Prisoner Transfer Agreements -- Australia and Indonesia...

The purpose of a Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) is to allow foreign nationals incarcerated overseas to serve out the remaining portion of their sentence in their home countries. A PTA between Australia and Indonesia is something that has been in the pipeline for a while. If you are an Australian or an Indonesian incarcerated in a foreign prison, then that pipeline has been very long to date, and would seem to be a little longer still before there is any light at the end of this pipeline.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Marty Natalegawa, has admitted as much. Natalegawa is a talented young diplomat who in a rapidly rising career leading to his appointment as FM held key ambassadorial posts in the UK and at the UN. He is a very intelligent man who is economical in his choice of words and rarely misspeaks. So, when he speaks it is probably worth paying attention to.

So, when Natalegawa said to the Australian Associated Press (AAP) that the negotiations for a PTA had not stalled, but rather taking time as a consequence of Indonesia being new to the PTA game, then that is where the game is at. The PTA will impact on the lives of those prisoners who have not been sentenced to death in an Indonesian court. Unfortunately, for those Australians on death row there is zero chance of them being repatriated to Australia to serve out the remainder of their respective sentences and executed.

However, a PTA will potentially permit the likes of Schapelle Corby and Renae Lawrence to be returned to Australia to serve out the remainder of their custodial sentences in an Australian prison.

The devil is in the detail of a PTA. And, this is where negotiations have slowed to a trickle in the very long pipeline that Natalegawa has alluded to. For example, Indonesia has taken a very strong public international stance on drugs and drug smuggling. Therefore, there are quarters within the Indonesian community that are reluctant to include drug smugglers on the list of prisoners who can be returned under a PTA. There is a fear that Australia does not deal with drugs as harshly as they do in Indonesia. And, they are right, we do not execute people period. That fear is that Corby and Lawrence would be returned to Australia under a PTA and then released shortly after their return.

The details are likely to include specific conditions on how much time is to be served in Australia prior to a release. The difficulty here is that Indonesia works on a remission system where prisoners sentences are cut each year, sometimes twice a year, on religious / national holidays for good behaviour. In contrast, the Australian system works on a head sentence and a non-parole period. Ultimately, the same amount of time will conceivably be served under both situations but these are the sorts of details that need to be hammered out before an agreement can be reached.

Another critical issue still to be agreed is how much time prisoners will be required to serve before becoming eligible for a PTA return to their home country. There have been suggestions that Australians serving time in Indonesian jails will have to do almost 3/4 of their sentence before becoming eligible. However, this is unlikely, assuming those on the Australian side of the debate are knowledgeable and well-informed on the Indonesian system. A person convicted in Indonesia is likely to only do 3/4 of their original sentence, and in all likelihood less than 3/4, with remissions for good behaviour and the like.

The classic example here is none other than the son of the former president (dictator), Tommy Soeharto. Tommy was convicted of a little graft and then the subsequent premeditated murder for hire of a Supreme Court justice. The man ended up doing about 2/3 of his original sentence.

So, in that regard a PTA might not make a lot make a lot of sense for most Australians incarcerated in Indonesia. It is also unlikely that the 3/4 of the sentence demand will be met.

It would seem that a PTA will become a reality in the future, but how far into the future remains to be seen.

Schapelle Corby Goes to the Salon

Now if the reports that have been coming in over the last couple of days are true then maybe I was right. Maybe Schapelle Corby and her family need to give some serious consideration to not taking advantage of any prisoner transfer deal that might be struck between the governments of Indonesia and Australia.

Having been admitted to hospital for severe depression, hallucinations, and weight loss, and then subsequently being put on suicide watch because her clinical diagnosis suggested that she was a danger to herself, Corby has enjoyed an afternoon at the salon. This would probably be the perfect tonic for a former beauty student.

However, it should be noted that the rumours and gossip are true then the past few days have seen Corby out and about shopping and buying ice cream with family members. The police are apparently accompanying her and the family everywhere. The point though is that if she were to be imprisoned in Australia she would be unlikely to receive such treatment unless she was on some kind of minimum security day release type program.

My guess would be that the psychiatrists (aka shrinks) that are treating her for the depression have decided that some degree of normalcy might help restore her to sufficient health that she can be incarcerated until the next bout of depression takes hold and then the whole show can start over again.

The salon visit was permitted and in an attempt to head off any criticisms the PR machine of the Sanglah Hospital has been quick to point out that the salon in question is within the grounds of the hospital and as such Corby did not leave the grounds of the hospital. The photo is of Corby emerging from the salon and is courtesy of AFP.

It seems that Corby is never that far away from the news. It is almost an industry and it is too bad that she does not get to see any of the profits from it. I understand proceeds of crime and the legislation that accompanies it. But, it is kind of bizarre that the perpetrator cannot profit off of the crime but every man, woman and child can profit off of her misery.

Nevertheless, Corby is becoming a celebrity and the recent screening of the documentary "Ganja Queen" on HBO (if I am not mistaken) in the US may cement this status. For me, and as I have posted many times before, it is about reading the Sunday morning papers after the night before, the scores remain the same. She is a convicted drug trafficker doing 20 years for the crime.

Her hospital stay appears destined to end over the next couple of days and the hospital is reporting that a treatment and medication regime has been designed. So, it will be back to the cold hard slammer that is Kerobohkan Prison and the gremlins that plague her there.

Schapelle Corby -- Guilty?

How things change over time. Based on a recent Taverner Research poll it is clear that the majority of residents surveyed feel that Corby is guilty of the crimes for which she is doing 20 years. The majority in this case is slim at only 53% however, there are only 15% of those surveyed who believed her to be innocent. The rest remained unconvinced either way on guilt or innocence (perhaps they just do not care one way or the other).

The survey also found that people would be favourable to Corby serving out her sentence in Australia if and when a prisoner transfer agreement was reached. I have posted on this before and my view is that it will depend on the conditions of the agreement. If 20 years means 20 years in an Australian prison then perhaps Corby and her family would need to give some serious considerations to the generous remission provisions that prevail in Indonesia.

Public opinion would seem to be shifting on whether Corby is guilty or innocent.

Prisoner Transfers - Australia & Indonesia

The most prominent Australians likely to benefit from any prisoner transfer / exchange deal hammered out between the Australian and Indonesian governments will be Schapelle Corby and the members of the Bali Nine that were not sentenced to death (Martin Stephens, Michael Czugaj, and Renae Lawrence).

For the Indonesian side, I do not recall any 'big name' prisoners sitting in Australian jails. They are probably big names in their local villages and to their respective families. But of late most Indonesians violating Australian laws tend to be Indonesian fisherman operating in Australian territorial waters.

Illegal immigrants are not technically jailed but rather detained until all their legal avenues are exhausted then they are usually deported. It is worth noting that some, perhaps many, would consider conditions in an Australian detention facility like being in jail.

The question though is a simple one: If you are an Australian doing time in an Indonesian prison is it in your best interests to seek repatriation to Australia to serve the remainder of your sentence in an Australian jail?

If 20 years imprisonment in theory means 20 years imprisonment in practice. Then a convict like Schapelle Corby will be compelled to complete a full 20-year term in an Australian jail. Indonesian sentences do not generally contain a minimum period or a non-parole period. Simply, when the judge says 20 he means 20! So, even after 15 years Corby could not apply for parole nor could she rely on any kind of remission for good behaviour or otherwise.

On the plus side, conditions might be slightly better in practice and probably a whole lot cleaner! And she would also be closer to her family and the financial burden on them to visit will be greatly reduced.

In contrast, if Corby were to continue to serve her sentence in Indonesia where the system allows for remissions to be handed out, and sometimes handed out twice a year, she could conceivably serve a whole lot less time.

Tommy Soeharto is a classic example of how the remissions system can work in the favour of a convict. It also highlights the distorted and misguided nature of Indonesian law. But anyway, Tommy gets 15 years for the assassination murder of a Supreme Court judge (Corby gets 20 years for drug possession and smuggling - distorted) but serves only about half the time courtesy of remissions and other health related factors. So, if Corby plays her cards right she could conceivably do a whole lot less time in an Indonesian prison that she might if the 20 means 20 in Australia!

Unless, of course the convicts, although serving their prison time in Australia, can still be granted remissions by the Indonesia government and have them applied to the sentences being served in Australia. Then the decision to access the prisoner transfer program would be a 'no brainer'.

Now, things do not always go to plan and Corby missed out on the last round of remissions for supposedly being in possession of a mobile phone. This in itself hardly seems to be an additional crime worthy of that kind of punishment. Yet, in the light of that remission cancellation some jails now have installed public phones, which can be more easily monitored. But there are no hard and fast rules in that sense with regard to remissions that what you might lose on the swing you will probably make up on the merry-go-round!

Yet, for Corby and her Bali Nine friends that may benefit from this agreement it is still a wait and see game as not all the appeals processes have been exhausted. Generally, the agreement would only kick in after there were no further avenues of address and the sentence was in effect 'final and binding'...

Nevertheless, there are some interesting choices to be made by Australians in Indonesian prisons going forward.