THE chief judge in the Schapelle Corby case yesterday said the Gold Coast beauty student's defence team had not "done enough" to prove her innocence.

In an extraordinary interview with The Weekend Australian just weeks before he and two fellow judges hand down their verdict, Chief Judge Linton Sirait said: "From Corby's defence I haven't heard anything to prove she is innocent."

But Judge Sirait refused to say whether he believed Corby - accused of smuggling 4.1kg of marijuana into Bali in a bodyboard bag last October - was guilty, nor would he speculate on possible sentences if she is convicted.

Judge Sirait confirmed he had not understood Corby's desperate final plea of innocence on Thursday as it had not been translated in the court, but said it made no difference: "Not enough. He or she has to prove he or she is not guilty. Every inmate would say: 'I'm not guilty'. I'm still looking for something related to the law."

Judge Sirait also revealed he had never acquitted an accused drug offender in the estimated 500 such cases he had presided over in his 15 years on the bench. He, along with two other judges, will determine Ms Corby's guilt or innocence and the sentence that should be imposed.

Prosecutors have demanded she receive a life jail term if convicted, although the judges can still impose the death sentence if they see fit.

...

Marijuana is considered a schedule-one drug in Indonesia, along with heroin, and at least one marijuana smuggler has been sentenced to death in the country. Bali's drugs squad chief, Bambang Sugiarto, said he had only heard of one drugs acquittal.

"But that was a long, long time ago," he said. "The quantity was very small. Nothing like that has happened since I've been positioned here."

A senior lawyer for Ms Corby, Erwin Siregar, said he had only heard of acquittals "maybe in the 80s". He nevertheless remained optimistic the judges would find Ms Corby innocent.

She will face court again next week, when prosecutors reply to the defence's summing up. In a 75-page address, the defence tried to counter all the prosecution's arguments, questioned police handling of the evidence, asked why the evidence had not been fingerprinted, and asked why Ms Corby was questioned at the airport without an adequate interpreter present.