There is no requirement that a person has been convicted of an offence, but the court hearing the application for the order must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the person has committed an offence.
So I'm formally asking you to explain and detail (for the benefit of the World), the "Evidence" of Schapelle's alleged "Offence." You say her book was the "Proceeds of crime," so where is your evidence she committed one? Are you free to ignore the law, and the legislation, in relation to this crucial point? Are you above the law?
- There was no physical evidence against Schapelle. No CCTV. No X-ray imagery. No fingerprints. No DNA. No plant source. No luggage weight comparisons.
- Bali Customs officers acted in a grossly unprofessional and incompetent manner, behaviour that would have seen the case thrown out of court in Australia.
- There was no circumstantial evidence against Schapelle (e.g. no phone and banking records pointing to her guilt, and no forensic or other evidence at any of her Australian residences).
- There was no confession.
- There were no known criminal connections.
- She had no previous criminal record.
- There was no evidence of trafficking, or any distribution network.
- The was no motive. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (in their 2007 World Drug Report), marijuana sold for US30 cents a gram on the streets of Bali in 2005, while it sold for $US31 a gram in Australia.
- Marijuana is never smuggled from Australia to Indonesia for that very obvious reason, and no formal agency has any record (ever), of this "Trade."
- And firstly, the witness statements against her (detailing her alleged actions and verbal "Admissions"), were from Indonesian officials who could not speak English. And secondly, they were also completely unsupported by CCTV evidence of this alleged interaction, despite occurring in a closely monitored airport environment. No explanation for this lack of footage was ever forthcoming. For these two reasons, this "Evidence" would not have been admissible in any Australian court.
- There are alternative scenarios for the presence of marijuana in Schapelle's bag, including criminal QANTAS baggage handlers, who used other innocent passengers as drug mules on the day Schapelle flew.
- The head judge in Schapelle's case did not comprehend universal and basic legal principles, and ignored the laws of his own country.
- More extensive background here.