Click on the picture to enlarge & read.
Re: A Formal Freedom of Information Request to DFAT.
As graphically shown here, Indonesian authorities repeatedly handled the physical evidence (in Schapelle's case), in a grossly illegal and unprofessional manner - and then went on to burn it without any form of physical investigation, blatantly ignoring the repeated requests of both Schapelle and her lawyers for forensic examination.
This obviously contravenes DFAT's guidelines on the conduct of overseas trials, Point 6.14, bullet 3 - and as it also contravenes article 72 of the Indonesian Legal Code, it's further in breach of DFAT's guidelines on the treatment of Australians detained overseas, Point 6.1 - bullets 2 & 3.
I also note there is more much detailed discussion of these matters at EXPENDABLE.TV, as well as HERE.
And if I may digress for a moment (just for your general information), may I draw your attention this FOI request to the Prime Minister's Office, of 5 Jan 2012 (which has still not received an acknowledgment), also seeking to clarify how well the Australian Government seeks to protect the rights of its citizens prosecuted and jailed overseas - as I assume (as would most others), that gross sentence discrimination is in breach of Point 6.1 - bullet 3 too.
So can I please have . . .
1. All correspondence from DFAT to either/or:
a) Any section of the Australian Government (political or administrative).
b) The Australian Federal Police.
. . . specifically mentioning (or requesting), the use of the Australian Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act , specifically Article 12 (in relation to the physical evidence in Schapelle's trial). As it's alleged the marijuana was cultivated and supplied in Australia, the physical evidence was highly pertinent to crimes committed here, e.g. supply and cultivation. Plus of course, this event was an absolute first, as confirmed by both Australian Customs and contemporary press reports. Wasn't anyone in the entire Australian Government interested in discovering who would be idiotic enough to cultivate and supply marijuana, then send it FROM Australia, TO Indonesia, given the economics? Did anyone involved in this entire debacle have more than two brain cells to rub together? Let's find out.
2. Any and all correspondence from DFAT to the Indonesian authorities objecting to (or mentioning), the blatant breaches of Schapelle's clearly stated rights to examine and test the physical evidence, as outlined here.
PS - A link to the above also added here (to update the public record). All further communications on this matter will also be added there. Scroll down to the first FOI request dated 18 Jan 2012.