TV

Page 9 - 4

[The Australian Federal Police]

Here, Ms Matan is, as an employee of the AFP, taking a decision to prioritize the position of the AFP above that of the rights of an Australian citizen.

That clearly contradicts any semblance of natural justice or reasonable application of balanced judgement. It is not a decision that should be taken from within the AFP, as the vested interest is self defined.

Again Ms Matan applies a value judgement: that political expediency trumps the rights and/or human rights of an Australian citizen. Ms Matan applies this position to this particular case, which could hardly be more acute with respect to the needs of the citizen.

33A(1) 33A Documents affecting relations with States (1) Subject to subsection (5), a document is an exempt document if disclosure of the document under this Act: (a) would, or could reasonably be expected to, cause damage to relations between the Commonwealth and a State; or (b) would divulge information or matters communicated in confidence by or on behalf of the Government of a State or an authority of a State, to the Government of the Commonwealth, to an authority of the Commonwealth or to a person receiving the communication on behalf of the Commonwealth or of an authority of the Commonwealth.

The State agency or party referred to in Ms Matan's decision must itself be subject to Australian FOI legislation too. That State agency must also be well aware of the provisions of the act, and the rights of Australian citizens defined within. Ms Matan makes the assumption that the State agency is ignorant of these matters, which is simply not tenable. They would or should have been aware that disclosure was a possibility. This therefore appears to be another flimsy excuse to deny access to information.

Equally, again, a value judgement is applied: this time that AFP/State political expediency trumps the rights and/or human rights of individual citizens. Ms Matan applies this position to this particular case, which as stated previously could hardly be more acute with respect to the needs of the citizen.

36(1)(a) 36 Internal working documents (1) Subject to this section, a document is an exempt document if it is a document the disclosure of which under this Act: (a) would disclose matter in the nature of, or relating to, opinion, advice or recommendation obtained, prepared or recorded, or consultation or deliberation that has taken place, in the course of, or for the purposes of, the deliberative processes involved in the functions of an agency or Minister or of the Government of the Commonwealth; and (b) would be contrary to the public interest.

(5) This section does not apply to a document by reason only of purely factual material contained in the document.

Expendable.TV

Page 9 - 5

[The Australian Federal Police]

Via Ms Matan's decision she uses this clause to censor information on the basis that it is "advice, consultation and opinion".

This is clearly manufactured, as these aspects define the position of the decision makers in a professional capacity. The position of those involved in the case is important, and their statements define this position. Their words patently define a factual representation of their position.

Clearly this does not disclose any confidential information with respect to mechanics of operation.

It defines the position of key players and the AFP. Ms Matan is unilaterally stating that the position of professional parties is not information; but it clearly is.

Also, the freedom to record opinions in confidence implies that they are not shared. The truth here is that they were shared. They were professional recorded opinions, relating to a member of the public. Refusal to disclose them implies that certain individuals can state anything at all with impunity, no matter how offensive or extreme their opinion may be.

Public interest is, in fact, vested in transparency, trust, and respect, which is not fostered by hiding the extreme or hostile position of public servants.

It appears that through inappropriately using this clause, Ms Matan seeks to avoid any embarrassment to the AFP, or to certain individuals.

And further, that even this self-interest mission trumps the rights of an Australian citizen with respect to access to information related to the applicant herself.

37(1)(b) 37 Documents affecting enforcement of law and protection of public safety (1) A document is an exempt document if its disclosure under this Act would, or could reasonably be expected to: (b) disclose, or enable a person to ascertain, the existence or identity of a confidential source of information, or the non-existence of a confidential source of information, in relation to the enforcement or administration of the law; or Ms Matan's decision indicates a misuse of this clause. Clearly, it cannot be reasonable that anyone can state anything about a third party, and that this is held in confidence on the basis of an AFP employee being tempted to decree that they stem from a confidential source.

The interests of the offended party should surely be given priority, except in extreme circumstances.

The proposition that an AFP employee should make an information release decision pertaining yet again to an AFP self-interest scenario is clearly flawed.

Expendable.TV

Page 9 - 6

[The Australian Federal Police]

37(2)(b) 37 Documents affecting enforcement of law and protection of public safety (2) A document is an exempt document if its disclosure under this Act would, or could reasonably be expected to: (b) disclose lawful methods or procedures for preventing, detecting, investigating, or dealing with matters arising out of, breaches or evasions of the law the disclosure of which would, or would be reasonably likely to, prejudice the effectiveness of those methods or procedures; I do not believe that this is a decision that an AFP employee can objectively make. Given the closeness to the functionality and culture of the AFP, preservation of AFP interests in this respect will inevitably take precedence. This is a value judgement which should be taken outside of the AFP.

40(1)(d) 40 Documents concerning certain operations of agencies (1) Subject to subsection (2), a document is an exempt document if its disclosure under this Act would, or could reasonably be expected to: (d) have a substantial adverse effect on the proper and efficient conduct of the operations of an agency; or (2) This section does not apply to a document in respect of matter in the document the disclosure of which under this Act would, on balance, be in the public interest.

This again uses the cloak of public interest; undefined, and clearly confused with AFP interest and that of certain individuals.

The rights of the subject, who the requests for information are being made on behalf of, are invariably and consistently trumped.

The approach of claiming the need for confidentiality, without actually stating the specifics of that need - what the information actually is - is a common method of evasion. It is sometimes referred to as 'black box logic', because it constructs a situation in which ignorance of the box contents makes those contents difficult to challenge.

However, the actual rationale used exposes the nature of the response. For example: "The need for the agency to maintain the confidentiality with regard to the subject matter".... what exactly is that need? Is it the need to avoid embarrassment? The need to hide the position of certain individuals? The need to hide corruption?

And "if such information was disclosed, it may discourage external cooperation in AFP investigations". No other explanation is provided. So why? Is what the AFP are actually doing and/or saying so damaging that external parties would be appalled?

Back to the core test: the interests of the AFP trump the rights of the citizen.

Expendable.TV

Page 9 - 7

[The Australian Federal Police]

41(1) 41 Documents affecting personal privacy (1) A document is an exempt document if its disclosure under this Act would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about any person (including a deceased person).

This clause is quoted, but nowhere are the identities of the mysterious third parties provided.

However, despite this clear omission, there are clues: "whether the information would shed light on the workings of the government". Are we to deduce that the third parties whose personal information is to be protected are public figures, perhaps in government office? If so, then isn't there a public expectation of disclosure; a public right?

Again, 'personal information' isn't defined. Clearly it isn't medical records or family history or data which really is personal information. One can only imagine that it is opinion again; the AFP seeking to avoid disclosure of an embarrassing position, via censorship of FOI output.

Yet again, the rights of the citizen requesting information relating to the applicant herself are trumped.

A formal review of the AFP's censorship position was requested, and a response based upon the above was submitted. Every point was ignored, and the censorship stood in its entirety.

The case was therefore taken to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) where, under pressure, the AFP agreed to re-visit many of the above issues. However, they subsequently produced nothing of substance at all.

The following are extracts from the affidavit which was prepared in response to this failure:

Expendable.TV

Page 9 - 8

[The Australian Federal Police]

At this point, the AFP engaged a prestigious Sydney based firm of lawyers, Clayton UTZ. In effect, they were directly using substantial sums of tax payersâ€&#x; money to seek to prevent Schapelle Corby from accessing the information they held on her.

The close relationship of Clayton UTZ with the Howard Government is also worthy of note. For example, John Howard himself was a former employee, and deputy leader of the Liberal Party, Julie Bishop was a former partner.

Political donations from Clayton UTZ are also documented. For example:

Expendable.TV

Page 9 - 9

[The Australian Federal Police]

In effect, the AFP were now directing significant amounts of public money to Clayton UTZ to seek to protect themselves, and the (Liberal) Howard Government from potential embarrassment and worse. The same organization, Clayton UTZ, donated funds to Liberal politicians.

The use of Clayton UTZ in itself, which is well beyond the means of Schapelle Corby, to seek to find a legal device to avoid disclosing information, is perhaps illustrative of the nature of the information itself. See other elements of The Expendable Project for further details of this.

By this point, the principles of the Freedom of Information Act had long since been lost.

Clayton UTZ‟s fifty-five page submission to the AAT was countered by a detailed response, by Schapelle Corby‟s representative, with the following introduction:

I am not a lawyer. Schapelle Corby cannot afford a lawyer, and certainly not a high powered team such as the one the AFP has called upon, at tax payers’ expense, to seek to prevent her from viewing the information they hold about her.

All my colleagues and I can do on her behalf is to apply the principles and purpose of the act itself, and most importantly, measure right from wrong using common sense. I would also contend that given the unique nature and characteristics of this freedom of information request, the value of case law is in any event significantly diminished or often irrelevant.

I would submit that the Clayton UTZ response, assembled at such expense, has not invalidated any of the points made in the last submission (SLC1). The stark and fundamental questions remain, and they tend to be questions of the utmost gravity.

For context, I would like to refer to some recent developments, in which information has emerged which further demonstrates the public interest need for transparency with respect to the AFP. I refer to the prosecution of Allan Kessing, for which the AFP, allegedly on a political mission, withheld critical evidence from the defence and from the court. This is currently playing out in the media and in Parliament. In the circumstances, perhaps it isn't surprising that the AFP are less than forthcoming, as demonstrated in this Senate Estimates transcript by Commissioner Negus: [www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s62.pdf]

Expendable.TV

Page 9 - 10

[The Australian Federal Police]

This is additionally relevant, however, because the AFP withheld the Kessing Reports themselves from Schapelle Corby's lawyers and from the Bali court. Given the nature of Schapelle Corby's defence, and that the reports substantiated the alarming degree of criminality at Sydney Airport, this was clearly critical evidence.

Equally disturbing, Commissioner Keelty stated the following, two weeks before the verdict: "There is very little intelligence to suggest that baggage handlers are using innocent people to traffic heroin or other drugs between states". Yet, the AFP had held the Kessing Reports, which showed the opposite, for some months.

I cite this as a single example from many, because it is topical and it illustrates the gravity of the disturbing and public interest issues at stake.

In addition, given these types of conflicts of interest, how can it be reasonable for the AFP to define public interest with respect to the release of information embracing their own conduct?

How can it be reasonable for the AFP to be allowed to withhold critical evidence from a person struggling for life, on the basis of subjective judgements made by themselves, when release of such information may incriminate themselves?

Evidence of misconduct is already in the public domain. Yet the AFP are intent on denying access to information which may incriminate a number of very senior officers, and politicians. Through opposing this freedom of information request so vigorously, the AFP has also demonstrated the lengths they are prepared to go to sustain this position. We contend that this in itself serves no credit to the AFP. To us, the public interest is very clear indeed, and in this case, is uniquely serious in terms of its implications.

Public interest surely isn't to allow the myriad of information, potentially relating to such hugely disturbing matters, to remain hidden from the victim.

I would submit that this is neither in the interests of the public, nor in the long term interest of the AFP. I submit that whilst exemption may be in the personal interests of the individuals in situ, past and present, it is not in the interests of the AFP as an organization.

This is the context of this case. We very much hope that the tribunal will understand the principles, issues, and utmost importance of the case, which we further seek to articulate below.

Expendable.TV

Page 9 - 11

[The Australian Federal Police]

Please allow Schapelle Corby to have access to all the information she humbly requests.

Please allow more of the truth to emerge, in the public interest, in the interests of natural justice, and in support of the principles enshrined in the Freedom of Information Act. There follows our response to the Clayton UTZ submissions for each freedom of information request, and our original review submission.

Thank you for your attention, Yours Faithfully,

The tribunal hearing itself is scheduled for the final quarter of 2011.

STRATEGY & APPROACH ADOPTED Extreme and unjustified censorship.

Refusal to engage in dialogue.

The use of a level of legal expertise well beyond the means of Schapelle Corby, thus creating an unbalanced process, as well as indicating a clear disregard for the principles of the Freedom of Information Act itself.

Critical and important material, which was known to exist, was withheld and not acknowledged.

]

Expendable.TV

Page 9 - 12

[Summary & Conclusions]

10. SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS A more pressing need for access to information, held by government, would be difficult to envisage.

Equally, in a situation where the departments themselves were central to the most disturbing and serious of incidents, and allegations of corruption, a clearer public interest need for transparency and openness would be hard to imagine.

Yet, the sections within this report demonstrate beyond doubt, not only the complete failure of the Freedom of Information Act, but its abuse on a systemic scale, both in terms of letter and spirit.

A variety of means were employed to frustrate Schapelle Corby's efforts to obtain information on herself, including the following: 

Self exemption from the entirety of the Freedom of Information Act (ABC)



Critical and important material, which was known to exist, was withheld and not acknowledged (Customs, ACMA, AFP)



Barriers and hurdles were created for the FOI submission itself, including disputing legal documentation witnessed by a government department (Customs, DPP, DFAT)



Extended and lengthy delays were common between responses (most departments)



Impossible requirements were created and demanded (e.g.: the identification of 7,500 internal documents) (DPP, ACMA)



Discussions and debate were refused, with the contents of correspondence simply ignored (DPP, AFP)



Requests were flatly rejected on the basis that they created too much work (DPP, DFAT, PMD, ACMA)



Efforts at mediation and compromise were rejected outright (DFAT)



Extreme censorship was exercised preventing the release of anything meaningful (Dept of Infrastructure & Transport, AFP)

Consistently, departments sought to create a position in which they were granted the right to make subjective decisions regarding scope and inclusion, usually on the basis of resourcing.

Expendable.TV

Page 10- 1

[Summary & Conclusions]

There is no doubt, however, that they fully understood the implications of this in terms of its propensity for abuse. Indeed, the importance of full scope to the integrity of the exercise, was explained on a number of occasions.

A chronological examination reveals that once the 'too much work' card was first deployed, its use spread quickly across the departments, indicating a degree of orchestration. That communication occurred between departments is not in doubt, since contact with each other to confirm communication releases, is on record.

CONCLUSION The outcome of this catalogue of refusals, rejections, censorship and abuse, is that Schapelle Corby was denied the right to information held on herself under the Freedom of Information Act. Through a wide variety of devices and methods, the government, or many of its major departments at least, prevented her from accessing data relating to her own grave circumstances, as well as information relating to the government's own activities with respect to her predicament.

In practical terms, Schapelle Corby's democratic and legal rights, under freedom of information legislation in Australia, have been revoked.

Footnote Regarding the Freedom of Information Act With respect to the act itself, whether the abuses documented are an accidental bi-product of badly framed legislation, or whether the legislation was deliberately constructed in such a way that it allows organs of state to cover up and hide damaging information, is an important question. However, it is outside the scope of this report.

Expendable.TV

Page 10- 2

Š The Hidden World Research Group

www.hiddenworldresearch.com

The Expendable Project www.expendable.tv

Strictly Confidential

© The Hidden World Research Group

Independent Report Schapelle Corby’s Deteriorating Health

The Expendable Project www.expendable.tv

CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1.1 The Background 1.2 Schapelle Corby

2. Schapelle Corby’s Mental Illness 2.1 Schapelle Corby’s Suffering 2.2 Comments 2.3 The Medical Diagnosis 2.4 The Author’s Account 2.5 A First Hand Account

3. The Government’s Response

[Introduction]

1. INTRODUCTION Schapelle Corby is mentally ill, and continues to deteriorate. Despite this, and in breach of her human rights, she remains incarcerated in a squalid prison cell.

In August 2009, a psychiatric report was produced by one of Australia's most eminent psychiatrists, Dr Jonathan Phillips, MB BS FRANZCP:

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 1

[Introduction]

Copies of the psychiatric report were provided to the government by a multitude of means, including through a diplomatic bag to the then Prime Minister Rudd. It was also directly handed to Foreign Minister Smith's office as indicated below (Ms Keane subsequently confirmed that she personally handed it to Stephen Smith MP on the following Sunday, as soon as he arrived back from Chile). Despite countless follow ups, and references to it in the media, the government failed to formally confirm receipt until May 2010.

At the time of production of this report, in 2011, despite the visible deterioration of Schapelle Corby, and the regular reports of shocking and harrowing incidents resulting from her mental illness, in such brutal circumstances, the Australian government have continued to evade their responsibilities stemming from the psychiatric issues documented.

NOTE: The contents of the psychiatric report are deeply disturbing, but have been withheld from this report for privacy reasons.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 2

[Schapelle Corby’s Mental Illness]

2. SCHAPELLE CORBY’S MENTAL ILLNESS 2.1 SCHAPELLE CORBY’S SUFFERING Schapelle Corby is now mentally ill, and due to the strong medication she is taking for this, she is also physically deteriorating.

The article below is extracted from a letter written by a well known advocate and supporter. It was sent to every Australian MP and Senator in June 2010. Less than ten of them replied, and all but a couple of the responses were copy/pasted from prepared text.

SCHAPELLE CORBY'S MENTAL ILLNESS It is impossible to properly articulate the trauma and suffering Schapelle Corby has endured. The turmoil has been such that it has rendered her mentally ill and at serious risk of short term death.

People have no idea what her reality actually is, as a mentally ill Australian woman in a squalid foreign prison. What her deteriorating mental illness means in practice. What it means in her daily life in her situation.

They don't know about the maltreatment and abuse. They haven't seen the Dr Phillips' report, and what he actually had to say about her shocking condition and chances. They have little comprehension of the depths of psychosis she endures every hour of every day.

Nor have they considered the physical aspect of suffering severe mental illness in that environment. That she is childlike and totally exposed to criminal exploiters and others.

What that REALLY means.

About how she struggles to look after herself. What her sister sometimes has to do for her, to function as a human being. How she is defenceless, and how she is treated every day of every week in what is already a frightening and terrible place.

People really should think about these things. If they did, and understood what is now shocking cruelty, they would weep, as I do.

HANGING ON Schapelle has remained strong for so long: holding on day after day in hope and belief that justice and truth would prevail. Bewildered, confused, but keeping faith in humanity and clinging desperately to past memories and the love of her family.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 1

[Schapelle Corby’s Mental Illness]

But year after year it has become harder and harder, as her mental strength has been worn down. Freedom is so far away that it is not even on the radar, yet she has been in the squalid overcrowded unbearable heat of that cell for what will seem like an absolute eternity.

A RECENT VISITOR Let me tell you what a visitor reported recently: "When she wasn't staring into space and rocking from side to side, or looking around intently seeing cameras everywhere and who knows what other demons, she was making frequent references to suicide and death. From time to time the Schapelle I remember would resurface from the depths, but this occurred infrequently. From other comments she made, and intense references to her dead father, I fear I may not see her again."

"Schapelle now thinks she is ugly and this could very well be attributed to the media. She also thinks she is stupid, which is probably due to bullying and taunts like the white monkey ones. Her defences are gone and she is vulnerable and open to everyone and anyone."

"When we left the prison and were being driven back to our hotel in a cab, we were both crying for most of the journey."

A couple of recent true stories I have also picked up: 

 



Schapelle pulled all the eyes off her soft toys and handed them to her mum, telling her "Take the cameras away". Then the visitor above took her a soft toy, a tiger. She hid it because she fears its eyes watch her. Then, of course, the media are allowed in with their cameras.

Schapelle asked her mum if she was REALLY her mother. She told her that people can be made up to look like her mum with makeup. She kept asking, "Are you really my mum?"

Last time her uncle went, she sat there with tears streaming down her face, because she couldn't make him understand what she meant. It was something to do with his watch.

She couldn't comprehend and sobbed for the full hour.

Then again, just a few weeks ago she was begging her mother to let her kill herself after an AUSTRALIAN media crew burst into her cell and confronted her. Can you imagine how her mother felt when she left her behind? Channel 9 basically told people who complained that she is fair game.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 2

[Schapelle Corby’s Mental Illness]

I could go on and on, and this just scratches the surface. This is what she has become after what they have done to her, and by they, I mean people in Australia too. I mean Australian politicians.

Australia has an innocent mentally ill woman dying in a foreign hell hole and has simply watched her deteriorate, even allowing its own media to continue its onslaught with intrusion and malicious reporting. She should have been in a hospital a year ago, but instead she is being mentally tortured, and no-one lifts a finger to help her.

2.2 COMMENTS Some comments from those who have seen her recently illustrate this further: "At one stage she sat on the floor with my daughter's stuffed frog that plays tunes and she was there holding it for 90 minutes without moving."

“Schapelle was a strong minded person then, determined not to crumble and determined to prove her innocence. Now she‟s like a timid little child who cowers when I scold her for doing silly things, like climbing the water tower.” "She thinks she can hop up and go, she'd just start to get ready. She'd change her clothes and say 'let's go'. We'd have to say, 'No Schapelle, you can't'." “She‟s always talking about being better off dead. I‟m really concerned for her. She‟s definitely not sane any more. She talks about “going down” which means down into a grave. She says she would be better off dead.”

"According to her cellmates she doesn't sleep at night," Kerobokan jail doctor Agus Hartawan said. "Sometimes she is blank. Sometimes she just hangs around the cell, sometimes she forgets about things. Sometimes she forgets to look after herself." "On this occasion she was dishevelled, was not looking after herself properly and was paranoid, believing someone was spying on her through a hold in the ceiling of her jail cell." “She has this thing about climbing the water tower, all the time. She‟s done it many times and I always have to go out and talk her down. She tries to refuse sometimes but always obeys me in the end – either willingly or forcefully. I just insist in a firm way until she gives in. She never defies me.” "Schapelle Corby is so traumatised by her time in jail that she has lost all touch with reality."

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 3

[Schapelle Corby’s Mental Illness]

DOCTOR JONATHAN PHILLIPS The comments from Dr Jonathan Phillips, a former president of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, who examined her directly, are even starker:     

"She is now helpless, hopeless, feels useless, she feels alienated, she feels removed from the rest of humanity."

"Schapelle has now cut herself quite severely and many times over on two occasions."

"By any normal definition of insane, Schapelle is sadly in that category."

"She is in a situation where she could easily move forward to kill herself."

"She is hanging on by a thread."

PSTCHIATRIC NURSE KIM BAX Kim Bax, a psychiatric nurse, explains Schapelle’s condition (see the YouTube interview on www.expendable.tv): Question: You are a psychiatric nurse aren't you?

Kim: Yes I am Question: Can you describe what Schapelle condition is?

Kim: Schapelle is a very very sick girl. At the moment she has a severe psychotic depression, very high risk of suicide, and is at high risk of harming herself. She is quite delusional. She is believing things that are untrue she is probably hearing things that are untrue. She is quite out if touch with reality.

If she was in this country she would be in hospital, she would be having regular medication supervised by qualified nurses and doctors. She would probably have a nurse allocated to her 24 hours a day, at least for the first 2 or 3 weeks to get proper treatment, because she is at such high risk of suicide and such high risk of harming herself Question: Is her condition really that desperate or urgent?

Kim: Absolutely. People with Schapelle's condition kill themselves all the time or end up with severe injuries. They are out of touch with reality, and so desperate that they can't bear to be alive. People in Schapelle‟s condition are walking a tightrope.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 4

[Schapelle Corby’s Mental Illness]

2.3 THE MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS In August 2009, New Idea Magazine published an interview with Dr Jonathan Phillips, which starkly described the seriousness of Schapelle Corby's condition.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 5

[Schapelle Corby’s Mental Illness]

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 6

[Schapelle Corby’s Mental Illness]

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 7

[Schapelle Corby’s Mental Illness]

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 8

[Schapelle Corby’s Mental Illness]

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 9

[Schapelle Corby’s Mental Illness]

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 10

[Schapelle Corby’s Mental Illness]

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 11

[Schapelle Corby’s Mental Illness]

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 12

[Schapelle Corby’s Mental Illness]

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 13

[Schapelle Corby’s Mental Illness]

2.4 THE AUTHOR’S ACCOUNT Author, Kathryn Bonella, describes Schapelle Corby’s short hospital stay, in 2009, in her book, Hotel K:

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 14

[Schapelle Corby’s Mental Illness]

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 15

[Schapelle Corby’s Mental Illness]

Despite a significant number of serious incidents and medical traumas in her prison cell, Schapelle Corby has never since been allowed the hospital treatment she so desperately needs.

The Australian government have been notified of her situation on a number of occasions.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 16

[Schapelle Corby’s Mental Illness]

2.5 A FIRST HAND ACCOUNT Robert McJannett, former Kerobokan prisoner, describes Schapelle Corby's deteriorating condition from his first hand experience.

Question: Can you describe your first meeting with Schapelle Corby?

Robert McJannett: It was a bit of a shock. It certainly wasn't what I was expecting after seeing all the pictures of her as some sort of beauty queen the media had been portraying.

I knew she had a hard time, and had an unfair trial, from what I had seen in the media, even though a lot of it was not correct. You could tell something wasn't right.

But when I saw her, I was shocked. She looked much older, and she did look ill, and was certainly not what I was expecting.

Question: Can you explain some of the conversations with Schapelle?

Robert McJannett: Yes. Because I had heard about her mental problems, I went straight to her. Being a person that has done a lot of negotiations over the years, with a lot of people, I think I can pretty well put questions to people and get the answers I'm looking for. So I posed a few direct questions to her at our first meeting, to see what response I got. And just from those responses, from those questions, I knew straight away that something‟s not right. That she is a sick person.

Question: Did you see any bullying or mistreatment of her?

Robert McJannett: I saw that regularly. She gets bullied; she gets treated like no other prisoner in there. There were something like 800 odd prisoners in the prison, when I was in there, including the women's prison, and she gets treatment like no other prisoner.

Question: Does she get support from other Australian prisoners?

Robert McJannett: She basically gets no support from any other Australian prisoners, and that‟s one thing that really cut deep with me. I couldn't get my head around that.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 17

[Schapelle Corby’s Mental Illness]

Question: You mentioned earlier about the commotion around her. Can you describe and explain that?

Robert McJannett: Whenever she is around, there are always other Indonesian prisoners following her, or somebody shouting out her name, or the media tracking her. She never gets any peace, it is a wonder that she has survived as long as she does.

Question: Did you witness the press approaching her at all?

Robert McJannett: Yes constantly. Whenever the press came into the prison, usually because there was independence day celebration or some other reason they might be in there for, the media would get in, and as soon as they are in there they say lets go for Corby.

They weren't in there for the other reasons at all. They were in there solely to harass Schapelle Corby, and get pictures of her, and sell to the media back in Australia. But there was a constant approach to Schapelle Corby. No doubt about it.

Her surroundings in the women‟s section of the prison are worse than the men‟s. I think because it‟s a Muslim country. The women's block is more dilapidated than the men‟s. It‟s more over crowded, and she is stuck in with prisoners, 10 to 13 other women. She didn't have the advantage of her own cell like I did, which I had paid for of course. I know she was getting harassed by other prisoners in her cell.

For her the torment never ends. It‟s 24 hours a day.

Question: What do you think will happen if she is left there?

Robert McJannett: I think she will die, for sure. In fact, I'm surprised she has even lasted this long.

Expendable.TV

Page 2 - 18

[The Government’s Response]

3. THE GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE There has been no formal response at all. Despite provision of the full medical report in August 2009, and many times thereafter, the government have not even acknowledged its contents. Note that acknowledgement brings responsibility.

Shun Hatton, Schapelle Corby’s Uncle: “I have visited Schapelle in the Kerobokan prison when she was so severely traumatised that she didn‟t know who I was, she wasn‟t able to comprehend what was being said to her and she couldn‟t put a coherent sentence together.

On that very morning, less than an hour before my visit with Schapelle, consular staff had visited her and reported that she was: „fine, a little depressed but otherwise fine’.”

On its website, the Australian government’s own Human Rights Commission, states clearly that: “Prisoners, just like all other people, are entitled to enjoy their human rights.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee has made it clear that prisoners enjoy all the rights in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), subject to 'restrictions that are unavoidable in a closed environment'. (General Comment No.21) One right of special importance to prisoners is the right to be treated with humanity, dignity and respect while in detention. This human right is set out in articles 7 and 10 of the ICCPR, article 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and in the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).”

It would appear that, as far as the Australian government is concerned, these lofty statements and objectives do not apply to Schapelle Corby.

"Schapelle Corby is suffering a slow and torturous death, devoid of human rights, and devoid of any protection by her government."

Expendable.TV

Page 3 - 1

Š The Hidden World Research Group

www.hiddenworldresearch.com

The Expendable Project www.expendable.tv

Strictly Confidential

Š The Hidden World Research Group

Further Case Exhibits (Including the Paris Hotman Complaint)

The Expendable Project www.expendable.tv

CONTENTS 1. Amended Letter On Boogie-Board Bag Scanning 2. A Carefully Crafted Position 3. The Kessing Referral Letter 4. Preparing The Script 5. Kevin Rudd Letter To Alexander Downer 6. Christopher Ellison's Template Response 7. Schapelle Corby - The Hot Potato 8. The Mechanics Of Sacrifice - The Cable 9. The Mechanics Of Sacrifice - The Meeting 10. AFP Duplicity - The Changing DFAT Request 11. DFAT Duplicity - The Marijuana Testing Request 12. AFP Duplicity - The Marijuana Testing Request 13. Schapelle Corby's Plea For Justice 14. The Sentence Discrimination Complaint 15. Public Evasion By The Prime Minister 16. Consular Report On Plea For Government Honesty 17. Consular Report On Forensic Testing 18. Paris Hotman's Insights 19. The Law Council & AFP Commissioner Keelty 20. A Mutual Assistance Request 21. A Gift From The State 22. The Queensland Police Certificates 23. Unanswered Questions (Aviation Security) 24. Another Example Of Airport Criminality 25. Keelty, Ellison & The Media 26. The Refused Independent Enquiry 27. Enforcing The Government's Policy 28. Continued Government Censorship 29. The Paris Hotman Complaint

[Further Exhibits]

1. Amended Letter On Boogie-Board Bag Scanning This is an amended version of the letter from DOTARS to AFP Commissioner Keelty, which is presented in Section 2. This version includes a comment from another letter, by Minister for Justice & Customs Christopher Ellison, stating that "We also understand that SACL does not have a listing of the 4th baggage item having been recorded by the checked baggage system".

The vital information, that the boogie-board bag was the ONLY bag not scanned at Sydney Airport, was withheld from Schapelle Corby and her lawyers, when they asked directly about baggage transfer, and x-ray scanning, in July 2005.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 1

[Further Exhibits]

2. A Carefully Crafted Position Whilst the vital information, that Schapelle Corby's boogie board bag was the only bag not scanned, was withheld, the government were well aware of its importance and criticality. They worked extremely hard to co-ordinate a "carefully crafted" public position:

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 2

[Further Exhibits]

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 3

[Further Exhibits]

3. The Kessing Referral Letter The Howard government's political pursuit of Allan Kessing was initiated after reports were published in The Australian newspaper, which exposed systemic corruption at Sydney Airport.

The following referral letter was sent from Customs to the AFP on 1st June 2005. It reveals a range of information which was directly relevant to Mr Kessing's court case, some of which would have been extremely beneficial to his defence.

However, as also explained by The Australian, this was withheld by the AFP. It was never submitted to the court or to his defence team. As demonstrated by The Expendable Project, this was a common feature of AFP behaviour with respect to Schapelle Corby.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 4

[Further Exhibits]

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 5

[Further Exhibits]

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 6

[Further Exhibits]

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 7

[Further Exhibits]

4. Preparing The Script In July 2005, the Attorney-General's Department prepared a set of standard responses, intended to manage questions posed by the media or any other third party.

This was an extensive effort, and was conducted largely for PR purposes, but it ensured that the public remained ignorant of what was really transpiring behind the scenes.

The particular email below is a self explanatory example. It suggests that responses should be prepared to some of the core questions being asked about the AFP. This particular suggestion was rebuffed, by Minister Ellison's Justice & Customs Department.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 8

[Further Exhibits]

The policy and agenda with respect to the Schapelle Corby case extended across all departments, and covered a range of documentation. The following is an exhibit from the Prime Minister's office:

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 9

[Further Exhibits]

It is interesting that this strict government wide regime even embraced Qantas, an apparently independent commercial entity.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 10

[Further Exhibits]

5. Kevin Rudd Letter To Alexander Downer Kevin Rudd challenges Foreign Minister Downer, during the period in which the AFP were falsely denying that drug syndicates were using innocent passengers.

He refers to the case of 'Steve & Dee', who had found a large consignment of marijuana in their luggage when they arrived in Bali, and had taken it to the Australian consulate. He also refers to former AFP officer, Ray Cooper, who had blown the whistle on the AFP, by claiming that they were well aware of this practice.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 11

[Further Exhibits]

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 12

[Further Exhibits]

6. Christopher Ellison's Template Response A standard letter was prepared for Justice & Customs Minister Christopher Ellison.

As The Expendable Project demonstrates, this painted an entirely different picture to what was actually occurring behind the public relations text.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 13

[Further Exhibits]

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 14

[Further Exhibits]

7. Schapelle Corby - The Hot Potato In the context of flagrant insecurity and wholesale corruption at Australian airports, it is perhaps understandable that responsibility for the Schapelle Corby case was passed around government departments and agencies like a hot potato:

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 15

[Further Exhibits]

8. The Mechanics Of Sacrifice - The Cable On 27th March 2005, Justice & Customs Minister Christopher Ellison sent a message directly to the Indonesian government. At the worst possible time for Schapelle Corby, this sent a very clear signal:

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 16

[Further Exhibits]

Dispatch:

The Indonesians received the following text: "It is the view of the Australian Government that the conduct of Ms Corby's case, including the presentation of evidence and any decision about whether to make an appeal, is entirely a matter for Ms Corby's lawyers and not the Australian Government."

The message this conveyed, that as far as the Australian government was concerned, Schapelle Corby was on her own, could not have been lost in Jakarta.

Schapelle Corby, her lawyers, the Australian parliament, and the Australian people, were completely oblivious to this, as the government presented the opposite picture for public consumption.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 17

[Further Exhibits]

9. The Mechanics Of Sacrifice - The Meeting On 7th April 2005, Justice & Customs Minister Christopher Ellison attended a meeting with the Indonesian Attorney-General, at which the Australian AttorneyGeneral was not present. The subject of their discussions was Schapelle Corby.

Schapelle Corby's lawyers believed that Ellison had sought only to avoid the death penalty, which the Australian government would have been forced to oppose. They believed that he had effectively signalled that any other sentence would be manageable from the Australian government's perspective.

The following priority cable was sent from the Australian consulate in Jakarta to Canberra on 12th April 2005.

This was followed up the next day, when the cable below was sent from the Bali consulate:

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 18

[Further Exhibits]

Yet again, this entirely contradicts the picture which the Australian government were presenting to the media, the public and even the Australian parliament.

To this day, the Australian government continue to refuse to give any account of this meeting, or provide a transcript, either written or verbal.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 19

[Further Exhibits]

10. AFP Duplicity - The Changing DFAT Request The Australian government's evasion of its statutory and moral obligation, to assist Schapelle Corby with respect to her efforts to have the marijuana tested for country of origin, is documented in Section 5.

During this process, the need for frequent retrospective revision was inevitable.

The following briefing note, to Justice & Customs Minister Christopher Ellison, clearly refers to DFAT's formal written request to the AFP to secure the requisite testing:

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 20

[Further Exhibits]

However, as the government's policy unfolded against Schapelle's Corby's interests, as evidenced throughout The Expendable Project, this was subsequently revised to a mere discussion:

This was not the only reference to DFAT's formal written request within the myriad of documentation secured for the project. However, such references, following the above briefing date, uniformly ceased.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 21

[Further Exhibits]

11. DFAT Duplicity - The Marijuana Testing Request The following cable clearly states that the Indonesian police responded positively to an informal AFP offer to forensically test the marijuana found in Schapelle Corby's bag:

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 22

[Further Exhibits]

DFAT, however, were extremely concerned to ensure that this information was not communicated to Schapelle Corby or her lawyers:

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 23

[Further Exhibits]

Subsequently, the Foreign Minister himself prepared the following letter to a fellow MP:

The contradiction and reversal of position is self-evident, while its timing fully aligns with the government's unfolding policy against Schapelle's Corby's interests. For further details se Section 5.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 24

[Further Exhibits]

12. AFP Duplicity - The Marijuana Testing Request The following AFP briefing note, to Justice & Customs Minister Christopher Ellison, clearly states that the Indonesian police responded positively to an informal AFP offer to test the marijuana found in Schapelle Corby's bag:

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 25

[Further Exhibits]

However, subsequently, the AFP prepared the following, for a response to a Senate parliamentary committee:

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 26

[Further Exhibits]

The contradiction is self evident: Why would the AFP offer tests (to the Indonesian Police) which it knew it could not perform?

The truth is that the tests were well established and readily available. The Hidden World Research Group have obtained documentation from a leading forensic scientist, who repeatedly offered to perform such tests for the AFP, but was rebuffed.

Note also that The Hidden World Research Group have been unable to obtain confirmation of whether AFP Commissioner Keelty's meetings with his Bali counterpart, Made Pastika, subsequent to the INP's positive reaction, were witnessed or minuted. On request, the AFP refused to provide any information at all on these crucial exchanges.

For further details of the disturbing events surrounding Schapelle Corby's efforts to have the marijuana properly tested, see Section 5.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 27

[Further Exhibits]

13. Schapelle Corby's Plea For Justice Prior to the verdict, Schapelle Corby wrote her own plea for justice in her prison cell.

Her note appealed directly to the Judge, who she called Mr Hakim (the Indonesian word for Judge). The full hand written note is presented below:

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 28

[Further Exhibits]

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 29

[Further Exhibits]

14. Sentence Discrimination Complaint The legal and human rights abuses endured by Schapelle Corby during the Bali trial are documented in Section 6. Despite suggestions to the contrary, by government supporters within the Australian media, the 20 year sentence was also unprecedented.

27th May 2005 The Hidden World Research Group made extensive searches through the Supreme Court database in Jakarta, and could find no case at all in which a sentence of this magnitude was endorsed for a similar marijuana offence. The discriminatory and political nature of the sentence was also starkly illustrated by a media research exercise, and by reference to a number of legal analysts.

This aspect was also very clear to Schapelle Corby’s Indonesian lawyers. Indeed, it was so clear that Jakarta based lawyer, Hotman Paris Hutapea, took the step of writing directly to both the Indonesian President and the Prime Minister of Australia.

His letter is reproduced in full below.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 30

[Further Exhibits]

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 31

[Further Exhibits]

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 32

[Further Exhibits]

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 33

[Further Exhibits]

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 see Section 6).

Australian politicians, including the Prime Minister himself, abrogated all responsibility to protect and assist one of their own citizens, despite her obvious and desperate need.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 34

[Further Exhibits]

15. Public Evasion By The Prime Minister The document produced below is the Australian government's transcript of an interview of 16th May 2005, in which Prime Minister John Howard openly evades a direct question put to him by broadcaster Alan Jones.

Alan Jones subsequently refers to the case of 'Steve & Dee', who had also found marijuana in their luggage on arrival in Bali. This information had been withheld from Schapelle Corby and her lawyers, by the government.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 35

[Further Exhibits]

16. Consular Report On Plea For Government Honesty The first page of an Australian Consulate report to Canberra, dated 13th April 2005, is produced below.

The lawyer’s plea for help fell on deaf ears, as the government continued to suppress information on the corruption and criminality at Sydney airport, which is documented in Section 3, and throughout this dossier.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 36

[Further Exhibits]

17. Consular Report On Forensic Testing The first page of the Australian Consulate's report to Canberra on the Bali court hearing of 3rd March 2005 is produced below.

Note the reference to Schapelle Corby's repeated efforts to secure forensic testing of the evidence, something which was subsequently misrepresented by Australian government ministers (see Section 5). Despite her ongoing efforts, and her appeals to the Australian government, the evidence was subsequently burned, untested.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 37

[Further Exhibits]

18. Paris Hotman's Insights In 2005, Schapelle Corby's Indonesian lawyer, Paris Hotman, directly encountered the hostility of the Australian government.

Despite being wholly unaware of many of the abuses of office exposed by The Expendable Project, his dismay and frustration at the position of the government increased on the basis of his own experiences. This manifested itself in the following complaint, which was faxed to the Prime Minister's office:

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 38

[Further Exhibits]

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 39

[Further Exhibits]

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 40

[Further Exhibits]

19. The Law Council & AFP Commissioner Keelty With the AFP, and even the media, awash with evidence of drug syndication at Australian airports involving corrupt baggage handlers and others, and with the AFP actually in possession of the Kessing Reports, Commissioner Michael Keelty stated the following just a few weeks before the verdict: "There is very little intelligence to suggest that baggage handlers are using innocent people to traffic heroin or other drugs between states" The Law Council of Australia's condemned Keelty's clearly damaging and false preverdict comments as follows:

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 41

[Further Exhibits]

Even following this, however, Keelty remained defiant, apparently claiming that he was in some way defending the AFP:

This was not his first internal denial of the position:

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 42

[Further Exhibits]

The AFP's self interest, regarding their culpability, vis-Ă -vis their failings and role with respect to the systemic corruption and criminality at Sydney Airport, was a common theme:

The full impact upon Schapelle Corby's position at the Bali trial, of Australia's top policeman making such hostile and directly negative comments, can only be speculated. However, as documented elsewhere in The Expendable Project, this was far from his only unhelpful contribution.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 43

[Further Exhibits]

20. A Mutual Assistance Request (Pending) In November 2004, the Australian government made an application to the United States of America, under the Mutual Assistance Treaty In Criminal Matters Act, for operational assistance with respect to Schapelle Corby. Further details on this will be published later.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 44

[Further Exhibits]

21. A Gift From The State Operation Rhodium was an alternate name for Operation Mocha. This embraced the 10kg of cocaine which was being handled in exactly the same baggage make up area, at exactly the same time, as Schapelle Corby's boogie-board bag, when it passed through on 8th October 2004.

An informant, code named 'Tom', was an integral part of this syndicate. However, not only was he never charged, but as the letter below reveals, he was allowed to keep $758,370 of the money he had accrued from the sale of cocaine. Note that it has been stated by credible sources that this government generosity also bought his silence on a number of matters, including the scale of police involvement on 8th October and other dates. Indeed, he was prevented from disclosing some of this information by a magistrate, when he gave his evidence in court.

Compare this approach to the ruthless and expensive pursuit of Schapelle Corby's innocently earned book royalties, which denied her the funds for another appeal, and for ongoing medicines.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 45

[Further Exhibits]

22. Queensland Police Certificates As demonstrated in earler sections of the Australian media were encouraged by the government to embark upon a lengthy campaign of smear, innuendo, and fabrication, which misrepresented Schapelle Corby and her family.

The following certificates were issued by the Queensland Police Service to help counter these false allegations, and state that there were no convictions against them.

These were completely ignored by the ABC and those journalists responsible.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 46

[Further Exhibits]

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 47

[Further Exhibits]

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 48

[Further Exhibits]

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 49

[Further Exhibits]

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 50

[Further Exhibits]

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 51

[Further Exhibits]

23. Unanswered Questions (Aviation Security) On 23rd May 2005, Opposition Leader, Kim Beazley, put a number of direct questions relating to aviation security to the Howard government:

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 52

[Further Exhibits]

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 53

[Further Exhibits]

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 54

[Further Exhibits]

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 55

[Further Exhibits]

24. Another Example Of Airport Criminality When Schapelle Corby travelled to Bali, corruption and criminality at Australian airports was rife. Many people subsequently came forward to offer their own direct experiences.

The following is an affidavit from a passenger who travelled through Sydney on the day following Schapelle Corby's arrest:

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 56

[Further Exhibits]

25. Keelty, Ellison & The Media Keith Moor was the Herald Sun journalist who produced the wholly false story claiming that Schapelle Corby had been photographed with a drug dealer prior to her arrest. The photographs had been seized by the police following a raid on the home of a petty criminal, and their existence was quickly leaked.

It later emerged that the photographs were actually taken from within Kerobokan prison, and the criminal was merely one of the many people who visited and posed for photographs with her whilst she was on remand. Neither Moor, nor the police, ever apologised for the damage this false allegation caused.

The following email extracts, in which Moor proudly demonstrates his work in defending the AFP to another journalist, reveal his relationship with AFP Commissioner Keelty.

Moor's false story appeared just a few weeks later, during Schapelle Corby's appeal process. The timing could not have been worse, in terms of negative influence upon the outcome.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 57

[Further Exhibits]

Note also that Justice & Customs Minister Chris Ellison, whom Keelty reported to, subsequently denied involvement, despite his office being cited by a variety of media outlets:

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 58

[Further Exhibits]

26. The Refused Independent Enquiry During the early weeks of Schapelle Corby's incarceration, and before the Australian government had formulated its hostile policy, a number of parties understood that there were substantive and serious issues in play.

Such was the magnitude of these concerns, that one such party (name withheld) approached the Attorney-General's Department asking for an Independent Inquiry:

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 59

[Further Exhibits]

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 60

[Further Exhibits]

Despite the requestor clearly being a party of some influence, this suggestion was quickly rejected by the Attorney General, Phillip Ruddock:

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 61

[Further Exhibits]

This point blank refusal to consider such a move fully aligns with the ongoing position of the AGD with respect to the other Schapelle Corby related issues it was dealing with.

The reference to 'Independent' could imply independence from Indonesia. However, the reference to "an independent inquiry into this matter in Australia" suggests that the request could pertain to independence from one or more Australian parties.

It could reflect the known corruption within the AFP, and the allegations of AFP involvement in drug syndication at the airports.

Equally, it could refer to the AGD itself. The government's own records on the subject clearly demonstrate that the AGD had, in practice, lost at least some of its own independence with respect to Schapelle Corby. Whilst Phillip Ruddock was the Attorney General, many aspects of the Schapelle Corby case were apparently being managed on behalf of the AGD by the Justice & Customs Minister. Correspondence and engagements, which might be expected to fall within the remit of the AGD, were in many cases being undertaken by a party whose actual portfolio included airport security and the Australian Federal Police.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 62

[Further Exhibits]

27. Enforcing The Government's Policy Having determined to sacrifice the welfare of a citizen, Schapelle Corby, the Australian government proceeded to co-ordinate support for this policy throughout its departments:

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 63

[Further Exhibits]

28. Continued Government Censorship The Australian government, even to this day, seek to prevent public access to information relating to the corruption at Sydney airport, when Schapelle Corby passed through. This page is one of many similar provided in response to a Freedom of Information request in 2011:

With respect to requests made on behalf of Schapelle Corby herself, for information held on herself, government departments openly breached her legal rights through a variety of abuses of legislation. These are documented in Section 14.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 64

[Further Exhibits]

29. The Hotman Complaint INTRODUCTION The Hidden World Researcg Group report, ‘Exceptions At Australian Airports With Respect To The Schapelle Corby Case’, identified and demonstrated a significant number of disturbing matters pertaining to the remit of the Justice & Customs Minister, Christopher Ellison.

Additional issues, of a similar nature, are documented across a number of other reports and dossiers published as part of The Expendable Project.

However, despite having no knowledge of the material and evidence, which has been obtained for this project, Schapelle Corby’s lawyer experienced sufficient frustration himself that he felt compelled to formally submit a list of serious complaints and allegations to the Australian government.

Examples of the sort of serious issues he was unaware of include: the withholding of the information that Schapelle Corby’s boogie-board bag was the only one not scanned at Sydney airport, and knowledge that Ellison was a central player in the PowderGate affair.

The role and position of the Prime Minister is also documented by The Expendable Project, but insufficient information was available to Mr Hutapea at that time to enable him to realize the futility of his initiative.

Regardless, this supplementary report reveals some of his ongoing frustrations at the apparent inactivity and position of the government.

It further provides the nine pages of his formal complaint, with respect to Ellison, which was received by the Prime Minister’s office on 12th August 2005.

ONGOING DIFFICULTIES During the months and weeks from June 2005, Mr Hutapea encountered an increasing number of delays, problems, and obstacles, in seeking to obtain information and garner support from the Australian government. He complained many times, to no effect.

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 65

[Further Exhibits]

The following exemplify his rising frustration at the increasingly obvious hostility from Canberra:

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 66

[Further Exhibits]

12th July 2005

22nd July 2011

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 67

[Further Exhibits]

26th July 2005

29th July 2005

23rd August 2005

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 68

[Further Exhibits]

A FORMAL COMPLAINT The full complaint, as received and stamped by the Prime Minister’s office, 12th August 2005:

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 69

[Further Exhibits]

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 70

[Further Exhibits]

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 71

[Further Exhibits]

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 72

[Further Exhibits]

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 73

[Further Exhibits]

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 74

[Further Exhibits]

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 75

[Further Exhibits]

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 76

[Further Exhibits]

Expendable.TV

Page 1 - 77

End of Report

End Of Addendum

The Expendable Project

www.Expendable.tv