It included a 450 page evidential Addendum, inclusive of hundreds of exhibits of government correspondence, memoranda, and other documentation. Collectively, these detailed a catalogue of abuses perpetrated against Schapelle Corby, in many cases, involving corrupt and criminal conduct.
Both these documents can be viewed directly in PDF form on the following web page: A Formal Crime Report (Domestic).
The response of Nicola Roxon MP, Attorney-General, is detailed below.
The package was delivered and signed for on 25th May 2012.
It is known that the Attorney-General was aware of this development, as the report segment of the package was also sent my email, which generated the following read receipt:
However, as no acknowledgement or response was forthcoming, a formal Freedom of Information request was submitted to the Attorney General's Department on 6th July 2012, to establish the position.
The response was perhaps predictably disappointing:
Whether the report was in fact passed to the Attorney-General in an ad hoc un-documented manner, or whether a government department actually did dismiss material of such a serious nature this lightly, is impossible to determine from this reply.
The following email was therefore despatched:
Again, this was also sent to the Attorney-General by email, and evidenced as read by the following receipts:
The second response was equally unsatisfactory:
The request for review was therefore confirmed:
A letter regarding the overall position was also sent directly to the Attorney-General:
This was confirmed as read by the following email receipts:
Again, no reply was forthcoming.
Regarding the FOI request, it was confirmed that the only document located was the original cover letter, which was stamped "No Further Action":
CONCLUSION
A bureaucrat's rubber stamp had simply dismissed a formal Crime Report, which documented serious corruption within government, with the full awareness and knowledge of the Attorney-General herself. Indeed, a digital receipt confirmed that an electronic copy of the report had been read from the Attorney-General's email account.
The Attorney-General failed to respond, even to direct receipted communication, on either the Crime Report itself, or on the conduct of her office.
.