Fair Go For Haneef

Government appeals Haneef judgement - National - theage.com.au

2007-09-05T21:14:00.000+10:00

The federal government is appealing a decision to set aside the cancellation of Indian doctor and cleared terror suspect Mohamed Haneef's visa.

On August 21, Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews said he would go to the High Court if necessary after Federal Court Judge Jeffrey Spender ordered Dr Haneef's work visa be returned.

Justice Spender claimed Mr Andrews had fallen "into jurisdictional error" when he cancelled Dr Haneef's visa on July 16.

Justice Spender said then that parliament could not have intended to enact a law that allowed a minister to oust a person for having an innocent association with someone suspected of criminal conduct.

But Mr Andrews said he believed the judge was wrong and the government would appeal to the full bench of the Federal Court.

The order was stayed for 21 days.

Justice Spender said Mr Andrews' decision to cancel the visa on July 16 hinged on the contention that Dr Haneef had "an association" with terrorists, his second-cousins, British terror suspects Kafeel and Sabeel Ahmed.

Dr Haneef, who has since returned to India, was charged on July 14 with intentionally providing resources to a terrorist organisation - a charge which was later dropped.

The charge related to him giving his mobile phone SIM card to Sabeel Ahmed in Britain the year before.

But in a statement today, Mr Andrews said the Australian government solicitor had lodged an appeal against Justice Spender's decision to set aside Dr Haneef's visa cancellation.

An extension to the stay on Dr Haneef's visa was also sought.

"As minister for immigration and citizenship, I made the decision to cancel Dr Haneef's visa in the national interest and I stand by that decision," Mr Andrews said in a statement.

"It was the correct decision for the national interest and I believe that Justice Spender is wrong in his interpretation of the legislation.

"It is a privilege for visitors to be granted a visa to be in Australia, it is not an inalienable right.

"The security of the nation and the protection of all Australians comes first."

The appeal was lodged in Brisbane's Federal Court.

AAP

Holes in case against Habib | The Australian

2007-09-03T06:27:00.000+10:00

HOLES have emerged in the evidence Australian intelligence agencies have relied on to paint former Guantanamo Bay detainee Mamdouh Habib as a national security threat.

Authorities have cited phone calls made by a US terrorist to Mr Habib's Sydney home in 1993 to bolster their case against him.

But The Australian has learned the terrorist could not have made the calls, which phone records reveal were made after he was arrested over the 1993 bomb attack on New York's World Trade Centre.

The two calls - from a New Jersey phone number linked to the convicted terrorist Ibrahim El-Gabrowny - were made nearly three weeks after he had been arrested.

It is understood that the records of the calls form part of the reason Mr Habib is considered a security threat.

But the latest revelations back up claims made by Mr Habib that the calls were faxes about fundraising activities sent to him by other members of the New Jersey Muslim community with access to the same phone.

The World Trade Centre was attacked for the first time on February 26, 1993, and El-Gabrowny was arrested on March 4 along with several other men. The Australian has established that the two calls to Mr Habib's home in 1993 were made on March 20 and 21, while El-Gabrowny was still in custody.

A spokeswoman for the federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said it would be inappropriate to comment on the evidence. "It is appropriate that the allegations concerning Mr Habib are tested in proper proceedings in the context of all relevant material," she said.

The Australian is investigating the basis of the allegations that Mr Habib is a national security threat, as the Sydney father of four attempts to clear his name and regain his Australian passport.

Mr Habib is also suing the federal Government for damages over his detention in Egypt and at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, where he was held as a terror suspect for three years without being charged.
Mr Habib was arrested in Pakistan in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks and taken to Egypt, where he claims he was subjected to months of brutal torture before being taken to Guantanamo Bay.

He has always maintained the Australian Government was complicit in the treatment he received. The Government has strongly and repeatedly denied his allegations.

Mr Habib has said Australia's spy agency ASIO was aware at the time of the 1993 World Trade Centre bombings that he knew many of the members of the Muslim community in New Jersey, including some of the men convicted over the bombings.

He claimed ASIO had approached him in Australia and had asked him to spy on that community for them. He said he refused.

Mr Habib has also revealed that ASIO had never even questioned him about the alleged calls from El-Gabrowny until 1999, after an expose on the Nine Network's 60 Minutes program.

When ASIO did ask, he said he told them the calls were faxes of fundraising pamphlets that been sent to him.

Even after that, it did not appear that authorities were concerned about his alleged links to the men.

The NSW police protective security group, which was the forerunner to the current counter-terrorism group, carried out a security check on Mr Habib a month before he was arrested in Pakistan and cleared him of being a security threat.

The latest revelations about the phone records come after one of the men arrested in Pakistan with Mr Habib in 2001 came forward to corroborate his claims that he was held in the Australian high commission in the capital, Islamabad, and interrogated by an Australian diplomat.

Ibrahim Diab, who was arrested but quickly released, will give a statement to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal supporting Mr Habib's clams.

The first allegation made about Mr Habib by the US Government was that while in Afghanistan he had helped train two of the terrorists behind the September 11 attacks. That was found to be untrue because the hijackers were already in the US long before Customs records show Mr Habib left Australia.

Trouble began for Mr Habib in 1991 when he took his family on a holiday to Egypt and then to New York to visit his two sisters.

Now it's Minister fudging CV details - National - theage.com.au

2007-08-27T06:07:00.000+10:00

KEVIN Andrews has fudged his CV. Both his parliamentary and ministerial websites claim he was "co-author" of three books in the days before he entered Parliament. All appear to have been pumped out by the then Melbourne barrister in a remarkable creative outburst in 1990.

But the publishers do not see his role that way. The name Kevin Andrews is not on the title pages. The publishers credit other authors and editors with assembling these collections. Mr Andrews appears to have done no more than contribute one paper to each — he does not even have top billing.

Over the past week, the Immigration Minister he has been scathing about irregularities discovered in the CV of Dr Mohamed Haneef's former Gold Coast colleague Dr Mohammed Asif Ali. The doctor is reported to have left the country and lost his job for exaggerating his employment in India by three months.

The three books Mr Andrews claims to have co-authored are:

■Rights and Freedoms in Australia, published by The Federation Press. The title page names Melbourne lawyers Jude Wallace and Tony Pagone, QC, as editors of this collection of 25 papers. Mr Andrews' lone contribution is titled "You as an Elderly Person".

■Trends in Biomedical Regulation, published by Butterworths. The title page says this collection was edited by Hiram Caton, then of Griffith University. Mr Andrews contributed one of 21 papers, "Regulating Embryo Experimentation".

■Issues in Biomedical Ethics, published by Macmillan in India. This record of proceedings of an international congress of the Festival of Life was edited by Dr C. J. Vas and E. J. De Souza, leaders of a Catholic ethics centre in Mumbai. Mr Andrews' contribution, one of 39 papers, was "In-vitro Fertilisation and Genetic Manipulation — Australian Developments".

Publishers say they would regard Mr Andrews as merely a contributor to these collections. The definition of authorship in the Vancouver Protocol cited by academic bodies such as the National Health and Medical Research Council requires, at a minimum, "substantial participation (in) conception and design … drafting … and final approval of the version to be published".

That is not the minister's view of the situation. He stands by his claims of co-authorship. "The minister did not ever claim to be a lead author," his spokeswoman, Kate Walsh, explained. "He is the co-author of publications that have no lead author, that have a series of chapters written by different people."

Andrews goes galumphing off after prey - Opinion - theage.com.au

2007-08-24T06:39:00.000+10:00

The surreal second interview with Haneef is almost indecipherable, writes Sushi Das.

YOU might think there are no similarities between the Mohamed Haneef saga and Lewis Carroll's nonsensical poem Jabberwocky. But there are. Both are spectacularly absurd.

Jabberwocky, written as part of Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There, is seven rhyming verses of glorious nonsense, made up of meaningless words stitched together to create a poem that tells the tale of the slaying of the Jabberwock. Bizarre as it may seem, Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews, in trying to nail Haneef, has tried to slay his own Jabberwock.

In its entirety, Jabberwocky obeys the rules of poetry and presents as a cohesive body of work. But don't go trying to do a forensic examination of the words in each line because it won't make any sense. Just take a look at the first verse.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy tovesSimilarly, Haneef's story, as presented by Andrews, of a man with dubious associations trying to flee Australia using his sick newborn daughter in India as an excuse, appears, superficially at least, to be plausible. But don't go trying to deconstruct the words in the transcript of the second interview between Haneef and the Australian Federal Police, because it won't make any sense at all.

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;

All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mome raths outgrabe.

In the interview, Haneef is presented with a translation from Urdu to English of his online chat with his brother in India. Detective Sergeant Adam Simms reads the translation to Haneef in a "You say, then your brother says, and then you say" style. Sometimes this changes to "Then you go, and your brother then says".

It's hard enough following the conversation when your English is perfect. Haneef, whose English is fractured, must have had some difficulty following who was "saying" and who was "going". Nevertheless, several times Haneef tries to explain that the translation is flawed, but he is dismissed and told he can give his version of events later.

We learn from the chatroom conversation that Haneef and his brother were speaking Urdu, which, by the way, is rendered as Udo in the first police interview, and as Burdu in the second interview. Classy.

Regardless, we get the impression that Haneef and his brother either speak Urdu in a fractured, splintered, kind of way, or that the AFP translation is so appalling that what is presented to Haneef is as close to double Dutch as you can get. In fact, the translation is so poor the police officer is forced to offer a choice of translations.

Here's a quote from Simms: "Your brother then says 'Now did you take leave from your hospital' and you go 'hmm' and then you say 'don't know what happened' or 'do you know what happened' ".

Putting aside the poor translation from Urdu to English, or the fact that a spoken internet conversation is read out to Haneef in the most confusing manner or that Haneef disagrees with parts of it, what is most alarming of all is that this is the chatroom conversation that the Immigration Minister relied heavily on to defend the cancellation of Haneef's visa on the ground of bad character.

Not only that, in defending his controversial decision, Andrews claimed on July 31 that Haneef's brother, in that conversation, had warned him "nothing has been found out about you" in relation to the failed British terrorism plot. This crucial line does not appear anywhere in the transcript of the police interview.

Either those words were never uttered or, if they were, they were not put to Haneef in the police interview. If that line was important enough for Andrews to release to the media, why was Haneef not questioned about its meaning?

We know now that Andrews, in releasing snippets of the chatroom conversation, was not only releasing snippets of snippets, he was releasing words that are yet to be found. It may seem pedantic to dissect words in such a detailed manner. But when a handful of words is all that an embattled minister uses to sully a man, then each one is critical.

And words are what it all comes down to. They matter. Indeed, the words penned by Lewis Carroll more than 100 years ago are deliciously apt when examining Andrews' attempts to slay his Jabberwock.

He took his vorpal sword in hand:What Andrews thought he was doing when he cancelled Haneef's visa is anybody guess. But certainly he was ready to use his sword on anyone with even a remote association to undesirable elements when they came stumbling through the woods.

Long time the manxome foe he sought,

So rested he by the Tumtum tree,

And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,And when he revoked that visa, Andrews must have thought he'd won the fight.

The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,

Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,

And burbled as it came!

One two! One two! And through and throughAnd galumphing off did Andrews go. But as we know, this story is not over yet. The Jabberwock might just make a come back whiffling his way through the tulgey wood.

The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!

He left it dead, and with its head

He went galumphing back.

Sushi Das is a senior writer.

Email: sdas@theage.com.au

Andrews says release could hurt terror case - National - theage.com.au

2007-08-23T18:05:00.000+10:00

Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews says he fears the release of a police interview transcript could put terrorism investigations in Australia and the UK in jeopardy.

Lawyers for former terror suspect Dr Mohamed Haneef yesterday released the 378-page transcript of a second police interview with their client, conducted in Brisbane on July 13.

In the interview, the Gold Coast-based Indian doctor defends the way he hastily attempted to leave Brisbane on July 2 on a one-way flight to India and denies any knowledge of the UK terror plot.

His second cousin Kafeel was the alleged driver of the jeep that crashed into Glasgow Airport just days before. He died in hospital early this month.

Another second cousin Sabeel Ahmed - who had Dr Haneef's mobile SIM card - has been charged over his alleged involvement in the failed London bomb attack.

Dr Haneef's lawyers released the transcript a day after Federal Court judge Justice Jeffrey Spender quashed Mr Andrews' decision to cancel the 27-year-old doctor's work visa on character grounds.

Lawyer Peter Russo said the publication was justified, given the way the police and Mr Andrews had selectively read to the media parts of the interview.

"Look what they (the AFP) do - isn't this a more transparent way to deal with the issue?" Mr Russo told AAP today.

He described a move by the AFP to refer his actions to Queensland's Legal Services Commission for possible disciplinary action as "bully boy tactics".

But Mr Andrews said he shared the concern of the AFP, who had told him they were gravely concerned about the release of security-sensitive information.

"The AFP have been very concerned about releasing evidence which could jeopardise their ongoing investigations, ongoing investigations in the UK and indeed the prosecution in the UK," Mr Andrews told reporters today.

Mr Andrews said he knew of other material, which he could not disclose, that was "at odds with some of the replies that Dr Haneef gave in those transcripts of evidence".

The AFP said last night it had referred the matter to the Queensland watchdog because it believed Dr Haneef's defence team was acting in an "unprofessional and inappropriate" way.

Dr Haneef is currently in India after a terrorism-related offence against him was dropped by the Director of Public Prosecutions on July 28.

But he cannot return to Australia while his visa is cancelled and an appeal against the Federal Court decision by the government continues.

Mr Russo said today he doubted whether his client's situation would be resolved until next year.

"I think it's probably time now that some hard decisions are made," Mr Russo said.

"He's not the type of person who wants to be inactive for any length of time - it just doesn't sit right with him.

"So I think ... it would be in his interests to get some work (in India)."

AAP

Audio:Information Session: Anti-terror laws

2007-08-23T15:10:00.000+10:00

Ian Brown,President of the Australian Lawyers Alliance,explains the contents of the Anti-Terror Laws, how they impact on us, and what we can do to assist in the process of having these laws revised.

Date: Sunday 19 August 2007

Venue: Conference room, level 5, building M10 (Social Science), Griffith University (Mt Gravatt campus)

Haneef case should end: Law Council | The Australian

2007-08-23T14:45:00.000+10:00

THE Federal Court's decision that the Australian Government can not cancel a person's visa on the basis of an innocent association should be the end of the matter, says the Law Council.

"Australians should be concerned that Minister Andrews is so determined to pursue the power to expel a person from Australia, on the basis that they have, without more, merely associated with a suspected criminal," Law Council of Australia President Tim Bugg said.

"This is a character test that is not about character at all," he said.

"Why would the Minister want the discretion to expel a person based on an association that ended ten years ago, or was only fleeting, or only reflected a familial connection or professional relationship?" Mr Bugg said.

"Broad, unfettered discretions of that kind encourage sloppy research and lazy decision making. That is not the way to protect the Australian community."

Whether or not Justice Spender's decision survives appeal, serious flaws will remain in how the criminal law and the Migration Act interact, he said.

Mr Bugg said Dr Haneef's ability to obtain a fair trial was not a matter the Minister was required to consider when cancelling his visa.

"Surely the Migration Act should require the Minister to take fair trial implications into account," Mr Bugg said.

"The Minister's continuing public comments on the alleged merits of the Haneef case, which are so inconsistent with any sense of procedural fairness or the presumption of innocence, provide sufficient cause for his removal."

Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews this morning lent his support to the Australian Federal Police which is referring the conduct of Dr Haneef's legal team to authorities.

The AFP said it had complained to the Queensland Legal Services Commission over the release yesterday of the interview between police and the Indian-born doctor on July 13 and 14.

Dr Haneef's lawyers said they had released the transcript, which they say shows the former terror suspect has nothing to hide, to counter "slander" by federal authorities.

Mr Andrews said the transcript was something the AFP controlled but he agreed with the criticism of its disclosure.

"They are obviously very concerned about this, they regard the release of that transcript as irresponsible and unprofessional and that's why thev've taken that stand," the minister told reporters.

"I share their view.

"This is a balance of public information on one hand and national security on the other.

"I don't think Dr Haneef's lawyers, running around, conducting some sort of public relations campaign the way they are, is doing anything in terms of the national security of the country."

Mr Andrews said both he and the AFP were concerned about the release of any information which could jeopardise ongoing investigations of the British attack both in Australia and the UK and the prosecutions in the UK.

"Information should not be released which jeopardises those investigations," he said.

Dr Haneef was charged with a terrorism-related offence on July 14, but released when the Director of Public Prosecutions withdrew the charge on July 27.

Brother told Haneef to call police - National - smh.com.au

2007-08-23T06:59:00.000+10:00

THE supposedly damning internet chat-room conversation between Mohamed Haneef and his brother included an entreaty for Dr Haneef to leave his contact details with the British police before leaving Australia.

But this detail was omitted by the Immigration Minister, Kevin Andrews, when he went public with the discussion.

Mr Andrews used selective quotes from the chat-room talk last month to justify his decision to cancel Dr Haneef's visa, suggesting the doctor had suspicious motives for leaving Australia and may have had advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow.

The conversation between Dr Haneef and his brother Shuaib took place as the Gold Coast doctor waited for the courtesy van to take him to the airport on July 2.

The details have emerged only after the release of a second transcript of interview between Dr Haneef and Australian Federal Police investigators.

This shows that Dr Haneef's brother asked him, in Urdu, if he had been able to contact a Scotland Yard officer, Tony Walker. "I am not able to get at his phone," replied Dr Haneef in the translation presented to him by police. His brother then said: "Tell him the phone number and come."

Before leaving Brisbane, Dr Haneef tried on four occasions to contact the British police. But Shuaib Haneef's further urging of Dr Haneef to assist police with their inquiries was not mentioned by Mr Andrews.

Instead, he referred to Shuaib advising Dr Haneef: "Tell them you have to as you have a daughter born. Do not tell them anything else."

This was presented as meaning Dr Haneef had something to hide, but Mr Andrews did not mention the conversation took place after Dr Haneef made all his travel plans and repeatedly tried to call British police.

Mr Andrews also did not mention that Dr Haneef believed parts of the transcript - which reads as if it were spoken in broken English, not the conversation of two educated brothers in their mother tongue - had been mistranslated.

The transcript was released by Dr Haneef's lawyers yesterday to correct "continuing attempts being made to slander his name by innuendo and selective release of information by government and federal police spokespeople".

But Mr Andrews rejected the notion that he had misled the public, unfairly tarnished Dr Haneef or even selectively quoted from the discussion.

"That is absolutely not true," his spokeswoman told the Herald. "That was only the material that the AFP would enable the minister to release. There is still a range of material we could not release on security grounds."

The AFP said the transcript's release was "unprofessional and inappropriate". Its interview was conducted on July 13 and 14, after Dr Haneef had spent almost two weeks in custody without charge.

The transcript reveals that even after 12 days of frantic investigations into Dr Haneef, authorities had little evidence against him.

His second cousin, Kafeel Ahmed, died this month of burns sustained during the Glasgow attack. Sabeel Ahmed, Kafeel's brother, has been accused of withholding information that could have prevented a terrorist act.

Interview discredits claim by Andrews | The Australian

2007-08-23T06:27:00.000+10:00

CLAIMS by Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews that his decision to cancel Mohamed Haneef's visa was based on much more than a mobile phone SIM card given to a second-cousin have been undermined by the release of the second police record of interview.

Police officer Adam Simms, who questioned Dr Haneef during the second interview last month, told him: "Tell me exactly. Now let's not forget, Mohamed, the reason you are sitting here and the reason you've been in police custody is because of this issue with the SIM card -- now it's causing you a lot of grief. We need to be clear as to what is happening with this SIM card. OK?"

A year before the foiled June 29-30 terror acts in London and Glasgow, Dr Haneef had given a SIM card, which had some unused credit, to his second-cousin, Sabeel, who is not accused of being directly involved in the attacks. Sabeel's brother Kafeel died after suffering serious burns in a Jeep Cherokee in the attack on Glasgow airport.

The transcript shows Dr Haneef also tried to explain to the Australian Federal Police the context of a reference in a chatroom exchange with his brother, Shoaib, translated from Urdu, to a "project" involving Kafeel.

Late last month amid calls for his sacking, Mr Andrews selectively released incomplete portions of the transcript from the conversation on July 2 -- the day Dr Haneef tried to return to India -- including the Urdu-to-English reference to Kafeel being involved "in some sort of project over there".

Mr Andrews has consistently said that his suspicions had been heightened by this information and other secret material he had received from the police. The reference to "project" has been characterised as pointing to a premeditated terror act of which Dr Haneef was aware. But in the interview Dr Haneef said the reference to "project" referred to a PhD exercise that Kafeel had been completing at England's Cambridge University.

The interview also scotches reports that police suspected Dr Haneef was plotting to attack the world's tallest residential building, the Q1 tower on the Gold Coast. Police showed Dr Haneef numerous pictures downloaded from his seized computer laptop, including some showing him and his wife standing in front of the building. He was asked a handful of innocuous questions about the picture.

Lawyers for Dr Haneef yesterday cited a need for transparency and openness in the controversial case as they defied a formal AFP request and posted the entire 378-page record of interview on websites.

The release drew strong criticism from the AFP, which confirmed it had complained to Queensland's Legal Services Commission about the conduct of Dr Haneef's lawyers. The AFP denied late yesterday that it had improperly leaked information, but accused Dr Haneef's lawyers of running the case in the media.

The interview, conducted on July 13-14 after Dr Haneef had been held in AFP custody in Brisbane without charge for 12 days, canvassed medical training, family ties, his newborn daughter, religious views, finances, communications, travel, and an internet chat room exchange with his brother in India.

In describing his gift of the SIM card to Sabeel last year, Dr Haneef says: "He wanted the SIM card use for the free minutes. I told you about that, so he wanted to extend the contract and then he asked me 'if you could give it to me, I'll extend it'. And when I gave it to him I said that 'if you want to extend it, I'm cancelling my direct debit'."

The case against Dr Haneef collapsed last month amid a series of police and prosecution errors, leading to his return to India. The Federal Court found on Tuesday that Mr Andrews had made the wrong decision when he cancelled Dr Haneef's visa.

Solicitor Peter Russo said he and Dr Haneef were fed up with the ongoing peddling of innuendo and half-truths.

"There is no secret squirrel information in there," Mr Russo said. "Releasing the transcript of the second interview shows Dr Haneef had nothing to hide.

"He wants all of the matters raised with him by federal police and his answers to those questions put into the public arena because of the continuing attempts being made to slander his name by innuendo."

Mr Russo said he suspected the police had taken longer than normal to provide the transcript to Dr Haneef because "it clearly shows what we have said all along -- Dr Haneef was at all times trying to assist police".

But the AFP last night criticised the release of the information, denied that its own officers had selectively leaked information to Dr Haneef's detriment, but suggested there had been "inappropriate conduct" by other agencies which "will be referred to the appropriate authorities".

"The continuing attempts by Dr Haneef's defence team to use the media to run their case is both unprofessional and inappropriate and the AFP has raised this aspect with the Queensland Legal Services Commission. The AFP has acted appropriately throughout the investigation."

Transcript supports Haneef case - National - theage.com.au

2007-08-23T06:21:00.000+10:00

FORMER terror suspect Mohamed Haneef disputed with police the translation of a computer chatroom discussion that was used by Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews to justify his decision to remove Dr Haneef's visa last month.

The full transcript of an all-night interview with police, released yesterday by Dr Haneef's lawyers, shows clearly that Dr Haneef disagreed with parts of the translation into English from Urdu and the police interpretation of the discussion with his brother that occurred on the day he planned to leave Australia.

It makes clear that Dr Haneef had gained permission to take leave from the Gold Coast Hospital, and that a plane ticket had been booked before his brother contacted him via computer.

The transcript also shows clearly that Mr Andrews used highly selective fragments of the police interview that placed Dr Haneef in the worst possible light. Mr Andrews, on July 31, concentrated on a passage where Dr Haneef's younger brother, Shuaib, had advised the doctor to tell his hospital that he was leaving because he had a new daughter and "tell them nothing else".

Dr Haneef, in the interview, says that in fact, his brother was asking him whether he had told the hospital this, and that he had already told the hospital before the discussion with his brother.

However, Mr Andrews said yesterday the public release of the police interview did not change his reasons for revoking Dr Haneef's visa late last month. He said his reasons were broader than the material contained in either of the two police interviews. A Federal Court judge on Tuesday ruled against Mr Andrews' decision to revoke Dr Haneef's visa, declaring he had made a "jurisdictional error".

Justice Jeffrey Spender also criticised Mr Andrews for publicly releasing selective material that had not been placed before the court.

However, the Federal Government is appealing to a full bench of the Federal Court on the grounds that Mr Andrews had relied correctly on a legal precedent.

Dr Haneef's lawyers said they had decided to release the 378-page transcript of the second police interview to counter attempts by the Federal Government and Australian Federal Police to "slander Dr Haneef's name by innuendo and selective release" of information.

The Australian Federal Police issued a statement last night saying it had referred possible inappropriate conduct related to the Haneef case by government officials to "appropriate authorities".

The AFP also complained to the Queensland Legal Services Commission about the transcript's release.

Solicitor Peter Russo said that a reading of the full transcript made it clear there was no basis to allege wrongdoing against Dr Haneef.

The transcript showed his client had attempted to contact British police so he could explain his position in relation to a SIM card loaned to his cousin Sabeel, who is suspected of having a role in a British terror plot.

Media Statement: Senator Andrew Bartlett

2007-08-22T20:50:00.001+10:00

Court's visa decision shows need to reform Migration Act

Russo releases secret Haneef interview | The Australian

2007-08-22T16:39:00.000+10:00

LAWYERS for Mohamed Haneef have released the full transcript of a previously secret second interview with Australian Federal Police.

His solicitor, Peter Russo, said the full transcript of the second interview was being made public at Dr Haneef's request to counter the selective release of information by Australian authorities.

"He wants all of the matters raised with him by Federal Police and his answers to those questions put into the public arena, because of the continuing attempts being made to slander his name by innuendo and selective release of information by government and Federal Police spokespeople," Mr Russo said.

In a media release this afternoon, Mr Russo indicated the transcript addressed claims that Dr Haneef was trying to leave Australia in a hurry when he sought to board an overnight flight to India - in fact he had alerted authorities to his intention to go.

"It should be noted that Dr Haneef's attempts to correct the translation of the chat room conversation had been brushed aside by the police questioners with a promise that those corrections could be made at the end.

"Police say the chat room conversation commenced at 4.13pm on Monday, 2 July 2007. By that time Dr Haneef had spoken to Cathy Bosworth at the hospital and arranged leave, spoken to his father in law to have him buy a ticket to his home in Bangalore, and received telephone advice from his father that the tickets were ordered and would be emailed to him.

“The last item occurred about 4.00pm. This can be seen from question and answer 849 in the first interview,” Mr Russo said.

"Dr. Haneef had attempted to ring London detective, Tony Webster, who, he had been advised by Sabeel's mother, wanted to ask him some questions about his SIM card, three times, before the chat room conversation and tried to do so again after or during the chat room conversation at 4.32pm on 2 July.

"Importantly, Dr. Haneef specifically said that he was ringing so that he could explain his position ("clear himself") and so that the police knew that, although he was leaving, he was not absconding."

Today Queensland Health Minister Stepehen Robertson said Dr Haneef could be re-registered to work in Queensland as early as next month.

Mr Robertson, whose department sponsored Dr Haneef to work at the Gold Coast Hospital, said he would be happy to have the Indian-born doctor back.

"We've made it clear that we are prepared to accept Dr Haneef back if that is the outcome of the extraordinary processes that he's been put through by an increasingly incompetent federal minister," Mr Robertson said.

Mr Robertson said he understood Dr Haneef could be re-registered in September.

Although, he said: "That would be a matter for the medical board to determine".

Mr. Russo said that, on reading the second interview transcript, people would agree with the Commonwealth DPP Damien Bugg, that there was no basis to allege wrong doing by Dr. Haneef.

"Despite selective parts of the chat room translation being used to attack my client's reputation, the Federal Police did not think the second interview important enough to transcribe for some weeks after the interview.

"People may well wonder why police took so long to provide the transcript. Perhaps it was because the transcript of the second Interview clearly shows what we have said all along - Dr Haneef was at all times trying to assist police.

Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews last month quoted from the transcript to justify his decision to cancel Dr Haneef's visa, a decision quashed by the Federal Court yesterday but which will go to appeal.

Mr Russo said the AFP asked for the interview transcript not to be released in full. He said Dr Haneef had asked his legal team to make the full transcript available.

He said Dr Haneef had also told police he was unaware of any details of the events in London and Glasgow until he read news reports popping up during the chat room conversation.

According to the translation provided by Mr Andrews on July 31, the conversation showed Dr Haneef's brother urging the terror suspect to leave Australia as quickly as possible as "nothing has been found out about you", Mr Russo said.

At his media conference, Mr Andrews quoted a translated line from the second transcript in which Dr Haneef's brother Shoaib said "nothing has been found out about you".

But Dr Haneef argued to police the line was a reference to a news report on a website.

"He (Shoaib) got to know a lot of facts from the news and the BBC and things," Dr Haneef told police.

He says reference to a "project" in the internet chat room conversation related to his cousin Kafeel's PhD thesis, not the terror bombing.

The transcript of an initial police interview was released in full on July 18.

The 27-year-old doctor Dr Haneef is currently in India with his family, but has said he wants to return to Australia and resume his work.

Dr Haneef was arrested on July 2 at the Brisbane airport, holding a one-way ticket to India.

He was questioned by the AFP and charged with a terror-related offence, but released when the Director of Public Prosecutions withdrew its charge on July 27.

Dr Haneef's passport was returned to him and he departed Australia voluntarily on July 28.

But Mr Andrews then cancelled Dr Haneef's work visa, effectively blocking his return.

With AAP

The strange case of Doctor Haneef and Mister Hide - National - smh.com.au

2007-08-22T16:35:00.000+10:00

THE Immigration Minister, Kevin Andrews, was at it again yesterday - casting aspersions against Mohamed Haneef without providing any details to back his claims.

"I have been provided with no information to lessen my suspicion in relation to Dr Haneef. Any further information I've been provided actually heightens my suspicion," Mr Andrews told reporters.

The minister might, indeed, have a new, damning piece of intelligence on his desk highlighting Dr Haneef's wrongdoing. But, once again, he wasn't releasing it.

It's a familiar pattern of failure to disclose to the public, Dr Haneef or, crucially, the Federal Court itself, what exactly it is that has made Mr Andrews so "suspicious" about the Bangalore-born medico and second cousin of terrorism suspects Khalid and Sabeel Ahmed.

The best he has offered - and at a time of intense political heat - is some select morsels from the Australian Federal Police, most notably a few quotes translated from an internet chat conversation between Dr Haneef and his brother on the day Dr Haneef tried to leave Brisbane.

The translated comments gave the impression that Dr Haneef was leaving to avoid scrutiny over the London and Glasgow terrorist plots, but Mr Andrews would not reveal the entire conversation. He also studiously did not mention that Dr Haneef had tried to contact British police several times to discuss the fact he had left his mobile phone SIM card with one of his arrested cousins.

More to the point, the Federal Government would not allow the Federal Court judge Jeffrey Spender, even in closed session, access to its dossier on Dr Haneef.

The obsession with secrecy meant that the Solicitor-General sought to justify the Government's decision to cancel Dr Haneef's visa on the vague notion of "association" with his cousins, underpinned by an argument that it did not matter if the association was innocent.

Justice Spender rejected the argument but noted the visa could have legitimately been cancelled on the grounds that Dr Haneef was a person of interest to British police or based on the fact he had been charged with a terrorism offence (which has since been withdrawn).

Such an argument, however, would have almost certainly required the Government to provide more detailed evidence on Dr Haneef to back its case. It may have also required Mr Andrews to present an affidavit, and possibly face cross-examination.

Could the legal strategy have been devised to protect the Immigration Minister from embarrassment? Or to spare the Australian Federal Police's blushes over a possibly flimsy case?

Either way, the Government's legal strategy clearly exasperated Justice Spender.

The antics of Mr Andrews, and the reluctance of the Government to be held accountable in court, erodes one of the fundamental pillars of national security - the public's trust.

Transcript: Haneef's second record of interview

2007-08-22T16:19:00.000+10:00

Haneef wasn't planning to flee - Queensland - brisbanetimes.com.au

2007-08-22T16:18:00.000+10:00

Lawyers for Mohamed Haneef have released a transcript of a second police interview with the former terrorism suspect.

They say they have released the material to counter attempts by the Federal Government and Australian Federal Police to "slander his name by innuendo and selective release" of information.

Dr Haneef's lawyer Peter Russo said the transcript showed his client had arranged leave from the Gold Coast Hospital before his arrest at Brisbane Airport.

He had also attempted to contact British police so he could explain his position in relation to a SIM card lent to his cousin Sabeel Ahmed, who is suspected of having a role in a British terrorism plot.

Police took Dr Haneef into custody on July 2 as he attempted to leave Brisbane on a one-way ticket to India.

Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews last month selectively quoted from the same transcript to justify his decision to cancel Dr Haneef's visa, a decision quashed by the Federal Court yesterday but which will go to appeal.

However the AFP asked for the interview transcript not to be released in full.

Mr Russo said Dr Haneef had asked his legal team to make the full transcript available.

"He wants all of the matters raised with him by federal police and his answers to those questions put into the public arena, because of the continuing attempts being made to slander his name by innuendo and selective release of information by government and federal people spokespeople," Mr Russo said.

Mr Russo said efforts by Dr Haneef to correct a police translation of an internet chat room conversation on July 2 between the doctor and his brother had been "brushed aside".

A correct translation would have found that Dr Haneef had made leave arrangements and his ticket had been booked before the chat room conversation.

Dr Haneef had also told police he was unaware of any details of the events in London and Glasgow until he read news reports popping up during the chat room conversation.

According to the translation provided by Mr Andrews on July 31, the conversation showed Dr Haneef's brother urging the terror suspect to leave Australia as quickly as possible as "nothing has been found out about you".

Meanwhile, a member of the family says Dr Haneef is prepared to go all the way to the High Court to get his Australian work visa back.

Federal Court judge Justice Jeffrey Spender yesterday quashed Mr Andrews's decision to withdraw the 27-year-old doctor's work visa.

Mr Andrews cancelled Dr Haneef's visa on the grounds that the doctor had failed a character test provided under immigration laws, because he had an association with alleged criminals, his second cousins, British terror suspects Kafeel and Sabeel Ahmed.

Mr Andrews yesterday said the Government would appeal against the Federal Court's decision.

Imran Siddiqui, a cousin of Dr Haneef's wife, today said the family realised yesterday's victory might be just a first step in a long legal battle.

"The family and Haneef are well prepared for further stages in that battle, if needed," he told ABC Radio from Bangalore.

"We do have a very strong faith in the Australian judicial system and we are well prepared to go to the High Court as well."

Mr Siddiqui said he hoped the minister would consider all the circumstances that have changed since he made his original decision, including the dropping of the charge against Dr Haneef.

He said it was very important for the family to win the case.

AAP

Bringing Dr Haneef back into the fold of the law - Editorial - Opinion

2007-08-22T08:58:00.000+10:00

Justice Spender's Federal Court judgement deftly puts the minister and the Government in their place.

IT FINALLY took the language of the law to extract the strands of clarity, commonsense and caution from the Gordian knot of the affair of Dr Mohamed Haneef and the Federal Government's cancellation of his visa. Yesterday in Brisbane, Justice Jeffrey Spender of the Federal Court ruled that the decision of Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews to revoke the visa was invalid. In a judgement of more than 50 pages, Justice Spender has managed, cleverly, deftly and even elegantly, not only to put the minister in his place, but also the Government.

In his determinations, Justice Spender has surprisingly departed from a previous Federal Court decision of 2001 (the precedent for Dr Haneef having failed his character test) therefore weakening a key Government point and strengthening Dr Haneef's case. The judge has concluded that Mr Andrews used the wrong character test as the criterion for cancelling Dr Haneef's visa, adding that had he applied the right test, it would have been correct to cancel the visa. But, as the judge has meaningfully added, this was in different circumstances, since changed. All this is perhaps of small consolation to the minister, who intends to appeal and is more likely feeling as if he is counting the cost of having answered (a) instead of (b) on Who Wants to be a Millionaire. Yesterday's findings only serve as further confirmation that the Government's motives in its treatment of Dr Haneef were more in the cause of political expediency than any genuine terrorist-related concern.

It is to be hoped, appeals pending, that sense and reason prevail and that Dr Haneef eventually will be allowed to regain his livelihood, wherever he might wish to do so. Wider concerns, such as Australia's human rights reputation and its relationship with India, may take longer to settle. With APEC on the horizon, yesterday's decision could not have come at a worse time for this country's image in the eyes of the world.

More immediately, and more favourably, what could have been a widening breach between politics and the law has been repaired. In order to do so, some polite but firm tactics have been required. Justice Spender's conclusions, for all their restrained phraseology, should be seen as a rebuke. There are, in fact, two judgements — the matter of the visa and the broader issue of executive and judicial responsibilities — that, in effect, carry the same distinct and unambiguous message: no one can be above the law. The judge, setting up his argument and using appropriate Australian and international legal references to reinforce them, has with subtlety reasserted the judiciary's right to be involved in decisions on some issues that relate in one way or another to matters of national security or matters in the national interest. While not traipsing too far into political territory, Justice Spender makes the point, "… there is no room for the view, sometimes uttered, that the executive should have exclusive responsibility over all matters involving national security". He quotes a former chief justice of England and Wales, Lord Bingham, on the tensions between law and government, which, he says, "is greater at times of perceived threats to national lawful powers to protect the public, and the duty of the judges to require that they go no further must be performed if the rule of law is to be observed".

The sting comes with this observation from Justice Spender: "It is right to acknowledge the political character of the minister's office, and his accountability to the Parliament, and of the government ultimately to the electorate. The minister is nonetheless susceptible to the requirements of the law that he act within the jurisdiction conferred by the Parliament on him." This remark should be heeded by Mr Andrews as he ponders his next move and, indeed, by all politicians who, for whatever reason, wish to challenge the supremacy of law.

Labor backs Andrews on Haneef | The Australian

2007-08-22T08:32:00.000+10:00

THE Labor Party will not oppose Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews' decision to appeal the Federal Court ruling overturning Mohamed Haneef's visa cancellation.

While Opposition immigration spokesman Tony Burke repeated Labor's call for a judicial inquiry into the affair, he declined to support calls urging Mr Andrews to abide by the ruling.

"We've always expected an appeal to be lodged. The decision as to whether the Government chooses to appeal or not has to be based on the legal advice they receive," Mr Burke said.

Dr Haneef was in a secret location in Bangalore with his wife last night, although family members said he hoped to return to Australia.

Mr Burke said it was "incredibly important" that community support for immigration and anti-terror laws was not undermined.

He refused to back calls from the Australian Greens for Mr Andrews to resign, saying he was not going to "rush to judgment".

However, Mr Burke acknowledged some of Mr Andrews' actions "didn't make sense".

"On one day he was declaring that under no circumstances will Dr Haneef be allowed to leave the country. On the next day he was saying he could leave the country. Then he was complaining that Dr Haneef left the country," Mr Burke said.

Law Council of Australia president Tim Bugg welcomed the review of the case, but said concerns about lack of transparency in the process remained.

"Neither Haneef nor his advisers had any input into the decision. These concerns stand," Mr Bugg said.

Immigration lawyer John Gibson suggested Mr Andrews may have erred by placing undue emphasis on the gravity of events in Britain, "rather than the nature of the criminal association, which was what he was required in part to assess".

Dr Haneef's relatives said celebrations were on hold until the final outcome of legal proceedings.

"We are gratified by the decision of the court," said cousin Imran Siddique, who escorted Dr Haneef home from Brisbane. "The entire family is indeed very happy that Mr Andrews has been asked to return his visa. But we are also aware that this is only a first step in what could be an even longer legal battle."

Dr Haneef's home in Bangalore's Frazer Town district was deserted last night, and neighbours said they had not seen him for days. The family home of his wife, Firdous Arshiya, was besieged by reporters, but there was no sign of the doctor.

Indian officials applauded the court ruling. "From the start, our position was that we wanted to see the proper legal procedures followed, and that has happened. We wanted to see Dr Haneef get justice, and no one can argue with the Australian judicial process," a senior official said.

Democrats senator Andrew Bartlett said it was clear all along that Mr Andrews had acted improperly.

He said character tests and mandatory detention provisions applied to Dr Haneef should be scrapped.

Dr Mohammed Haneef v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

2007-08-22T08:16:00.000+10:00

the Federal Court judgment

Minister opts for easy path | The Australian

2007-08-22T08:13:00.000+10:00

IT looks, at first, like a defiant strategy infused with strength by a minister who refuses to countenance admitting he screwed up.

But the decision of Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews to instruct his legal team to seek an immediate stay of the orders of Jeffrey Spender in the Federal Court may in fact be the raising of a white flag.

Justice Spender unveiled a carefully crafted judgment in relation to Mohamed Haneef about 12.10pm yesterday. The judgment is neither inflammatory, nor does it read like a political rant against executive action.

It gives Mr Andrews the benefit of the doubt on one portion but finds he fell into jurisdictional error when he quashed Dr Haneef's visa.

It revolves around word association, and whether Australia's lawmakers intended the minister to have the power to oust a visa-holder notwithstanding a completely innocent association with someone who acted criminally. The battered wife, for example, would fail the character test used by Mr Andrews.

But it is what happened immediately after Justice Spender's judgment was brought down yesterday that provides a clue to the Howard Government's latest position on this vexed case. Peter Bickford, the lawyer for Mr Andrews, got to his feet in the Federal Court about 12.15pm, and sought a stay. It was duly granted. By requesting the stay, which will be in place for at least 21 days, Mr Andrews has prevented himself from remaking his decision to cancel the visa. His hands are now tied, and he provided the bindings.

If Mr Andrews appeals, as he says he intends to do, there is a high probability the case will not return to the Federal Court until after the federal election. It may be moot by then. But Mr Andrews could have chosen an alternative path if he were sure of his footing. He could have asked the AFP, ASIO, New Scotland Yard and any other law enforcement agency to provide him with all their intelligence on Dr Haneef. He could have cherry-picked it, and then relied on it afresh using the guidance provided by Justice Spender yesterday.

He could have claimed that based on further secret squirrel information, he was, again, acting in the interests of national security to cancel Dr Haneef's visa. If he had adopted this plan, he would have still been able to appeal yesterday's decision.

In short, Mr Andrews could have run the same tawdry exercise again and, this time, got it right.

But he went the other way. Mr Andrews wants a way out of this mess without looking like a complete political dunce. He is talking tough but his actions point to a significant backdown.

The Maxwell Smart of national security | Hedley Thomas Blog | The Australian

2007-08-22T08:08:00.000+10:00

KEVIN Andrews is a political amateur, the Maxwell Smart of national security, whose rush to demonise Dr Mohamed Haneef should have resulted in the Immigration Minister being sacked a month ago.

Andrews has survived, despite some of the shabbiest decision-making since the Tampa scandal, because his leader, Prime Minister John Howard, is up to his neck in it.

Urged on by Attorney-General Philip Ruddock, they saw political merit and votes in the smearing of a medical practitioner who was deemed guilty by association - he has second cousins linked to terror in the UK.

They saw merit in smearing the lawyers, particularly barrister Stephen Keim, SC, who did their best to lessen the damage from a gross miscarriage of justice by providing documents to The Australian.

Mr Andrews applied a “guilt by association” test so silly and illogical that anyone, from Mother Teresa to Mahatma Gandhi, would have failed it based on unavoidable, and completely innocent, contact with people suspected of criminal conduct.

There was no urgent need for Mr Andrews to blunder into this debacle on July 16, the day he cancelled Dr Haneef’s visa on character grounds.

The Gold Coast Hospital registrar, who had just been granted bail by a Brisbane magistrate, was not going anywhere.

When Mr Andrews pulled his stunt, The Dumb and Dumber-style errors of the Australian Federal Police and prosecutors had not yet been revealed.

But Mr Andrews seized on an urgent political need to grandstand, make disingenuous statements about national security, and provoke unnecessary fear in the lead-up to the Federal election.

Justice Jeffrey Spender’s decision, quashing the decision, should prompt Mr Andrews to pause and reflect on what he has achieved so far. Stop digging.

Nobody is above the law, a point Justice Spender has strived to make.

But Mr Andrews appears determined to fight on - his counsel in the Federal Court immediately sought and received a 21 day stay on Justice Spender’s orders

So what should happen now? Should Mr Andrews resign? Should he apologise? Be sacked? Should he stand his ground?

Perhaps he’ll be rewarded with a comfy diplomatic post somewhere, similarly to the golden parachute given to former Immigration Minister, Amanda Vanstone after a trail of cock-ups.

Let us know how you believe the Dr Mohamed Haneef case should be handled after this latest development.

The day a judge overruled a minister - National - theage.com.au

2007-08-22T07:43:00.000+10:00

A SENIOR judge has accused the Howard Government of bungling its pursuit of former terrorism suspect Dr Mohamed Haneef and criticised Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews for releasing selective evidence while keeping it from the court.

Federal Court judge Jeffrey Spender also warned that governments should not consider themselves above the rule of law in matters involving national security.

In the latest instalment in a saga that has already embarrassed the Government, police and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, Justice Spender found that Mr Andrews was wrong to withdraw Dr Haneef's visa on character grounds.

A furious Mr Andrews ordered an appeal against Justice Spender's decision that Dr Haneef's visa should be reinstated. "I acted in the national interest and I acted for the national security of Australians. I make no apology about that whatsoever," he said.

He flatly rejected the judge's finding that he had used the wrong test to cancel Dr Haneef's visa and dismissed calls for his resignation. He was backed last night by Prime Minister John Howard, who said Mr Andrews' decision was correct.

Mr Andrews said the Federal Government had correctly relied on a legal precedent to cancel Dr Haneef's visa on character grounds, and said he still harboured unspecified suspicions about Dr Haneef, which had increased following "further information" he had received since revoking the visa.

"Justice Spender is wrong in his interpretation of the legislation," he said. "There still is in my mind a reasonable suspicion as required by the migration legislation in relation to Dr Haneef."

Dr Haneef's lawyer, Peter Russo, said the ruling was a "big step to victory" in the battle to have visa reinstated.

He said Dr Haneef, who had been working at the Gold Coast Hospital before he was arrested on suspicion of links to failed terror plots in London and Glasgow, was "gratified" by the decision.

In Bangalore, Dr Haneef's cousin Imran Siddiqui, said the family was pleased, but that it was "too early to celebrate".

"We would have been happier if Andrews had taken everything into consideration — the fact that all charges against Haneef were dropped and that even the Director of Public Prosecutions felt there was no case against him, and now this verdict — and just decided to give his visa back," Mr Siddiqui said.

Following the ruling, the Government won a 21-day stay on the decision that would have forced it to return the visa.

In remarks similar to those made recently by Justice Michael Kirby in a dissenting High Court judgement over a control order on Jack Thomas, Justice Spender indicated that the courts had an important role to play as a watchdog over executive powers.

"There is no room for the view … that the executive should have exclusive responsibility over all matters involving national security," Justice Spender said. He said the executive was "charged with a heavy responsibility in matters of national security, but Parliament has defined the limits … and it is for the judicial arm of government to ensure that ministerial or other official action is lawful".

Mr Andrews was assailed by criticism from across the legal and human rights spectrum after the decision, but he was supported by prominent criminal lawyer and former head of the Australian Crime Commission, Mr Peter Faris, QC.

Mr Faris said yesterday's decision was "reached on highly technical grounds and is highly artificial". He anticipated it would be overturned on appeal.

"It's not a victory for anything," he said. "Australia must have an absolute right to determine arbitrarily who it permits to come into the country and who gets to stay. We can't spend all our time litigating the decision."

But human rights lawyer Greg Barns said the case "knocks on the head this absurd view that a lot of conservative commentators have, that when it comes to matters of national security, the courts ought to defer to governments." Liberty Victoria past president Brian Walters, SC, said the decision was "a humiliation for Kevin Andrews and the entire Government", and said Mr Andrews deserved to be sacked.

Justice Spender's finding rested heavily on the use and meaning of the word "association". When Mr Andrews cancelled Dr Haneef's visa, he contended the doctor was of bad character because of his association with two of the suspects in the failed UK car bombings, his second cousins Sabeel and Kafeel Ahmed.

But the judge said that Mr Andrews' definition was so wide it would include relationships that were "utterly remote" from the alleged criminality. This could include family relationships, professional associations, or even "the battered wife scenario" causing a person to fail the character test.

However, Justice Spender conceded that Mr Andrews would have been right to cancel the visa if he had done so on the basis that the Indian doctor had been named as a person of interest by the British police and had been charged in Australia.

"These matters would have permitted the minister to conclude that the association between Dr Haneef and the Ahmed brothers went beyond a purely familial, social, innocent relationship," he said.

Justice Spender said Mr Andrews presented the public with selected highlights of confidential police evidence, but failing to give the court the same evidence.

"There is … a certain piquancy in the present case," he wrote. "The minister has chosen to give a selected part of what is said to be protected information to the public by way of press release, but has not sought to divulge to the court any part of the protected information."

Opposition's immigration spokesman Tony Burke called for a judicial inquiry into the Government's handling of the Haneef affair, claiming the saga may have challenged community support for Australia's immigration and anti-terrorism laws.

Family's cautious optimism - National - theage.com.au

2007-08-21T18:16:00.000+10:00

Dr Haneef's relatives in Bangalore, south India, responded cautiously to the ruling.

"The family is very happy that Mr Andrews has been asked to return his visa but we are also aware that it is only a first step in what could be an even longer legal battle," said Imran Siddiqui, Dr Haneef's wife's cousin.

"We would have been happier if Andrews had taken everything into consideration - the fact that all charges against Haneef were dropped and that even the Director of Public Prosecutions felt there was no case against him and now this verdict - and just decided to give his visa back."

Mr Siddiqui said he was hoping Mr Andrews might still opt for that course of action rather than continue to fight in the courts.

Asked how the family would celebrate their latest victory, Siddiqui replied "it's too early to celebrate".

Mr Siddiqui said it was not possible to speak to Dr Haneef or his wife Firdous, who were living at a secret location. He said they might speak to the press later but, for the moment, preferred to stay out of the limelight.

Mr Siddiqui said the family's reaction was mixed because there was no knowing how far Mr Andrews would take the case.

Andrews to appeal against Haneef ruling - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

2007-08-21T17:59:00.000+10:00

Federal Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews says he stands by his decision to cancel the visa of Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef, and will lodge an official appeal against the reinstatement.

A Federal Court Judge today ordered the visa be returned because it was cancelled on a jurisdictional error.

Mr Andrews says the Government disagrees with the finding.

"I acted for the national security of Australia, I make no apology about that whatsoever," Mr Andrews said.

"I acted in the national interest, it still is in my mind a reasonable suspicion as required by the migration legislation in relation to Dr Haneef."

Queensland Premier Peter Beattie has told State Parliament Kevin Andrews should resign and there should be a full judicial inquiry into the matter.

"He is clearly incompetent and I have consistently sought along the way to get him to explain these matters appropriately to the Australian people [but] he has refused," Mr Beattie said.

"He applied the wrong test and he is not fit to hold office. That's it in a nutshell."

Family reaction

Mohamed Haneef's family has welcomed today's decision to return his work visa.

Imran Siddiqui, Dr Haneef's cousin who had been nominated to speak on behalf of the family and stand alongside Dr Haneef says things are travelling well.

"Mohamed is happy and so is the entire family," he said.

"We are very gratified by the decision of the court."

The court's decision opened the way for him to return to work but the appeal by the Immigration Ministry has kept celebrations short lived in the Haneef household where there were hopes the issue had settled.

"We hope they won't appeal and the matter ends here," he said.

"If they do appeal, the case will drag on.

"I don't think today will be the end of the matter.

"It'll probably end up on appeal and who knows? Even in the High Court one day."

Dr Haneef's visa was cancelled just hours after he was granted bail on a charge of providing support to a terrorist organisation.

He returned to India late last month after the charge was dropped and he was released from a Brisbane jail.

The former registrar at the Gold Coast Hospital has expressed a desire to return to Australia.

A Queensland Health spokesperson says Dr Haneef will be accepted back at the Gold Coast Hospital if he wishes, provided he has a visa and appropriate registration.

- ABC/AFP

Haneef wins his visa back | The Australian

2007-08-21T13:33:00.000+10:00

Hedley Thomas and Andrew Fraser

INDIAN Dr Mohamed Haneef has won his bid to have his work visa returned in a stunning victory in the Federal Court in Brisbane.

Dr Haneef was successful in his appeal to the Federal Court in Brisbane which handed down its decision at 12.20.

Federal Court Justice Jeff Spender made orders quashing Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews decision to cancel the former terrorism suspect's work visa on character grounds.

He also issued an injunction restraining Mr Andrews from acting upon the cancellation of the visa, and ordered he pay Dr Haneef's costs.

Justice Spender said that contrary to some media commentary which he described as "almost scandalous", the case wasn't a contest between the judiciary and the Howard Government.

He described remarks making claims of tension between judges and the Federal Government as ignorant and grossly misinformed.

Justice Spender said Mr Andrews fell into jurisdictional error by applying the wrong test when determining whether to cancel the visa.

It followed that Mr Andrews decision must be set aside, he said.

Council for Mr Andrews then sought a 21-day stay of the order, and after heaing submissions from Dr Haneef's barrister Stephen Keim, Justice Spender ordered a 21-day stay.

He said Mr Andrews' error "infects the cancellation decision".

Justice Spender also said the circumstances had changes since Mr Andrews cancelled the visa. These circumstances included the dropping of the charge that Dr Haneef faced.

Outside the court, Dr Haneef's solicitor Peter Russo called on Mr Andrews to abide by the decision of the court and let Dr Haneef get on with his life.

"I will hope the minister will accept the court's decision with good grace and clear the way for Dr Haneef to return to Australia and complete his studies,'' Mr Russo said.

Mr Russo said while the Minister had a right to appeal the decision to the full Federal Court, there was also an option for him to merely re-make the decision to deny Dr Haneef a work visa.

"I would hope the Minister will accept the Court's decision with good grace and clear the way for Dr Haneef to return to Australia to complete his medical work and specialist studies," he said.

Mr Russo said Dr Haneef had reaffirmed to him at the weekend his wish to return to Australia.

"The Federal Court decision to grant his application for a judicial review of the Immigration Minister's cancellation of his work visa is crucial to Dr Haneef's Future.

"Had the decision gone against Dr Haneef, he would have been denied a working visa not only in Australia but effectively in other countries where he may wish to work. This would have a disastrous effect on his life and career.

"He understands, however, that today's decision may just be just a first step in a legal battle that is not over. He and his family are gratified by the decision, but prepared for further legal battles, if necessary," Mr Russo said.

He said Dr Haneef hoped that, in deciding whether to take any further action concerning his restored visa, the Minister would consider all of the changed circumstances since the original decision was made.

These included the dropping of the terror- related charge against Dr Haneef, on the decision of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mr Russo said Dr Haneef hoped that Mr Andrews would, in considering these matters, take into account all of the evidence in the case and not just depend on selections of information provided by other agencies.

Mr Russo said Dr Haneef was willing to answer any continuing inquiries the Minister may have, because his reputation and his ability to work and study at medical institutions around the world, including in Australia, were very important to him and his family.

"Until these matters are finally resolved Dr Haneef and his family feel they are unable to return to a normal life, both in India and abroad," Mr Russo said.

Mr Russo said he hoped today's court decision would signal an end to the ordeal Dr Haneef had endured throughout the past month and a half.

"The Immigration Minister holds the key to where this issue goes now. If he accepts the Federal Court decision then Dr Haneef's life and work can get back on track.

"It's now up to Mr Andrews as to whether the Haneef case is finished today," Mr Russo said.

When he cancelled Dr Haneef's visa, Mr Andrews said he had a reasonable suspicion Dr Haneef had "associated" with terrorists, specifically his second cousins Kafeel and Sabeel Ahmed, both allegedly involved in failed bomb plots in the UK in June.

Dr Haneef, who worked as a junior doctor at the Gold Coast Hospital, was charged with providing support to a terrorism organisation on July 14, following 12 days of detention under anti-terror laws.

But the charges against him were dropped on July 27, and he returned to India the following day.

Haneef 'should get back his visa' - Queensland - brisbanetimes.com.au

2007-08-21T13:26:00.000+10:00

Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef has won the right to return to Australia after a Federal Court judge today ruled Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews had been wrong to boot him out of the country.

However, Justice Jeffrey Spender said today Mr Andrews used the wrong criterion when judging Dr Haneef's character - and ruled the government should hand back his work visa.

Mr Andrews caused a political storm last month when he stepped in to cancel the one-time terror suspect's 457 work visa just hours after a Brisbane magistrate freed him on bail.

Quoting police intelligence, the Minister argued Dr Haneef's association with two male relatives allegedly involved in failed bomb plots in the UK meant he was of bad character and should not be allowed to stay at his home on the Gold Coast.

It later emerged Dr Haneef had given his mobile phone SIM card to second cousin Sabeel Ahmed and had once borrowed money from Sabeel's brother Kafeel, who has since died after suffering serious burns in a car bomb attack on Glasgow Airport.

But at a Federal Court appeal hearing on August 8 lawyers fighting to have Dr Haneef's visa reinstated disputed Mr Andrew's use of the word "association" and questioned whether any relationship with an alleged criminal, even an innocent one, would be enough to cancel somebody's visa.

But today, Justice Jeffrey Spender found the Minister applied the wrong test when judging Dr Haneef's character.

"The Minister cancelled the visa by adopting a wrong criterion. He fell into jurisdictional error by applying the wrong test," Justice Spender said.

He found that had the Minister relied upon information that Dr Haneef was considered a person of interest by UK counter-terrorism police and had been formally charged with providing resources to a terrorist organisation, the Minister would have been justified in cancelling his visa.

"These matters would have permitted the Minister to conclude that the association between Dr Haneef and the Ahmed brothers went beyond a purely familial, social and 'innocent' relationship," he said.

"On that material, it would have been open to the Minister ... to cancel Dr Haneef's visa."

Solicitor David Bennett QC filed an immediate application of stay, which Justice Spender granted for a period of 21 days.

Speaking shortly after sittings of State Parliament today, Queensland Premier Peter Beattie welcomed the court's ruling.

More to come...

Haneef to learn visa fate tomorrow - Queensland - brisbanetimes.com.au

2007-08-20T20:57:00.000+10:00

Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef will learn tomorrow whether his appeal to have his work visa reinstated has been successful.

Lawyers for Dr Haneef lodged the appeal last month, just days after Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews cancelled the former terrorism suspect's work visa on character grounds.

In cancelling the visa, Mr Andrews said he had a reasonable suspicion Dr Haneef had "associated" with terrorists, specifically his second cousins Kafeel and Sabeel Ahmed, both allegedly involved in failed bomb plots in the UK in June.

However, at a Federal Court hearing in Brisbane on August 8, Dr Haneef's lawyers disputed the minister's use of the word "association" and questioned whether any relationship with an alleged criminal, even an innocent one, would be enough to justify a visa cancellation.

Solicitor General David Bennett QC had told the court that "association" in the minister's usage was more like "mates" to the average Australian.

He said not only had Dr Haneef given his mobile phone SIM card to Sabeel Ahmed when he left the UK last year, but he had borrowed money from Kafeel and stayed with the brothers for a short time.

Following the day-and-a-half long hearing, Justice Jeffrey Spender reserved his decision until noon (AEST) tomorrow.

Dr Haneef, who worked as a junior doctor at the Gold Coast Hospital, was charged with providing support to a terrorism organisation on July 14, following 12 days of detention under anti-terror laws.

A Brisbane magistrate granted him bail on July 16, before Mr Andrews intervened.

However, the charge against him was dropped within a fortnight after Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Damian Bugg found there was no reasonable prospect of a conviction against the Indian doctor.

Dr Haneef returned to India a day later but has stated publicly he wants to return to Australia to continue his physician training at the Gold Coast Hospital.

AFP secrecy plea over Haneef interview | The Australian

2007-08-17T15:18:00.000+10:00

AUSTRALIAN Federal Police, who were severely embarrassed by the leak of the first record of interview with terror suspect Mohamed Haneef, have issued a plea to his lawyers to keep the second interview secret.

Dr Haneef's solicitor, Peter Russo, said yesterday he suspected the plea was an attempt to save the AFP and Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews further embarrassment and scrutiny over "misleading and selective" attempts to smear the Indian-trained medical practitioner.

Mr Russo told The Australian that nothing in the record of the second interview pointed to criminality or improper conduct by Dr Haneef, despite insinuations to the contrary by Mr Andrews, who has said he remains "suspicious", and AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty.

"I don't think there is anything in there that links him to doing anything wrong," Mr Russo said.

"It's my view that it should all be out there. Only half the story has been told."

The AFP's counter-terrorism manager wrote to Mr Russo expressing concern "that some of the information revealed to your client during this interview could, if disclosed publicly, have the potential to prejudice ongoing and future police operations and/or give rise to a claim that a defendant cannot have a fair trial".

The letter states that the material was provided by the AFP to help in Dr Haneef's legal representation, adding "we therefore ask that until further notice you do not disclose the contents of the recording or the transcript to anyone else except for the purpose of providing legal assistance to your client. We ask that this include that you do not provide or make a copy of the recording or transcript or play the recording to anyone else that does not need to hear it," the letter states.

"Should a copy of the recording already have been made and provided to any person other than for the purposes set out above, we ask you contact (the AFP) immediately."

Mr Russo, who wants to release the material to clear Dr Haneef's name after he was held in custody and accused of terrorism for almost a month, told the AFP that the Crimes Act did not suggest there were any limits on using the information as he saw fit.

"We would also point out that (Mr Keelty) has authorised (Mr Andrews) to release selective portions of a chat room interview involving our client in a way which was unfair and misleading and had the effect of slandering our client's name both in Australia and internationally," he told the AFP in a letter this week.

Mr Russo said that as most of the information in the interview came from Dr Haneef with his knowledge and from searches of his property, possessions and computer, the secrecy request was baffling. His letter to the AFP states: "We would also point out that the charges against our client have been discontinued and the Director of Public Prosecutions has stated publicly that the conclusion that no criminal charge could be sustained against our client was based not only on the basis of material in the hands of the Australian Federal Police, but also any information likely tocome from ongoing investigations.

"Since you have already authorised the minister to publish material and information obtained from our client and discussed in the interview in a misleading and selective manner, we would ask you to identify what parts of the record, actually, carry these characteristics of confidentiality and potential prejudice."

Police put lid on Haneef's second record of interview - National

2007-08-17T07:23:00.000+10:00

THE Australian Federal Police is trying to suppress former terrorism suspect Mohamed Haneef's second interview with authorities, despite the fact Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews has already selectively quoted from the interview.

Last night, Dr Haneef's former colleague at the Gold Coast Hospital, Mohammed Asif Ali, was due to fly home to Bangalore.

Dr Ali, who was questioned by police about his links with Dr Haneef, was suspended from the Gold Coast Hospital after it was discovered he had falsified his CV. Acting Director-General of Queensland Health, Andrew Wilson, said Dr Ali would continue to be investigated, although Mr Ali said he hoped to return to his job.

The AFP have provided Dr Haneef's lawyers with the transcript of the 12 hours they interrogated the Indian doctor before charging him on July 14.

Dr Haneef's lawyers were given the interview transcript on August 8, the day that the doctor's appeal against Mr Andrews' decision to cancel his work visa on character grounds was heard in the Federal Court. In an accompanying letter, the manager of the AFP's domestic counter-terrorism unit asked Dr Haneef's lawyers not to make the transcript public. "The AFP is concerned that some of the information revealed to your client during this interview could, if disclosed publicly, have the potential to prejudice ongoing and future police operations; and/or give rise to a claim that a defendant cannot have a fair trial."

The letter also stated that the transcript had been provided in confidence, and said if it were made public, Dr Haneef's lawyers were to contact the AFP.

In a reply sent August 13, Dr Haneef's lawyer, Peter Russo, has questioned why Dr Haneef is not to release the transcript, when AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty authorised Mr Andrews "to release selective portions of a chat room conversation involving our client in a way which was unfair and misleading and had the effect of slandering our client's good name both in Australia and internationally".

As part of his justification for his decision to cancel Dr Haneef's visa, Mr Andrews revealed parts of an online chat the doctor had with his brother just before he attempted to leave Australia in the wake of the failed UK car bombings. During the conversation, Dr Haneef's brother tells him "nothing has been found out about you".

In his letter Mr Russo also pointed out that the charges against Dr Haneef had been dropped and said that there was nothing in the Crimes Act which prevented Dr Haneef from doing whatever he wished with his record of interview.

Keelty, Haneef and al-Qaida - On Line Opinion - 10/8/2007

2007-08-13T22:13:00.000+10:00

Why did it come as no surprise to see a “document” linking Dr Mohammed Haneef to al-Qaida enter the public domain via the SBS Dateline program on Wednesday, August 1?

The belief of the Federal Government and Federal Police that linking someone or something with al-Qaida will induce a strong negative public reaction has reached its use by date, although that does not seem to have registered with either the Prime Minister or the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, Mick Keelty.

That is why the linking of Haneef to al-Qaida in the bogus document displayed on the SBS program and on its web site has led to the strong suspicion of having federal government and police finger prints all over it.
Let me elaborate.

The alleged Indian police dossier put before us by SBS cannot be identified as such. There is nothing which says it is a police dossier, nowhere in the document is there any reference to police and the word police does not appear. Conveniently, for whoever put it together, the dossier is undated.

At the end of the dossier it is recorded that, “The Australian police detained him at Brisbane International airport for questioning when he was about to depart for India in the first week of July 2007. It is learnt that a bank locker key was found in his position(sic) , which belongs to someone else.”

The photograph of Haneef which appears on the first page of the dossier is the same photograph which appeared in the Australian and British media immediately following his arrest. It appears to be a passport photo. The early newspaper photographs and the dossier photograph are the same.

Why would Indian police use a passport photo on a police dossier? Where did they get it from?

The time line on the compilation of the dossier indicates that it was prepared after Haneef was in AFP custody. Did the AFP send the passport photo to the Indian police or did the reverse occur? If the latter why didn’t they also send the information in the dossier relating to al-Qaida? Where did the media obtain the passport photo? Of course the Indian police might have down loaded the passport photo from the Internet, but why would they do that?

Was information relating to the key given to the Indian police?

Did Brisbane Magistrate Jacqui Payne have this information available to her when she granted Haneef bail?

Following the Dateline program, Keelty said the AFP were pursuing information relating to the key however the dossier indicates that this information had been available to the Indian police for some time. The Indian police interviewed Haneef on his return to Bangalore and said he was not a person of interest. Why is Keelty pursuing a line of investigation relating to the key when the Indian police have dropped it?

The fact is the dossier is a very dodgy piece of “evidence”, which looks like it has been put together post facto to further smear Haneef. The Dateline program appears to have been used. Running the story has done nothing to enhance the reputation of the program.

On the August 3, the Joint Police Commissioner of Bangalore, Gopal Hosur, dismissed as false the report that Haneef had links with al-Qaida. He said that his officers had conducted an inquiry into the background of Haneef and they had found nothing incriminating. In view of this statement Dateline needs to provide more information on the status of the document they used as the basis of their story alleging Haneef had links to al-Qaida.

We also need to know why the AFP gave credibility to allegations contained in the dossier in the light of the statement by Commissioner Hosur. Is Keelty accusing the Indian police of incompetence or of lying to protect Dr Haneef?

The way this investigation has been conducted and politicised has done harm to the Australia-India bilateral relationship and made a lot of influential people angry. The incompetence, spinning and partisanship of the AFP has exposed them as a second-rate police force.

Problems hamper terror trial's location - Breaking News - National

2007-08-13T12:34:00.000+10:00

Security and logistical problems are continuing to plague preparations for the Sydney trial of nine people accused of terrorism offences.

Supporters of the nine men crowded the NSW Supreme Court for a rare chance to glimpse their loved ones, who are being kept in Goulburn's SuperMax prison facility.

Security was tight, with more than a dozen corrective services and court officers on hand as legal counsel gathered to discuss progress in the case.

Location of the trial continues to be the most contentious pre-trial issue, with Justice Anthony Whealy handing to lawyers a confidential corrective services assessment of the Darlinghurst court complex.

Counsel have recommended the city complex as preferable to Parramatta, in Sydney's west, which is the alternative venue under consideration.

Peter Lange, appearing for accused man Khaled Cheikho, said the Parramatta complex could not accommodate the scores of lawyers involved in the case.

"There will be 27 defence lawyers involved in total, most of whom have chambers in the city," Mr Lange told the court.

"All 27 lawyers will be accommodated in a single room on another floor of the court complex (if the trial is in Parramatta)."

"That would be completely unsatisfactory and unworkable."

Paul Young, representing Mazen Touma, said the confidential report on the Darlinghurst complex appeared designed only to debunk it as a possible venue, and requested a similar report be prepared on Parramatta.

"It may be that there's no available court complex in NSW that may meet the requirements of all the parties," Justice Whealy said.

Justice Whealy requested the corrective services analysis be circulated only among legal counsel.

"I'm restricting the use of the material because matters of security are itemised," he said.

"(It outlines) the various ways in which Darlinghurst court complex is not, in the view of the Department of Corrective Services, suitable for the forthcoming trial and, as one would expect, it goes into considerable detail suggesting why that (appears) to be the case," he said.

Crown prosecutor Wendy Abraham QC said counsel had viewed the courtroom and precinct at Parramatta and there were "serious concerns" about that venue.

Ms Abraham added that national security interest issues were the major pre-trial factor, and requested permission to lay these out in writing rather than speak of them in open court.

"I think that's probably the best way to go," Justice Whealy agreed.

The judge also foreshadowed that national security orders, challenges to the indictment, applications for separate trials and videolink evidence were pre-trial matters which could be resolved in coming months.

The trial is scheduled to begin on February 25.

The judge adjourned the matter for mention before Registrar Gabrielle Drennan on September 11.

The nine accused men - Mohammed Ali Elomar, Mazen Touma, Abdul Rakib Hasan, Khaled and Moustafa Cheikho, Khaled Sharrouf, Mirsad Mulahalilovic, Omar Baladjam and Mohammed Jamal - embraced one another and shook hands as they entered the dock.

They are kept in solitary confinement at Goulburn, and are only permitted to leave their cells for an hour each day.

Relatives and friends exclaimed, applauded and blew kisses from the public gallery, with cries of "Allahu Akhbar" ("God is great") as the nine men were led down to the cells.

© 2007 AAP

ASIO's secrecy forces clients to fight blindfolded - National - theage.com.au

2007-08-12T17:27:00.000+10:00

Lawyers says ASIO is muscling in on litigants' right to an open trial, writes Liz Porter.

ONE morning last year a Melbourne lawyer opened a large and eagerly awaited bundle of government documents - and found almost every useful detail blacked out.

He had recently begun fighting a case for an Australian citizen whose passport had been cancelled following an adverse ASIO assessment.

The man, son of an Irish mother and a Pakistani father, had studied in the Middle East and had been questioned by ASIO on his return. As a citizen, he was entitled under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act to get all government documents relevant to the case. He assumed that the reasons for the adverse assessment would be contained somewhere within them.

But a certificate from the Attorney-General, delivered with the documents, brought even worse news. The certificate imposed huge restrictions on what the lawyer could know about the case he was supposed to be running.

When the case finally made it to a tribunal hearing, he felt he would be fighting blindfolded - and with both hands tied behind his back. On grounds of the "national interest", the certificate barred both lawyer and client from either hearing the government's evidence or from being in the courtroom when it was being presented.

But the lawyer wasn't shocked. He is a veteran of court battles with ASIO. For him, facing a pile of blacked-out documents was just another Kafkaesque moment of many.

Anne Gooley of Maurice Blackburn Cashman has also had plenty of "Kafka" moments in court. For the past two years she has been fighting a Federal Court battle for the right to see documents used by ASIO to make adverse assessments against three of her clients: US peace activist and school teacher Scott Parkin and two former Nauru-based Iraqi refugees, Mohammed Sagar and Muhammad Faisal. In Parkin's case, the assessment meant the cancellation of his visa and his deportation. For the Iraqis, it meant being marooned on Nauru with no chance of resettlement in Australia.

In one Alice in Wonderland courtroom scene, lawyers for ASIO argued that because Mr Parkin, Mr Sagar and Mr Faisal said they did not know the basis of the security assessment, they were just on a "fishing expedition designed to show there was no evidence to support the security assessment". Therefore, the ASIO lawyers argued, Ms Gooley's clients had no right to ask for information. The anti-"fishing" rule exists, in conventional cases, to stop litigants undertaking speculative "fishing expeditions" to find something that will give them a case against an opponent.

This week, Ms Gooley was preparing for next month's Federal Court hearing in the case known as Parkin versus O'Sullivan - a case that began late in 2005 after Mr Parkin, Mr Faisal and Mr Sagar were suddenly given notice of their "adverse assessments" by ASIO Director-General of Security Paul O' Sullivan.

All three cases, Ms Gooley says, are puzzling. Mr Parkin, for example, had been arrested once in the US at a Greenpeace protest, but the charges were withdrawn and he was granted a visa to enter Australia as a visitor. But in September 2005, ASIO suddenly advised immigration authorities that he was a security threat. He was then incarcerated and deported.

Mohammed Sagar and Muhammad Faisal arrived in Nauru in 2002 and were eventually accepted as refugees. But in August 2005 they were informed that ASIO had made "adverse security assessments" of them, making them ineligible for protection visas.

Legal action to force ASIO to disclose the reasons for its assessments was under way when Mr Faisal cracked under the strain of detention and was medically evacuated to Brisbane.

He was subsequently reassessed by ASIO, found not to be a security risk and given a five-year "humanitarian" visa.

"Why did they change their mind?" asked Ms Gooley. "They won't tell us." In the meantime, Mr Sagar was accepted for settlement by Swedish authorities.

In November last year, Federal Court Justice Ross Sundberg ruled that Mr Parkin and the two Iraqis were entitled to be given a list of the documents relied upon by ASIO to make their assessments. The Government was then given leave to appeal against that judgement. At next month's hearing the two sides will be debating what orders for "discovery" of documents Justice Sundberg should make. ASIO will appeal. The case, lawyers say, will be before the court two years' hence.

"This litigation has been on foot for just on two years and we have progressed almost nowhere," Ms Gooley said. "It will be at least another year or so before we get to see any documents and another year after that before we get a trial." The right to know what you are alleged to have done "is a fundamental principle of the rule of law", Ms Gooley said. "My clients' basic rights have been ignored in the name of national security."

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said: "ASIO cannot disclose details of security assessments as it may reveal sources or methodologies and compromise ongoing operations."

Rights And Freedoms Under Attack:Senator Andrew Bartlett

2007-08-11T18:55:00.000+10:00

It is a fundamental principle in any democracy that a person should only be imprisoned following the use of a fair and transparent process, free of political interference. I have introduced 15 Private Senators' Bills in 2006 to reform the Migration Act. The Migration Legislation Amendment (Restoration of Rights and Procedural Fairness) Bill 2007 combines 5 of these 15 Bills into one omnibus Bill and is in direct response to the Haneef case highlighting specific flaws in the current Act.

I have now tabled this bill for debate in the Senate as a matter of urgent priority.

Follow this link to download a copy of the Migration Legislation Amendment ((Restoration of Rights and Procedural Fairness) Bill 2007
Follow this link to download my Second Reading speech
Follow this link to download a copy of the Omnibus Bill.
Follow this link to sign the petition to support urgent reform of the Migration Act.

- Senator Andrew Bartlett

Video News

2007-08-11T08:00:00.000+10:00

Law allows coppers to do you over, judge-free - Opinion - smh.com.au

2007-08-10T08:35:00.000+10:00

What remains to be suborned to the will of Canberra? If you search the horizon it is apparent the constitution has pretty comprehensively been redesigned and state powers picked off, while distant indigenous people, the public service, the military and the press gallery are all pretty much under the thumb of the ancien regime.

Clearly, it's the judiciary's turn for a bit of refurbishment, in what remains of the mandate.

That's not to say the process isn't well under way. Already we've had some startling appointments to the Federal Magistrates Court, including a cub lawyer from the staff of Kevin Andrews, and a hardline Christian fundamentalist.

The appointment of judges to the Federal Court recently has been accompanied by overtures (i.e., lobbying) from Liberal backbenchers and even the wives of federal ministers.

With a full basket of fresh federal laws to interpret and enforce (including Work Choices, crime and terrorism, tax, administrative appeals and surveillance) judicial selection must be carefully managed. Little wonder Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has spoken up against any changes to the present method of appointing federal judges, which is "leave it all to me".

The ways in which judges are being rounded up to fulfil the Government's legislative purpose are none too subtle.

For instance, judges who sit on terrorism cases have to apply to do so and then are screened by the Government for any subversive (independent) tendencies.

Why the judiciary plays along with this insult is a mystery.

On Wednesday the Senate passed a bill that provides for "delayed notification search warrants". These are warrants to empower the federal police and other agencies to covertly take a look around your home, download the contents of your computer and sniff the bedsheets, and not tell you for up to 18 months after the warrant has been executed, or never, ever, if Philip Ruddock says so.

These warrants can only be issued by judges, and even non-judges, who have been carefully screened and approved by the Government. We are not told who these judges are and what makes them "eligible". Maybe it is shorthand for "on the team".

Members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal can be selected to issue these warrants, and they need not even be lawyers, let alone judges. Some are even retired Liberal Party MPs, along with a sprinkling of Colonel Blimps out of the armed services.

To save a lot of bother, the newest "model law" crime legislation amendments will not require any "judicial oversight" to what are designated "controlled operations" or "assumed identities" by federal law enforcement officers.

These are covert operations, which may involve the police or federal employees themselves committing crimes in the pursuit of suspects. One would have thought that "judicial oversight" would be required for the conduct of illegal government operations which allow the authorities to do virtually anything they fancy.

But no, under the new model law, in order to "protect the security of the operation" a senior police office can simply tick the requests of a constable to conduct a "controlled [i.e., uncontrolled] operation" or assume a false identity. The "leaking" judges are not allowed near the process, despite confused claims the minister was making to the media last week.

To this extent we are in step with the law just signed by George Bush in the US, which sweeps aside the nuisance of judicial oversight of expanded internet and telephone surveillance powers. It is called the Protect America Act, a much more glamorous title than our Crimes Legislation Amendment (National Investigative Powers and Witness Protection) Bill.

It's not as if the judges have been all that rigorous in filtering police operations against citizens.

In the 1995 High Court case of Grollo v Palmer (Grollo being Bruno and Palmer being Mick, the former Australian Federal Police commissioner), Justice Michael McHugh said that between 1989 and 1994, of the 2639 police applications to the Federal Court for telecommunication interception warrants, only 13 were refused. That is 0.5 per cent, not much of a judicial filter. It would not surprise if the figures today were of a similar order.

Far from the judiciary being sucked into criminal investigations by whatever once-over-lightly processes it applied, the Government is now making sure the judiciary is being blown out.

So if ever you are hauled into court on the basis of evidence obtained under a warrant you had no idea had been executed, which was approved by a government-sanctioned non-judge, and which in the process involved the commission of crimes by the police, then at least the rest of us can be happy in the knowledge that we live in a more secure Australia.

justinian@lawpress.com.au

IMMIGRATION:From the dictation test to the character test

2007-08-10T06:15:00.000+10:00

The federal government's treatment of Mohamed Haneef recalls the infamous case of Egon Kisch, writes GLENN NICHOLLS

THE DECISION by the immigration minister, Kevin Andrews, to cancel Dr Mohamed Haneef’s visa has potentially condemned him to years in immigration detention followed by deportation – even if he is acquitted of the charges against him. But there are telling precedents in Australian history for questioning the wisdom of Andrews’ decision.

In 1934 Robert Menzies, then attorney-general, tried to deport the Czech communist writer Egon Kisch. Menzies had tried to keep Kisch out of the country after he received secret intelligence from British agents that Kisch had been denied entry to Britain. Kisch dramatically made landfall in Australia by leaping from his ship onto the Melbourne docks, breaking his leg, and his supporters managed to get his case before the local courts.

Menzies told parliament that the cause Kisch championed involved “force and bloodshed” but in court the Commonwealth failed to adduce any evidence about Kisch’s alleged subversive activities. Instead it turned to an inscrutable instrument in the Immigration Act to declare Kisch a prohibited immigrant, the dictation test. Officials made sure that Kisch failed the test by dictating a passage in Scottish Gaelic.

Two things resulted from this brazen tactic. First, Kisch appealed successfully to the High Court, got released on bail and toured the country delivering lectures to large crowds until he departed Australia after four months and received compensatory costs from the government. Afterwards, in a move similar to that proposed by the current attorney-general, Philip Ruddock, the government tightened bail regulations. It introduced a new law, the so-called Lex Kisch, whereby someone charged as a prohibited immigrant was ineligible for bail.

The case was also the beginning of the end for the dictation test. It was not abolished until 1958 but in the Kisch case the test was exposed as a heavy-handed instrument which the government could use when it was unable to establish other lawful grounds for its action.

In 1953, Harold Holt, immigration minister under Menzies, came to the view that the Immigration Act should be used only to prosecute immigration offences and that political matters should be dealt with under the Crimes Act. He presented reform proposals in February 1953, and to its credit, the Menzies cabinet supported him, despite its fervent anti-communism and ASIO’s protestations.

There is a need for a similar stance by the government today. Andrews has sweeping powers to cause individuals to be detained and deported, but these should not be used to circumvent court decisions, such as the decision to grant bail to Dr Haneef.

The use of the minister’s visa cancellation powers in the Migration Act must be reviewed. The character test in the Act empowers the minister to cancel visas in a range of circumstances. As immigration minister Philip Ruddock used the test aggressively in the early 2000s to deport people convicted of crimes in Australia and who had served one year’s imprisonment or more, notwithstanding that they had grown up and lived virtually their whole lives in Australia and were permanent residents. 233 permanent residents were deported on these grounds between 2002–03 and 2004–05. The visa cancellation power has come to supersede the specific criminal deportation power in the Migration Act. Previously individuals could not be deported after they had lived more than ten years in Australia.

Andrews has now used the character test to cancel Dr Haneef’s visa in advance of any criminal conviction and in circumstances where the government says that it has secret information about Haneef which has not been produced to his lawyers or to the Court. It is time to reform the scope of the character test and the minister’s visa cancellation powers. We could start by returning to the spirit of Holt’s important, unheralded reforms in 1953.

Glenn Nicholls is a researcher with the Institute for Social Research at Swinburne University of Technology and author of Deported: A History of Forced Departures from Australia, to be published by UNSW Press in October.

Haneef 'may never return to Qld' - Queensland - brisbanetimes.com.au

2007-08-09T13:48:00.000+10:00

Dr Mohamed Haneef may not return to Australia - even if his visa was returned, his lawyer said outside court today.

Barrister Peter Russo said he still believed Dr Haneef wanted to return to Australia, but said his family situation may influence his decision.

"It is very important for him to get his visa back because his whole career path was to become a specialist," Mr Russo said.

"So whether he does that in Australia or another country ... it's important."

Dr Haneef is now part-way through a four-year physician's course, based on the Gold Coast, where he was also receiving clinical experience.

An unwell Mr Russo, who travelled to Bangalore with Dr Haneef, said he had "mixed feelings" after seeing Dr Haneef with his family in India.

"Obviously he is very devoted to his wife and child and to his mum and his brother and his sister," he said.

"So, yeah. He didn't say that he wouldn't come back. He's insisting that he will come back because he understands how important it is to become a physician for him. I mean that has been his lifelong goal.

"And if he is going to be able to look after his family, that's the way that he is going to be able to do it."

Mr Russo disagreed that the fight to return Dr Haneef's visa was more of an attempt to clear his name.

"No, it's more about getting him back the opportunity to come back and work here."

He said the legal team had been in contact via email with Dr Haneef and was outlining how the hearing was proceeding.

Mr Russo said even though the Federal Court hearing was complex, the team had explained the progress.

"The hearing has gone, as far as we're concerned, according to plan," he said.

Justice Jeffrey Spender this morning reserved his decision on Dr Haneef's visa application, most likely until August 21.

Justice Spender told the hearing he had eight migration appeals to consider next week.

He said "his preference" was to make a decision on the visa application on the following Tuesday.

Mr Russo said he was not surprised by the decision to reserve the decision.

"No. It's a fairly important decision and you saw the volumes of material."

Haneef decision reserved - National - smh.com.au

2007-08-09T12:38:00.000+10:00

Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef will have to wait a further two weeks before hearing whether he can have his work visa returned.

Justice Jeffery Spender today in the Federal Court in Brisbane reserved his decision on Dr Haneef's visa until August 21.

Immigration Ministers Kevin Andrews cancelled Dr Haneef's work visa when the Gold Coast Hospital doctor was detained by federal police for questioning over last month's failed UK bomb attacks.

Mr Andrews cancelled the visa, saying Dr Haneef had failed the character test provided by immigration laws because he had an association with people suspected of criminal activity, namely his second cousins Sabeel and Kafeel Ahmed.

Dr Haneef's lawyers argued it was no more than an "innocent association" and not a valid reason to cancel his visa.

Kafeel Ahmed was the alleged driver of the flaming jeep which crashed into Glasgow Airport last month and died in hospital last week.

Sabeel Ahmed has been charged over his alleged involvement with the plot and a second failed bomb attempt in London.

Solicitor-General David Bennett, QC, representing the Immigration Minister, said the minister had based his decision on a number of factors including that Dr Haneef had lent his mobile phone SIM card to Sabeel Ahmed when he left the UK last year and had borrowed money from Kafeel.

Dr Haneef also kept in contact with his cousins via internet chatrooms, most recently on July 26 - three days before the terror plot unfolded, he said.

Dr Haneef, who was working as a registrar at the Gold Coast Hospital, returned to India last month after a charge of providing support to a terrorist organisation was dropped.

The case resumed in the Federal Court this morning for two hours after adjourning yesterday afternoon.

Justice Spender told the court today he expected to hand down his decision on August 21.

AAP

Visa cancellation timing 'suspicious' - Queensland - brisbanetimes.com.au

2007-08-09T12:34:00.000+10:00

Federal Court Judge Justice Jeffrey Spender said it was possible to infer as "suspicious" the timing of Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews' decision to cancel Dr Mohamed Haneef's work visa.

His comments came as Dr Haneef's legal team today pushed ahead with an application to return the former Gold Coast doctor's visa.

"The chronology is suspicious," Justice Spender said at one stage this morning.

Commonwealth Solicitor-General QC David Bennett immediately argued against the comment.

Mr Bennett said it was only the timing of the decision that was affected, not the decision itself. He said the Minister had already indicated he had taken into account the decision by the Brisbane Magistrates Court to grant Dr Haneef bail "as a matter in Dr Haneef's favour".

Dr Haneef's bail was granted on July 16 - but hours later, Minister Kevin Andrews announced he was revoking Dr Haneef's visa.

Mr Bennett also argued that media deadlines and other news events on that day may have influenced the timing of the decision.

Commonwealth Solicitor General David Bennett is working through three stages of the Commonwealth's argument against the return of Dr Haneef's visa.

Earlier this morning, he summarised the Commonwealth's argument that the best way to consider the term "association" was the Australian colloquial expression, "mate".

Justice Spender later asked if two people sharing an interest in making AFL the most popular football code in Brisbane could be considered as having a "shared interest".

Mr Bennett again referred to the term "mate", as the best way of explaining the meaning of "an association."

He said the Minister never simply relied on the fact that Dr Haneef was second cousins with Kafeel and Sabeel Ahmed.

"That is not what the Minister said," Mr Bennett said.

Solicitor Peter Russo, absent for yesterday's hearing with an upset stomach, has appeared today as part of Dr Haneef's team.

The hearing continues in the Federal Court in Brisbane in the Commonwealth Law Courts in North Quay.

Haneef case rests on guilt by association - National - smh.com.au

2007-08-09T10:00:00.000+10:00

MOHAMED HANEEF'S legal battle to get his work visa back hinges on a Federal Court judge's interpretation of his "association" with two of the British car-bombing suspects.

Dr Haneef's lawyers argued in the Federal Court in Brisbane yesterday that the Immigration Minister, Kevin Andrews, misconstrued the Indian doctor's association with his second cousins, Sabeel and Kafeel Ahmed, who are suspects in the British terrorism plots. They also argued that Mr Andrews cancelled Dr Haneef's visa for an "improper purpose": that because the doctor was due to stand trial on terrorism-related charges, he would not be immediately deported.

Mr Andrews cancelled Dr Haneef's visa on July 16 on the basis that he was of bad character. The minister said Dr Haneef had been charged with providing resources (a mobile phone SIM card) to a terrorist organisation, and had an association with two terrorism suspects. The terrorism charges have since been dropped, and Dr Haneef has returned to India.

Counsel for Dr Haneef, Darryl Rangiah, told the court yesterday that his client should not fail the character test simply because he had some suspect relatives. "Any visa holder who is the parent, child, spouse, cousin, in-law … of one who is a suspected criminal fails the character test," Mr Rangiah said.

Acting Chief Justice Jeffery Spender agreed that a family relationship was not sufficient basis for determining bad character under the Migration Act. "This concept of guilt by association is unlikely to have been intended by the Parliament of Australia," Justice Spender said.

However, the Commonwealth Solicitor-General, David Bennett, QC, suggested that being a relative could "intensify" an association with a suspected criminal. He also acknowledged that under this interpretation of the word association, a battered wife could fail the character test.

Justice Spender suggested Mr Andrews cancelled Dr Haneef's visa because he suspected the doctor had "more than an innocent association" with the terrorism suspects. He pointed out that Dr Haneef had visited Kafeel Ahmed at Cambridge and had borrowed £300 to sit a medical exam. Dr Haneef also stayed in the same Liverpool boarding house as Sabeel Ahmed and gave him his SIM card when he left the UK. He also chatted to Sabeel online days before Kafeel drove a flaming Jeep into the doors of Glasgow Airport on June 30.

"Nothing in that suggests any knowledge or belief that they would commit these acts,"Mr Rangiah said.

Justice Spender suggested the minister could be within his rights to "err on the side of caution" if there were enough factors to suggest the doctor could pose a threat to national security.

The hearing concludes today.

Character test queried - National - brisbanetimes.com.au

2007-08-08T22:35:00.000+10:00

The Federal Migration Act "character test" failed by Gold Coast doctor Mohamed Haneef was today taken through the "battered wife" test in the Commonwealth Law Court in Brisbane.

Dr Haneef's legal team will return tomorrow morning to hear the final arguments from Commonwealth Solicitor General David Bennett before Federal Court judge Jeffrey Spender.

The Indian doctor is seeking the return of his work visa after it was cancelled by Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews on July 16, just hours after Dr Haneef was granted bail in Brisbane Magistrates Court on a charge of terrorism

This afternoon - as Mr Bennett explained how the government defined the term "an association with" - Judge Spender bought the court to standstill when he asked the Commonwealth Solicitor General: "Does the battered wife fail the character test?"

Judge Spender asked if the "battered wife's" character was flawed because she maintained her relationship with her husband, a "criminal" who continually abused her.

"It seems to me that the 'battered wife' situation is one which is appropriate," he asked.

In today's court hearing, Dr Haneef's legal team questioned whether Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews was right to revoke Dr Haneef visa, because he maintained an "association" with his second cousins, Kafeel and Sabeel Ahmed.

However, Mr Bennett outlined several "matters of fact" between Dr Mohammed Haneef and the Ahmed brothers.

These included three issues previously discussed publicly: that Kafeel had lent 300 pounds to Dr Haneef; that he had left his mobile phone SIM card with credit remaining to Sabeel; and that they had been involved in conversations on an internet chat room, mainly relating to family matters.

During today's hearing Judge Spender questioned if 27-year-old Dr Haneef's SIM card had expired.

The chat room conversations continued through until June 26, four days before a botched car bomb attempt at Glasgow Airport.

Dr Haneef was arrested at Brisbane Airport on July 2 as he tried to leave Australia.

Mr Bennett told the hearing the Commonwealth Government believed Mr Andrews had met the requirements of the "character test" under amendments made in 1999 to the Migration Act.

He told the hearing that "merely being a relative is not sufficient" for someone to fail the character test.

"In reality, it seems the Minister took everything into account," he said.

Earlier in the day, counsel Darryl Rangiah for Dr Haneef argued the broad definition of "association" in the Migration Act opened the door for "innocent" relationships to fail the character test.

Judge Spender agreed the interpretation was possible.

He said several times the hearing was only interested in the legal status of Mr Andrews' decision to revoke Dr Haneef's visa.

Dr Haneef is in Bangalore in India after he flew home on July 27.

The hearing continues tomorrow.

Character test queried - National - brisbanetimes.com.au

2007-08-08T22:33:00.000+10:00

Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef's relationship with his alleged terrorist cousins was no more than an "innocent association" and was not a valid reason to cancel his visa, a court has heard.

Dr Haneef's legal team today launched their appeal against Immigration Ministers Kevin Andrews' decision to cancel the former terrorist suspect's work visa in the Federal Court in Brisbane.

Mr Andrews cancelled Dr Haneef's visa last month, saying he had failed the character test provided by immigration laws because he had an association with people suspected of criminal activity, namely his second cousins Sabeel and Kafeel Ahmed.

Kafeel Ahmed was the alleged driver of the flaming jeep which crashed into Glasgow Airport last month and died in hospital last week. Sabeel Ahmed has been charged over his alleged involvement with the plot and a second failed bomb attempt in London.

The team of lawyers representing Dr Haneef, led by barrister Stephen Keim SC, said the minister's decision was based on "a misconstruction of the word 'association"'.

They argued merely being related to the terror suspects did not amount to an "association" with them, because his relationship with them, which Dr Haneef claims was not close, did not adversely impact on his character.

Solicitor-General David Bennett QC, representing the immigration minister, agreed that being related to criminals or having a professional association with them would not be enough to justify visa cancellation.

"We don't submit that familial relations on its own without any other association would be enough (to fail the character test)," he said.

He said the minister had based his decision on a number of factors including that Dr Haneef had lent his mobile phone SIM card to Sabeel Ahmed when he left the UK last year and had borrowed money from Kafeel.

Dr Haneef also kept in contact with his cousins via internet chatrooms, most recently on July 26 - three days before the terror plot unfolded, he said.

A small group of protesters staged a rally outside the court today, chanting slogans and waving placards urging motorists to "honk for Haneef".

However, angry scenes unfolded when police and court representatives denied the group access to today's hearing.

The judge, Justice Jeffrey Spender, adjourned the court until tomorrow, when the hearing is expected to end.

However, it is not known whether Justice Spender will hand down his ruling on the case or reserve his decision until a later date.

Dr Haneef returned to India last month after a charge of providing support to a terrorist organisation was dropped.

Had Haneef SIM expired? - Queensland - brisbanetimes.com.au

2007-08-08T15:08:00.000+10:00

Federal Court Judge Jeffrey Spender today asked if the mobile phone SIM card allegedly used by Dr Mohamed Haneef's second cousins in terrorist activities in Glascow had actually expired in August 2006.

Judge Spender asked how a SIM card would expire, as he continues an application hearing by Dr Haneef's lawyers to have his visa returned.

Dr Haneef is alleged to have left his mobile phone SIM card with his second cousins, who are accused of being involved in the failed car bomb attack on Glascow Airport on June 30.

Immediately before lunch, barrister Stephen Keim, for Mr Haneef - not present in the court during the visa application - questioned the wisdom of Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews' decision to revoke Dr Haneef's visa and have him detained for a trial.

Judge Spender said he was not interested in the "wisdom" of the decision, only in the legality of the decision.

It is now likely the hearing will extend into tomorrow.

Earlier, Dr Haneef's legal team described the federal government's "character test" as too broad and allowing too much leeway for guilt by association.

Assisting counsel Darryl Rangiah opened his application by suggesting the character test should also be open to interpretations of an "innocent" nature.

He suggested "innocent" associations included mothers and wives of people involved in criminal acts.

"A football team," Mr Rangiah suggested.

Judge Spender said he understood the suggestion, adding: "The mother of all convicts shipped to Australia. It seems to follow."

The visa application hearing in the Commonwealth Law Court in Brisbane is being heard before a packed courtroom.

Judge Spender has to determine if Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews acted within his discretionary power when cancelling Dr Haneef's work visa.

Judge Spender described today's hearing as a "threshold" case.

Mr Rangiah has also suggested in his submission that the removal of the words "is not of good character" from federal legislation in 1999, and the effective substitution of the phrase "this person does not pass the character test" was inappropriate.

Later Judge Spender asked Mr Rangiah whether Dr Haneef's association with his two second cousins, Sabeel and Kafeel Ahmed, allegedly involved in terrorist events in Glasgow, might mean he should fail the character test.

"He had an ongoing association with them," Mr Rangiah said.

Judge Spender said it could be argued that Dr Haneef was an associate of criminals, who were involved in criminal acts.

"You might think that was a risk to Australia, his remaining in Australia," the judge said.

Dr Haneef was arrested at Brisbane Airport on July 2 and detained for 12 days by Australian Federal Police.

The charge against Dr Haneef was dropped and he was released on July 27 when he returned to India.

Protesters gather to support Haneef - Queensland - brisbanetimes.com.au

2007-08-08T13:52:00.000+10:00

Speakers from Amnesty International, the Democrats and the Greens and the Australian Lawyers Alliance will speak outside the Commonwealth Law Courts at North Quay this morning before a visa application is heard for Dr Mohamed Haneef.

About 30 protesters have gathered outside the court this morning.

However, the activists' plea to motorists to "Honk for Haneef'' received little support from Brisbane drivers.

Spokesman Paul Benedek said a range of community groups wanted to pressure the government to return Dr Haneef's work visa.

Larissa Waters, the Greens' Senate candidate for Queensland, said she was ashamed at the injustice committed against Dr Haneef.

In a speech she will make this morning, Ms Waters will call on Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews to reinstate Dr Haneef's visa.

"His reliance on unpublished information that wasn't even before the courts and according to the lawyers hasn't even been put to Dr Haneef thoroughly undermines public confidence in the decision-making process," she said.

The hearing begins at 10.15am in the Federal Court before Judge Jeff Spender

Lead counsel for the Federal Government is Commonwealth Solicitor-General David Bennett, with Dr Haneef represented by Stephen Keim and Darryl Rangiah.

High-profile Brisbane lawyer Peter Russo, who has been representing Dr Haneef, was forced by illness to sit out today's proceedings.

Mr Russo, who returned from India at the weekend, has been suffering from a severe stomach upset which required hospital treatment. He is currently resting at home.

Govt character test 'too broad' - Queensland - brisbanetimes.com.au

2007-08-08T13:39:00.000+10:00

The government's "character test" is too broad and allows too much leeway for guilt by association, Dr Mohamed Haneef's legal team has argued in Brisbane's Federal Court this morning.

Assisting counsel Darryl Rangiah began the former Gold Coast doctor's case to have his visa returned.

Mr Rangiah opened his application before Federal Court Judge Jeffrey Spender by suggesting that the character test should also be open to interpretations of an "innocent" nature.

He suggested "innocent" associations included mothers and wives of people involved in criminal acts.

"A football team," Mr Rangiah suggested.

Judge Spender said he understood the suggestion, adding: "The mother of all convicts shipped to Australia. It seems to follow."

The visa application hearing in the Commonwealth Law Court in Brisbane is being heard before a packed courtroom.

Judge Spender has to determine if Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews acted within his discretionary power when cancelling Dr Haneef's work visa.

Judge Spender described today's hearing as a "threshold" case.

Mr Rangiah has also suggested in his submission that the removal of the words "is not of good character" from federal legislation in 1999, and the effective substitution of the phrase "this person does not pass the character test" was inappropriate.

Later Judge Spender asked Mr Rangiah whether Dr Haneef's association with his two second cousins, Sabeel and Kafeel Ahmed, allegedly involved in terrorist events in Glasgow, might mean he should fail the character test.

"He had an ongoing association with them," Mr Rangiah said.

Judge Spender said it could be argued that Dr Haneef was an associate of criminals, who were involved in criminal acts.

"You might think that was a risk to Australia, his remaining in Australia," the judge said.

Dr Haneef was arrested at Brisbane Airport on July 2 and detained for 12 days by Australian Federal Police.

The charge against Dr Haneef was dropped and he was released on July 27 when he returned to India.

The visa hearing continues.

Haneef lawyers to fight for visa - National - brisbanetimes.com.au

2007-08-08T06:45:00.000+10:00

Lawyers for Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef will today argue for his work visa to be reinstated in the Federal Court in Brisbane.

Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews cancelled Dr Haneef's visa last month, on the day he was granted bail in Brisbane Magistrates Court on a charge of providing support to a terrorist organisation.

Mr Andrews argued Dr Haneef had failed the ``character test'' provided under immigration legislation because of his association with his second cousins Kafeel and Sabeel Ahmed, both of whom were allegedly involved in the failed UK terror plot in June.

Commonwealth DPP Damien Bugg withdrew the charge on July 27 after a review found there was no reasonable possibility of a conviction.

Dr Haneef flew home to India that weekend but has instructed his lawyers to continue with the appeal against the minister's decision.

At a directions hearing in the Federal Court last month, the judge hearing the appeal, Justice Jeffery Spender, was critical of Mr Andrews' use of the character test.

The judge said he himself would fail the test because he had associated with criminals, including murderers, by representing them as a barrister.

AAP

Police get secret search powers - National - theage.com.au

2007-08-08T06:41:00.000+10:00

FEDERAL police have been granted new powers to expand covert investigations and search people's homes and computers without informing them.

Changes to the National Investigative Powers and Witness Protection Bill 2006 were passed in the Senate yesterday, despite opposition from Labor, the Democrats and Greens.

The legislation allows police to conduct covert investigations or "controlled operations" into offences that carry only a three-year jail term.

During these investigations officers can engage in criminal activity.

Shadow attorney-general Joe Ludwig said the scope of offences was too "broad" and covert investigations should be sanctioned only for terrorism or other offences punishable by life imprisonment.

The bill also allows federal police to carry out secret searches without informing an individual until six months or more later.

Democrats senator Natasha Stott Despoja described aspects of the bill as "alarming".

"This bill is heavy-handed and intrusive," Senator Stott Despoja said.

"After the recent high-profile bungling of the case of Dr Mohamed Haneef, this is definitely not the time to be handing our police agencies vastly increased powers."

The Government has said the legislation will give police greater flexibility in conducting covert operations and tackling emerging categories of crime.

Justice Minister David Johnston told the Senate the laws would help police investigate crime syndicates, motorcycle gangs, child-sex tourism and sex-slavery networks.

He said the delayed notification warrants were essential so as to not "tip off" people under investigation.

Various aspects of the bill have been opposed by the Law Council of Australia.

In a January submission to a parliamentary committee that scrutinised the bill, the council said: "The Law Council believes that a manifest need for these extended powers has not been demonstrated and that, in the circumstances, no further erosion of Australian citizens' rights should be sanctioned by the Australian Parliament."

Oz PM rejects Haneef's demand

2007-08-07T13:54:00.000+10:00

MELBOURNE: Australian Prime Minister John Howard today turned down Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef's request for an "honorary citizenship", saying no such category existed for the authorities to entertain.

Haneef, who returned to India a week ago after a terrorism charge against him was dropped, told Australian media he would like to ask Howard for "honorary citizenship of Australia" because he was a good doctor.

"I won't be doing that," Howard was quoted by a local TV network.

"There is no case for that to occur and ... I'm not sure that we have honorary Australians anyway, but he wouldn't be the sort of person you'd make an honorary Australian," he said. "But I'm not aware that there is such an animal, such a person, such a beast. I don't think so, I don't think we have honorary Australians, do we?"

Haneef wanted to return to Australia to finish his medical training, despite his four weeks in detention and the cancellation of his work visa.

Meanwhile, Haneef's lawyer Peter Russo had arrived back from India yesterday and said the family of the former gold Coast registrar wanted to sue the Government over the failed terror charge against him.

He said Haneef's family wanted compensation for lost income and damage to his reputation, though his client had not asked him to pursue civil action against the Government.

"You've got to understand the Indians' mentality - the mentality is to sue," Russo said on ABC radio.

"I didn't realise that until I got over there and started talking to some of the relatives. But he specifically hasn't asked me to sue," he said.

Greens to press for Haneef inquiry | NEWS.com.au

2007-08-07T13:50:00.000+10:00

GREENS senators are to press for an inquiry into the detention of Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef who was charged with a terror related offence then subsequently released.

Greens Senator Kerry Nettle is to propose that the Senate standing committee on legal and constitutional affairs inquire into all aspects of the detention and release of Dr Haneef.

That includes the source and veracity of information upon which decisions were made, Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews' actions in revoking Dr Haneef's visa and the roles of others including Prime Minister John Howard and Attorney General Philip Ruddock.

The proposed inquiry would also examine the investigation by the Australian Federal Police and other agencies, the international impact of the Government's handling of the case.

Senator Nettle said the motion was likely be debated in the Senate tomorrow.

"From the beginning the Government has used the Dr Haneef affair as an election weapon. The truth needs to come out," she said.

With the Government holding a majority in the Senate, there appears to be little prospect the proposed inquiry will go ahead.

Rudd repeats calls for Haneef inquiry - Breaking News - National - Breaking News

2007-08-06T18:39:00.000+10:00

Federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd has repeated calls for an inquiry into the Mohamed Haneef case.

The former Gold Coast doctor returned home to India a week ago after a charge of supporting a terrorist organisation was dropped due to a lack of evidence.

Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews on Sunday said he had no regrets about earlier cancelling Dr Haneef's visa on character grounds.

Mr Rudd said an inquiry into the affair was due.

"We believe we have got to get to the bottom of this," he told reporters in Brisbane.

"If the government will not act on this, then we believe an appropriate inquiry in the future would be necessary."

Haneef's plea: make me an honorary citizen - National - smh.com.au

2007-08-06T11:09:00.000+10:00

MOHAMED Haneef says he is confident he won't be charged again with terrorism offences, declaring the Australian Federal Police have already "got everything out of me".

Although the Commissioner, Mick Keelty, has stressed the investigation into Dr Haneef's links with the car bombings in London and Glasgow is continuing, Dr Haneef said he was "not at all" worried he could face more charges.

"I told them everything I knew," he said. "They got everything out of me, everything. What else could they get on me?"

Referring to some of the allegations that have been made about him, Dr Haneef said: "I have lost my sympathy with what has happened."

Dr Haneef sounded relaxed when he spoke to the Herald at the weekend from his home in Bangalore, where he returned a week ago after terrorism-related charges were dropped.

Despite his four-week ordeal as Australia's No. 1 terrorism suspect, he still feels affection towards the country.

Asked what he would say to the Prime Minister, John Howard, if he met him, Dr Haneef said: "I would ask for honorary citizenship of Australia." Asked on what basis, he replied: "Because I'm a good doctor."

Dr Haneef said he would like to return to Australia to finish his medical training. "It is a very nice place, actually." He said he blamed the police for what had happened to him.

He played down the significance of the online conversation he had with his brother a few hours before he was arrested trying to leave Australia on July 2.

The Immigration Minister, Kevin Andrews, again said yesterday that the conversation, in which Dr Haneef's brother says (as translated by Australian police from Urdu) "nothing has been found out about you", was possible evidence he had known of the UK terrorism plots in advance.

Dr Haneef said his brother, who was reading BBC reports of the car bombings while they were chatting, was referring to the fact that the media had not discovered his links with two of the suspects, Kafeel and Sabeel Ahmed. Dr Haneef had given his SIM card to Sabeel, a second cousin, when he left Britain in July last year.

"[My brother] was just referring to the BBC website," Dr Haneef said. "He had got information that there were some problems with my SIM card from Sabeel's mum. He was just reassuring me."

Dr Haneef also rejected Mr Andrews's accusation that he attempted to flee Australia "hastily" before his link with the terrorism suspects was discovered. He pointed out that he had tried to contact a British detective four times to discuss the SIM card with him, as Australian police knew when they arrested him.

"I wasn't aware of all these things, these incidents [the car bombings]," Dr Haneef said. "I didn't really think it [the SIM card] was related to those issues."

Dr Haneef said again he was not a terrorist: "I haven't been involved in any such organisation or any such activities." He said he "didn't even have the slightest suspicion" that Sabeel and Kafeel could be involved in extremist acts and did not know what had prompted Kafeel to drive a burning Jeep into Glasgow Airport.

Dr Haneef refused to discuss why some Muslims became terrorists and would not say if he supported the US-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan: "I don't want to get involved in any political comments."

He is spending time with his family and says he is concentrating on getting his Australian work visa back so he can return to finish his medical training.

In the Federal Court in Brisbane on Wednesday, his lawyers will appeal against Mr Andrews's decision to cancel his visa.

Dr Haneef said he had learnt one lesson: "I wouldn't give anyone my mobile phone for anything again."

Crack team trains for 'inevitable' terror attack - National - theage.com.au

2007-08-06T08:24:00.000+10:00

A team of 30 highly experienced Victorian detectives will work with federal police to investigate terror attacks because they are "inevitable" in the state, a senior police officer says.

The detectives will be given global terrorist intelligence and will work with federal police and overseas agencies on specific terror incidents, News Limited newspapers report today.

"Victoria Police sees the need, through experience, to prepare for the inevitable and arrange a cadre of investigators that can be trained and developed with the required mindset, skill set and disposition, Victoria Police Assistant Commissioner Brendan Bannan told News Limited.

"Rather than be caught flat-footed in the event of the inevitable, we are ... going to a group with investigative skills and the background in international and domestic intelligence."

Members would be trained but would resume their normal duties until required to handle specific cases, the report said.

The unit would be headed by Inspector Greg Hough, who led the work to identify victims of the Bali bombings.

Senior police issued an internal recruitment memo on July 16, the day Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews revoked the working visa of now released terror suspect Dr Mohamed Haneef.

But Mr Bannan said the squad was not formed because the AFP mishandled the Haneef case. "It's got nothing to do with that," Mr Bannan said.

Six members of Victoria Police's elite special operations group will join a contingent to protect next month's APEC Summit in Sydney, the News Limited report said.

The SOG has 25 members, and the loss of six for the summit could leave Victoria exposed because the unit was "stretched already", Police Association secretary Paul Mullett told News Limited.

AAP

Nothing trumps political expedience - Opinion - theage.com.au

2007-08-05T21:50:00.000+10:00

THE handling of the legal proceedings against Dr Mohamed Haneef has highlighted the impossible task faced by the Federal Government in bringing any semblance of impartiality to the dual role it has carved for itself in administering its anti-terror laws.

On one side, it wants to be able to provide a judicial function in administering its anti-terror laws, because it apparently does not trust the judiciary to keep certain information secret, reminding us that only the Government can be trusted. On the other side, it also wants to be able to carry out its executive role that includes its political agenda.

It cannot carry out both tasks independently because there is an inherent conflict of interest. The separation of powers in Australia between the parliament, executive and judiciary ought to see the administration of justice being separate from the executive. There is a natural tension between the political imperatives of the government and the judiciary.

The Tampa incident was a prime example of the conflict faced by the Government. The Immigration Department had a duty of care to people who were seeking refuge in Australia. The needs of justice and humanity in a liberal democracy required that people in need be helped.

The political imperative had several strands. It required that a strong message be sent to people smugglers and would-be boat people that attempts to reach Australia would not succeed. This was in the interests of a controlled migration program. It also required that the Government maximise its electoral prospects by being tough on "those people" and playing the politics of fear.

With some lateral thinking it should have been possible to serve both its humanitarian obligations and its political interests. However, the Federal Government saw its political interest as much more important than its humanitarian concern.

Similarly, in the Haneef case, the needs of justice required that legal processes that deprived him of his liberty run to their conclusion.

When bail was granted, he should have been released into the community with some reasonable restrictions. When charges were dropped, he should have been freed unconditionally. The political needs, however, required that people tainted by terrorism be adversely treated — for several reasons.

First, to discourage others from associating with terrorism in any way — even minor ones. Second, to send a message to the wider community that the Government was being appropriately cautious on issues of protecting the community — "better safe than sorry". Third, because it would boost its electoral prospects. In these situations, the Government clearly believes that the interests of the Government are much more important than those of the individual.

Most people probably agree that it was appropriate for Haneef to be detained as he tried to leave Australia, given that the police had a reasonable concern that he had some connection to the attempted act of terrorism in Britain. Once that concern had been dispelled it should have been the end of the matter.

The manner in which the Government tried to make political capital out of the investigation of Haneef that included blackening his reputation and then withdrawing his work visa once a magistrate had granted him bail, speaks of a Government that seems to have lost any real perspective on this matter.

The Government would have sounded a lot more credible if it was frank and honest about why it thought, on balance, that it was appropriate to interfere in the judicial process.

In the event, the Government thought it could avoid being honest by recklessly adopting policies against foreigners that it believed would be widely supported in the electorate. It worked in the case of Tampa because we didn't know the people involved. It seems to have backfired in the case of Haneef because there was a name, a face and a story.

There is a lesson here. In the interests of maintaining Australia as a liberal, democratic and just society, it is imperative that justice and fairness be separated from politics. They don't mix.

Joseph Wakim, OAM, is founder of the Australian Arabic Council. Harold Zwier is an executive member of the Australian Jewish Democratic Society.

Desperation anyone can see through - Opinion - smh.com.au

2007-08-05T21:47:00.000+10:00

Be careful of your friends. And watch out if you see Kevin Andrews coming. John Howard's Australia four months before an election is an absurdly melancholy place to be. To watch Howard take his bottomless bucket of money to Tasmania this week is to know how absurd. To read the transcripts of 13 radio and TV interviews the hapless Andrews gave on Tuesday and Wednesday is to know the Immigration Minister is only doing his Prime Minister's bidding, however clumsily he is doing it.

Andrews has a "suspicion" about India's Mohamed Haneef. He insists he still has it. This "suspicion" is why he withdrew Haneef's work visa on "character grounds" and intended deporting him. Andrews told us so this week, many times over, even though the bungled charge of "recklessly" aiding a "terrorist organisation" had been dropped and Haneef allowed to return home to India last weekend.

On Tuesday Andrews set about selling his "suspicion" to justify himself and the Government's unsubtle campaign of fear and loathing.

Speaking to the ABC's Jon Faine, on Melbourne radio the next day: "The basis of [my decision] is that legislation provides that I should form a reasonable suspicion of an association between Haneef and those engaged in terrorism in the UK, namely the Ahmed brothers. Now, in forming a reasonable suspicion of that association, I was entitled to look at the fact that Haneef and the brothers knew each other, fraternised in the UK [a year ago], the material relating to the SIM card [Haneef had given to his relative a year ago], to the fact of a loan of money…"

Faine: "Are you aware anywhere, at any time, in any investigation in the world, of any suspect in terrorism calling the police even once, let alone four times, to provide his whereabouts and his contact details?"

Andrews: "Well Jon, firstly, the suspicion I've formed on the material at the time I made my decision, was to clearly raise a suspicion in my mind. And indeed, subsequent information provided to me be the federal police actually has confirmed that suspicion that I've had in in my mind."

Faine: "Could you answer my question?"

Andrews: "Sorry, what was the question?"

Faine: "The question you didn't answer is, are you aware of anywhere, anytime, in any investigation in any jurisdiction in the world, of a terrorist suspect ringing the police once, let alone four times, to provide information of their whereabouts, their identity, and to provide co-operation to the police investigating an act of terrorism?"

Andrews: "Well, that's a matter you'll need to take up with the federal police. I understand there was no actual contact made between Dr Haneef and [British police]."

Faine: "No, he phoned four times the number provided for a policeman in the UK [who had phoned Haneef's extended family in India. An aunt had then phoned Haneef in Australia to pass on the policeman's name and UK number]. Are you aware of any terrorist suspect anywhere in the world ever doing that?"

Andrews: "Well Jon, I'm not aware of every terrorist investigation in the world. I had material before me. I had to consider that material. I considered that material, and I believe in the national interest it was appropriate to cancel his visa … At the end of the day, it's a question of whether or not I had a reasonable suspicion."

Indeed. Like the "reasonable suspicion" some of us have of what the Government is really up to.

Haneef had tried to phone British police the day Australian police later detained him at Brisbane Airport. The number given to him had not answered his repeated calls. Tony Wright in The Age in Melbourne detailed the phone calls on the front page the morning Faine interviewed Andrews. Australian police had recorded the calls. They'd later questioned Haneef about them while they had him in custody.

They even had the British policeman's name. Andrews conveniently ignored the episode when, to support his "suspicion", he released highly selective excerpts from "translated" email chat recorded by police between Haneef and his brother. Andrews won't release the full transcript. It is "protected" information, he insists.

Suspicion is enough in a desperate election year.

Keelty can't avoid responsibility | The Australian

2007-08-05T16:29:00.000+10:00

LET'S give Mick Keelty the benefit of the doubt. Let's presume that his policy and media advisers are strongly influencing his handling of the Mohamed Haneef case, his disingenuous responses and his glass-jawed reproach of critics of his shabby policy and policing.

It is not an ideal presumption but it is preferable to the alternative: that he is completely in charge and wholly responsible for the dribble and the blame-shifting. If the latter is the case, if Keelty is indeed directing this self-defeating strategy, there is a more serious systemic problem at the top of the Australian Federal Police.

Because, if the AFP's top brass cannot admit they have made fundamental mistakes and cannot lead by example to correct them, they can learn nothing and achieve naught from this debacle.

A forensic dissection of all of the screw-ups will be possible when all of the documentary material is on the public record. The narrow bits have been released selectively and spun with dizzying effect. But on one main element, the most important element, Keelty is dangerously exposed.

He is exposed by his actions and by the AFP's actions on the morning of Saturday, July 14, when Haneef, who had been questioned for the previous 12 hours in a second interview (the first occurred on July 3) was formally charged with supporting a terrorist organisation.

The charge was a surprise. It was brought by a police officer in Brisbane. The charge was soon followed by a hastily called Keelty media conference in Canberra. The weekend media lapped it up.

It defies logic to think Keelty may not have had detailed prior knowledge that a charge would be brought in such an internationally important case, on which he had been publicly commentating from day one.

Keelty has not asserted that he did not have prior knowledge.

Director of Public Prosecutions Damian Bugg QC (who has at least shown contrition for mistakes by his staff who were relying on police advice), cannot arrest a suspect. Bugg's prosecutors cannot charge a suspect. The prosecutors do, however, offer advice to the police. If Keelty's blame-shifting comment that "nothing the AFP has done has been done without the advice of the DPP", is taken at face value, we can presume the DPP did not object to a charge and probably recommended it. But it doesn't really matter. This is because the decision to charge is entirely a matter for the police.

It is a responsibility that should be taken seriously in every case, particularly an international terrorism case that has the highest priority and obvious political and community sensitivities.

Police can (and do) exercise their own judgment and often do not charge, notwithstanding DPP advice. Prudent police go back and gather better evidence so a future charge can stick.

Unfortunately for Keelty, the case on July14 was preposterously thin. In the ensuing days it became even thinner.

This highlights the most disappointing and worrying feature. Keelty, on July 14, had to know it was thin and at the very least he had to harbour strong suspicions. The police affidavit material prepared by his officers showed how thin the case was. The same material had been leaked and splashed across the front page of The Australian the day before under the headline "Reasons to hold Haneef stretch thinner by the day". The paucity of the evidence was no national secret and Keelty cannot claim that he did not know about it.

But they charged Haneef anyway. Why? When the case was a lemon, the evidence silly, the facts wrong, the risks huge, the prejudice high? Keelty might explain to the Australian public why, as the top cop, he did not nip it in the bud on that fateful morning.

If he had shown restraint and got across the detail before rushing to bring a charge that the politicians truly wanted, we would have been saved this monumental embarrassment, and Keelty would not be thrashing around now blaming everyone else.

Police chief on the back foot | The Australian

2007-08-05T16:26:00.000+10:00

THE shameless politicking in the Mohamed Haneef saga has diverted attention from an important and deeply troubling feature of the case: the incompetence displayed by Australia's premier counter-terrorism force, the Australian Federal Police, and the disingenuous dissembling by Commissioner Mick Keelty to cover it up.

The real scandal is not the political interference by a Government intent on keeping national security uppermost in voters' minds. It is that a police force that is supposed to be independent and above politics wrongly charged a man with an offence that could have landed him 15 years in jail, and then embarked on a strategy of blatant blame-shifting to disguise its ineptness.

The false assertion that Haneef's SIM mobile phone identity card was found in the exploded jeep at Glasgow airport was just the most glaring in a string of shocking mistakes.

This was no trivial slip. The presence of the SIM card in the burned-out vehicle was cited in court to bolster the charge that Haneef not only intentionally provided a resource to a terrorist organisation, but that that resource "would help the organisation engage (in) a terrorist act".

The source of this fallacy, made public by prosecutor Clive Porritt during a bail hearing in the Brisbane Magistrates Court, has been the subject of much public fudging. But it was not "a figment of the prosecutor's fevered imagination", as The Australian opined last week. Keelty was quick to insist it wasn't the AFP's fault:

"That error was made by the prosecutors. Whether the error was fundamental is for the court to decide."

His suggestion that the error was less than "fundamental" stretches credulity. And his claim that the mistake was "made by the prosecutors" is true only in the narrowest sense. Who do prosecutors rely on for their information? The police.

Two days after fingering the prosecutor, Keelty sought to shift the blame to the British police, revealing that Scotland Yard had initially told AFP investigators that the SIM card was found in the jeep: a crucial revelation that has been largely overlooked. It confirms that the conduit for the SIM card error was the AFP, contrary to Keelty's previous denials. Scotland Yard has since acknowledged that it did make the initial mistake but, crucially, has insisted it was corrected before Haneef was charged.

So the AFP knew that the SIM card was not in the jeep when it charged Haneef. And it knew the prosecutor was wrong when he addressed the court on Saturday, July 14. The AFP could have corrected this two hours later when the court resumed. Or two days later, when Haneef reappeared and was granted bail. But it made no attempt to do so for six days, until the ABC's Raphael Epstein broke the story on July 20 that the SIM card had in fact been recovered 300km away in Liverpool. Keelty's belated explanation that "the prosecutor made an oral submission that was incorrect" was a poor and only half-true excuse.

On Tuesday, Keelty revived this falsehood with a bewildering series of comments that are totally at odds with the known facts.

"For all that's been said about the SIM card, the SIM card is still in the vicinity of London at the time that the devices were attempted to be exploded," he said.

"The SIM card is still at Glasgow, at the airport at the time that the attempted bombing happened there."

An AFP spokesman attempted vainly to make sense of Keelty's gaffe, explaining that the commissioner had intended to say the SIM card was linked to people who were in the vicinity of the attempted bombings.

It is inconceivable that Keelty would not know by now exactly where the SIM card was found. His garbled commentary, along with his subsequent attempt to talk up a dodgy Indian "dossier" referring to Haneef having "alleged links with al-Qa'ida" - a claim the Bangalore deputy police commissioner has since described as "incorrect and false" - only undermines the AFP's credibility further.

The AFP's submission to the bail hearing also exaggerated the case against Haneef, stating that he "was attempting to depart Australia before authorities could become aware of his involvement in the above terrorist acts". There was and is no such evidence.

Another police affidavit contained errors of fact, stating that Haneef had told the AFP he shared a house in Liverpool with his second cousins, Kafeel and Sabeel Ahmed, when in fact he had told them he lived with a group of other doctors and moved out of the house before Sabeel Ahmed moved in. He never lived with Kafeel Ahmed at all, but made two brief visits to his home at Cambridge in 2004.

This misinformation was repeated in an issues paper prepared for Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews, which stated that Haneef had "advised the AFP that he resided with Dr Sabeel Ahmed" in Liverpool. Like the falsehood over the SIM card, the error was allowed to stand until it was exposed by The Australian's Hedley Thomas on July 20. The AFP has offered no explanation or apology for this mistake, or for its inexcusable failure to correct it.

Asked to explain this at last Friday's joint press conference with the commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Damian Bugg, Keelty replied: "We don't deliberately provide wrong information. We provide the information that's provided to us by the UK."

His answer was incorrect and misleading. The information concerned was not provided by Britain; it was given by Haneef himself to the AFP, who misrepresented it in their affidavit.

From the day of Haneef's detention, Keelty provided a running public commentary on the case. When doubts were raised about the SIM card, he assured us that police had relied on "a lot more" than mobile phone records. Later he told us "it is quite a complex investigation and the links to the UK are becoming more concrete".

Yet two days after the raid on Haneef's apartment, its owners were allowed in to clean it out before a full forensic examination had been conducted, ensuring that if there ever was any forensic evidence, it would likely have been destroyed.

The presumption of innocence appeared to be a low priority for the police. Haneef's colleagues at the Gold Coast Hospital recounted the day after his detention that police had told them Haneef "may have been part of a terrorist sleeper cell". In the resulting climate of public alarm, the AFP sought and obtained a series of extensions to the time it was allowed to question Haneef, in the first test of the amended terrorism laws that allow prolonged detention without charge.

Last week, as the case began collapsing, Keelty's eagerness to take credit for it suddenly evaporated. "Nothing the AFP has done has been done without the advice of the DPP," he announced.

When the charges were sensationally dropped last Friday, Keelty made sure the DPP took the blame, insisting that the decision to charge Haneef had been made on the prosecutor's advice, and therefore "we were obliged to charge him". Once again this was only partly true. The DPP's advice on whether a charge can be supported is based on the evidence put to it by the police. Keelty's assertion that "the facts that the AFP or the investigation have put before the court were correct" is simply wrong.

According to Keelty, everyone is to blame for this debacle except the AFP. He blamed Haneef for trying to leave the country. He blamed barrister Stephen Keim for leaking the police record of interview. He blamed journalists who "made it extraordinarily difficult for us to continue the investigation while questions were being put to us by the media in a way that I've never witnessed before." Publicly he said: "You can't blame Andrews; he acted on our information." But privately he briefed journalists that he was furious with Andrews for complicating and inflaming the case by cancelling Haneef's visa.

Only the AFP is blameless, by Keelty's account. "The police investigation has been thorough, I make no apology for that, nor should I in a terrorism investigation in this country. We have done our job well in this instance, we have done our job professionally."

This is pure wishful thinking. A more persuasive assessment is that of former National Crime Authority chief Peter Faris that the AFP has demonstrated "monumental incompetence" and looks "way out of its depth".

Terrorism indeed poses a serious threat and many dedicated police officers have worked long and hard on this unfortunate case. But none of this makes the AFP immune from being held to account for its mistakes.

Keelty has placed himself and his police force on the front line of the Government's highly politicised war on terror, and has eagerly reaped the public kudos and increased resources this has brought. Now that his strategy has backfired so badly, Keelty only has himself to blame.

Crisis of trust | The Australian

2007-08-05T16:19:00.000+10:00

THE periodic collapse of trust among Australia's pivotal institutions - the executive, parliament, the police, the legal profession and the media - is the real story in the Mohamed Haneef affair.The paradox at the centre of this event is that Haneef should never have been charged by the Director of Public Prosecutions, an ill-judged action partly exposed by the media, yet Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews's decision to cancel Haneef's visa was a valid decision on the advice before him.
The idea that the court case was flawed yet the executive action by Andrews was justified seems an impossible concept for much of the media and the legal profession. It is, however, the irresistible conclusion from the saga, which seems to have a long way to run.

This is, in essence, a battle between institutions. The laws in question are the counter-terrorism laws and the Migration Act. These are the laws that have dominated much of the struggle between the executive and parliament on the one hand and the legal profession on the other. Beneath the passions aroused by the Haneef affair is a contest over ideas and power.

The Federal Court judge hearing the appeal against Andrews's decision, Jeffrey Spender, raised immediate doubts about the minister's action, saying to the government counsel: "Unfortunately, I would fail the character test on your statements. because I have been associated with persons suspected of criminal conduct."

Such remarks are illustrative of much Federal Court thinking towards the executive over the past decade. The Howard Government will not retreat on the Haneef issue. If necessary, it will go to the High Court.

As this saga unfolds, recall the 2002 warning by John McMillan before his appointment as commonwealth Ombudsman that a significant problem in immigration litigation was "overreaching, overzealous judicial review" and that the obligation on courts was to accept "that the merits of administrative decision-making lie with the executive".

That Haneef's case collapsed in the courts does not gainsay that the Australian Federal Police continues to regard him with significant suspicion as inquiries continue. Asked at the end of the week whether the AFP still felt that Haneef may have had some prior knowledge of the London and Glasgow terrorist plots, AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty said "our doubts remain very deep".

Asked whether he still believed that the reasons Haneef gave for his thwarted initial effort to leave the country were just a pretext, Keelty said: "From day one, we thought the reasons he gave were highly dubious."

And that view hasn't changed. The key to Andrews's decision lies in the Migration Act and the obligations imposed on him as Immigration Minister by the national parliament.

That such an unremarkable statement tests the limits of credulity reveals how much the public debate has descended into confusion and irrationality.

The blame for that should be shared all around. There are no heroes in this story.

The collapse of the prosecution case against Haneef was an embarrassment to the commonwealth DPP, the AFP and the Howard Government. There is no substitute for these institutions reviewing and improving their performance in the more challenging climate of counter-terrorism. But beware of the false solution propounded by the lawyer lobby that the answer lies in strengthening judicial review against the executive. That is the great myth of our age.

As for Andrews, his depiction in the media degenerated into farce. Rarely has the gap between the person and the fabrication become so wide. Far from being a cunning manipulator of public opinion playing the race and fear cards, Andrews is a fairly ineffective politician but with more backbone than many realise.

Andrews and the immigration minister before him, Philip Ruddock, have cancelled hundreds of visas annually. The rate for Andrews is about half-a-dozen a week. Such power is exercised under law in the public interest and is reviewable by the courts.

There is no universal human right that entitles a person to an Australian visa. or to retain a visa. Hopefully, there never will be. As Andrews says, a visa is a privilege granted by the Australian Government on behalf of the Australian people. It is a fundamental responsibility of the executive.

The test for Andrews's action is twofold: was it legal and was it justified on merit?

The July 31 legal opinion from Solicitor-General David Bennett QC finds without qualification that when Andrews cancelled the visa he relied on material that enabled him to validly make such a decision.

Bennett found that Andrews was fully entitled to make this decision. In addition, Bennett found that if Andrews had acted later (after the prosecution had been withdrawn), then he would still have been entitled to make the same decision.

The second test is whether the cancellation was justified. This is a contested issue. The critics say, variously, that Andrews persecuted an innocent man or that he was playing politics. So, what shaped his decision?

Essentially, there were three factors. First, Andrews had on his desk a protected-information dossier from the AFP that included an internet conversation between Haneef and his brother Shoaib that, at the very least, raised serious suspicions about Haneef. This led the AFP to advise Andrews in the second-last paragraph of the document, as summarised by the Solicitor-General, that it "may be evidence of Haneef's awareness of the conspiracy to plan and prepare the acts of terrorism in London and Glasgow".

Consider this: might a responsible immigration minister give weight to such a possibility as flagged by the AFP?

Second, in the final paragraph of the same document, the AFP made it clear that Haneef's attempted departure from Australia appeared overwhelmingly to be on a false pretext. Providing a false pretext for leaving the country (to see his newborn baby) unsurprisingly raised police suspicions. This ignited AFP concerns that Haneef might have some awareness of the terrorist acts. When Andrews reviewed the circumstances of Haneef's attempted departure, he was convinced they were highly suspicious.

Third, Andrews had to exercise his obligations under the Migration Act, one of the most scrutinised laws of the past decade. In addition to Andrews and Ruddock, John Howard was familiar with the visa provisions of the act. That would hardly come as a surprise.

The act requires the minister to cancel a visa if he "reasonably suspects" the individual cannot pass the "character test" and cancellation is in the national interest. The act casts a very wide net in instructing the minister about the character test, such failure arising if the person has a criminal record or an "association" with people the minister suspects have been involved in criminal conduct, or if the person poses a risk under another long list of situations not relevant to this case.

The point, as Bennett emphasised in his legal opinion, is that the minister's discretion is extremely wide. Indeed, it is so wide that a precedent exists in the case of the minister v Wai Kuen Chan (2001) that the association did not have to involve a nexus between the visa holder and the criminal conduct: that is, guilt or guilty knowledge was not essential. Bennett endorsed this interpretation, saying "that neither knowledge of the associate's criminality nor guilty participation is necessary for a person to fail paragraph (b) of the character test".

In practical terms, the minister must judge how serious the association is and the degree of criminality of the associate (in this case accused terrorists). The criterion the minister applies is not the "beyond reasonable doubt" of the criminal law but the far broader "reasonable suspicion" that Bennett calls "significantly lower than even the civil standard".

Andrews acted on the law. He acted in recognition of his wide discretion in relation to the situation and the relatively low threshold for the test. He acted on the law of the land. These provisions were passed by the national parliament not in a fit of absence of mind but as a matter of policy to vest such powers in the executive in order to protect the public welfare and the national interest. These provisions are upheld by the Coalition and the ALP. Labor supported Andrews's decision.

Andrews was not required to decide whether Haneef was innocent or guilty of any crime. This was not the test. Ministerial discretion to revoke a visa usually follows the conviction of the individual, but this is not required by the law. Andrews was making a judgment about character, not guilt, because that is what the law asked him to do. While Andrews had the discretion, the issue was canvassed by the national security committee of cabinet, where Keelty provided an outline of inquiries. When the committee meeting concluded, Andrews told Keelty his inclination was to revoke Haneef's visa. Keelty backed the decision without qualification. In every discussion with Andrews since that time, Keelty has supported the visa cancellation.

Andrews also discussed the decision with Howard. In effect, he got the green light. Andrews had not the slightest doubt that Howard backed him, and that judgment has been verified since.

Consider the media debate of the past week: it is that Andrews, having acted on this police advice, the wide ambit of the law and the obligations imposed on him as minister, was merely seeking to arouse xenophobia, run a political scare, and should be forced to resign as minister. If this sounds utter nonsense, that's because it is utter nonsense.

The final point is that Andrews did not launch a hunting expedition for material to use against Haneef. The material came to Andrews via the proper channels in the advisory process.

Andrews's errors of judgment were twofold: his timing and his presentation. From the start, the notion of parallel processes was highly dangerous and confusing. Once the court proceedings collapsed, the inevitable media perception was that Andrews was pursuing an innocent man. This perception became almost impossible to shake. His effort to distinguish the court and executive processes largely fell on deaf ears.

As events unfolded, there was a serious concern on the part of Keelty and within the AFP about the parallel processes. Alarm grew within the Government about the political fallout and the rising sense of public distrust of executive actions.

When the prosecution was first launched, Keelty said it was "at the margin". Andrews was surprised the DPP proceeded to court. Eventually the DPP had to withdraw in the most humiliating circumstances. And the public debate was engulfed in a collapse of institutional trust.

In reality, there were no easy options for Andrews. He had considered an announcement before the magistrate's bail decision but that would have only precipitated the outcry that he was trying to intimidate the magistrate. Alternatively, if Andrews had waited until after the court proceedings before he cancelled the visa, he would have guaranteed an attack along the lines that such a delay suggested he wasn't really serious.

It is apparent, however, that Andrews mismanaged the politics. Having taken the decision, he had only one option: a full-blooded and hardline, no-risk rhetoric on visa holders. He lacked the stomach for this and when he tried it, his effort was feeble.

By the end of the week the Government had regrouped and Andrews had turned defiant.

"I've never been uncertain about the Prime Minister's support at any stage," he said.

The pivotal point for Andrews was his ability via the Bennett opinion to make public not just the computer chat-room conversations involving Haneef but the formal AFP advice in relation to the visa.

Andrews said he was "more certain than ever" about the validity of his decision, pointing to new material: that Haneef did not apply for leave from the hospital when he arrived on the Monday morning but applied only after taking two calls, one from India, and being told about the SIM card problem. At that point he tried to catch the first available plane.

Does any of this prove that Haneef is guilty? Of course not. Does any of this prove that the AFP suspicions are right? Of course not. Most of the time executive decisions are about fine distinctions, not black-and-white situations.

Much of the public debate this week mirrored a legal and media preference for another law: a law that weakens ministerial power and increases the rights of the visa holder. In a robust contribution, Democrats senator Andrew Bartlett said the lesson was "the extreme character provisions of the Migration Act combined with mandatory detention". Not a bad analysis.

Naturally, he wants the law rewritten. And this is where the issue should be resolved: in parliament by democratic resort.

As McMillan said in his former capacity as a professor of administrative law, arguments that judicial activism is a superior instrument are "too easily made and too rarely justified". Yes, the executive is deeply fallible, but claims for the superiority of judicial method are undemonstrated and unpersuasive.

In conclusion, the Haneef affair highlights the charade of the so-called politics of fear. Let's say it: terrorism is a political issue. It deserves to be a political issue and it will stay a political issue.

The line from the civil liberties lobby that the Government seeks political advantage from terrorism has as much value as saying it seeks political advantage from education, health or welfare. Of course it seeks political advantage.

The politics of terrorism is driven by the fact that the threat is real, that governments have a responsibility to protect the public and that they will be held accountable if the threat succeeds. Their bias, therefore, is towards counter-terrorism measures. The lawyers and the media are essential checks in this process. But it is the executive that carries the onus of decision-making.

Lawyers and the media may prefer to give the benefit of the doubt to suspects but the public will be unforgiving of a government that does so. Is this how the Australian people want Howard and Kevin Rudd to operate? The answer is obvious.

This is unquestionably so when the issue concerns a visa where the ministerial decision is not about guilt or innocence but a decision about risk.

This goes to the essence of the Andrews decision. He decided, in effect, that Australia would not take the risk that Haneef represented. The Government's preference is for a no-risk policy. This is how Ruddock operated and it is how Andrews operates.

It is Australia's sovereign right to apply such a policy, just as many other nations apply the same policy. The justification, ultimately, is that such firmness is a necessary condition to maintain public support for Australia's huge and non-discriminatory immigration program that, year after year, contributes to a more diverse nation.

Rally calls for terror laws to be repealed - National - theage.com.au

2007-08-04T17:53:00.000+10:00

Terrorism would not be defeated by removing an innocent individual's rights, a leading Victorian Green Party Senate candidate says.

Addressing a Melbourne rally in support of former terror suspect Dr Mohamed Haneef, Richard Di Natale said current legislation was a real cause for concern.

Dr Haneef was arrested in Brisbane last month following the botched attack on Glasgow airport.
He was charged with supporting a terrorist organisation but that was dropped for lack of evidence and he has since returned home to India."The Migration Act compromises someone's ability to get a fair trial. By branding someone a bad character, immediately you're undermining the presumption of innocence." - Dr Di Natale, Greens' lead Senate candidate

"There's no doubt the immigration minister (Kevin Andrews) bungled his handling of this case," Dr Di Natale, the Greens' lead Senate candidate, said.

"But all of the things that have happened have been allowable under the current legislation and that's the real worrying thing.

"The Migration Act compromises someone's ability to get a fair trial. By branding someone a bad character, immediately you're undermining the presumption of innocence.

"Of course, then the terror laws allow a whole range of things that allow in this case for really shonky evidence to deprive this person of his liberty."

Dr Di Natale said Australia's terror laws should be scrapped, adding the Greens were "a real chance to hold the balance of power in the Senate" in the upcoming federal election.

"The first we need to do is repeal the terror laws. The fight against terrorism isn't a fight against removing the freedom and rights of individuals," he said.

"It needs to be a much more comprehensive struggle than that. We're not going to defeat terrorism by removing an individual's rights."

Rally organiser Colin Mitchell, of Civil Rights Defence, said the Haneef case was being used for political gain in a bid to boost the Howard government's security credentials ahead of the federal election later this year.

"Kevin Andrews' determination to smear Dr Haneef's character to justify his own misguided action is absolutely shameful and he must resign."

AAP

Ruling clears way for tougher laws | The Australian

2007-08-04T10:23:00.000+10:00

THE High Court ruling in favour of the Howard Government's control order regime may open the way for even more stringent anti-terror laws.

A leading constitutional lawyer said the decision in the case of Jack Thomas, who is subject to the nation's first interim control order, showed the current High Court would take a "benign" view of greater police powers.

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said he was considering beefing up parts of the legislation.

Constitutional lawyer George Williams said Mr Ruddock had spoken too soon in dismissing the success of any future legal challenges to terrorism legislation. "There's a lot of other bits that could be challenged. For instance, the ASIO powers and the National Security Information Act," he said.

Criminal barrister Greg Barns said the High Court judgment -- the first time in Australia's modern history the High Court has accepted that the Government is entitled to use its defence powers to protect national security outside of a time of war -- was "disturbing".

Video:Kafeels family spurns media, refuses to react: IBNLive.com

2007-08-04T09:57:00.000+10:00

Bangalore: Kafeel Ahmed’s family in Bangalore spurned media-persons while refusing to show any reaction to his death at the Glasgow Royal Infirmary hospital on Friday.

The Bangalore residence of Kafeel and Sabeel Ahmed remained silent with no press and media allowed into the locked gates. The 27-year-old engineer was not going to survive, the doctors had told the family as well as the UK investigating authorities a week earlier.

The family, reportedly, is waiting for a word from Sabeel’s lawyer in UK who will clarify whether Kafeel’s dead-body will be handed over to his family in India or be cremated in UK.

“Kafeel was a very nice boy. As much as I have known him, he was always a cheerful smiling character. He was a mechanical engineer, had strong grounding on this knowledge and I used to take help from him. Academically he was very, very good,” - Kafeel's friend

Since earlier, Kafeel, Sabeel’s parents had maintained they would not go to the UK, as they did not want to see their son on the death-bed.

A friend of his, who refused to be named, had earlier given his account to CNN-IBN, telling that the 27-year-old mechanical engineer was “shy, warm and reticent” and in fact someone who could not identify with terrorism at all.“Kafeel was a very nice boy. As much as I have known him, he was always a cheerful smiling character. He was a mechanical engineer, had strong grounding on this knowledge and I used to take help from him. Academically he was very, very good,” he said

Kafeel’s brother Sabeel Ahmad is also in police custody in Britain. He has been charged with knowing every detail of the plot but not informing the police.

Sabeel was sent a text message by Kafeel shortly after the car-bombs were planted in London. The message contained the password for an internet email account.

Inside the email account was a folder containing Kafeel's last will and testament and instructions on what to say to the police.

The instructions told Sabeel to say Kafeel was working on a project about global warming and was on holiday in Iceland and keep saying that to anyone who asked about him.

The Bangalore police is meanwhile trying to establish a connection between the jihadi material recovered from Sabeel Ahmed’s Bangalore residence, with any of the local extremists groups.

'We've only just begun on Haneef' | The Australian

2007-08-04T09:08:00.000+10:00

AUSTRALIAN Federal Police chief Mick Keelty has vowed to track down "every lead and piece of evidence" against Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef, warning that the terror investigation could take years to complete.

A defiant Mr Keelty has also strongly defended the AFP against mounting criticism of its handling of the case, saying most of the allegations have been "unfounded and unfair"."Mistakes happen ... police are human," Mr Keelty said. "(But) the AFP in this matter have acted appropriately and in accordance with community expectations of us."

In an exclusive interview with The Weekend Australian, Mr Keelty also revealed that contrary to some reports, British police were still actively involved in the joint investigation with Australian authorities on the Haneef case.

Mr Keelty said the investigation into Dr Haneef had only just begun, despite the widespread view that the case had all but collapsed because of mistakes by the AFP, commonwealth prosecutors and the federal Government.

Although Dr Haneef, 27, is now in Bangalore as a free man, there is nothing to prevent new evidence and new charges being laid against him.

"The Haneef investigation has been going for four weeks now," Mr Keelty said. "The Operation Pendennis counter-terrorism investigation (into alleged home-grown terror cells in Sydney and Melbourne) took us two years.

"We've had four weeks, so far, of an investigation spanning three continents, with enough information to fill 36,000 four-drawer filing cabinets for us to examine. We will take all the time we need to thoroughly investigate every lead and piece of evidence."

Terror charges against Dr Haneef were dropped last week after prosecutors reviewed the evidence against him.

Dr Haneef was accused of giving his SIM card to his second cousin Sabeel Ahmed, who is facing terror charges in relation to the failed British car bomb attacks in June. Another second cousin of Dr Haneef, Amhed's brother Kafeel, 27, died yesterday of severe burns suffered when he drove a burning Jeep into Glasgow airport on June 30.

Mr Keelty said he supported the decision taken by besieged Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews to revoke Dr Haneef's visa, but declined to say whether the move was necessary. "I unequivocally support the minister," he said. "Whether it was necessary is a question for him, whether it made our investigation harder -- no. The case was already receiving the full glare of the media spotlight before (his) decision."

Mr Andrews has weathered a storm of criticism and Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Damian Bugg QC has apologised for mistakes made by prosecutors, but Mr Keelty has so far refused to admit mistakes by the AFP.

Instead, he lashed out at the media, which he said had displayed ignorance of the new terror laws and the related legal process. He said he would consider ways to better educate the media about the coverage of terrorism.

"Some of the uninformed and speculative media reporting and commentary has certainly been unhelpful," he said.

"There has been this lack of detailed understanding about the process, both judicial and investigative, as well as the complex and new legislation that we are dealing with.

"This has exacerbated the issue and, as commissioner, I may need to consider how to take steps to try and prevent this from happening in future cases."

Mr Keelty said the media did not understand that investigations changed from day to day and even hour to hour.

"What we believe on day one of an investigation can be altered, corrected or even discounted altogether on day two or day 10 of that investigation -- it's how we operate. Selectively picking information from something on day one ... and comparing it to information on day 10 will obviously result in discrepancies."

When asked if the Haneef affair had been the most difficult in his six years as AFP chief, he said: "You're asking me to compare apples and oranges ... different issues apply different pressures."

Mr Keelty said the investigation had moved at "an extraordinary pace", partly because of Dr Haneef's actions.

"Dr Haneef forced our hand when he attempted to suddenly leave the country on the first day of our investigation.

"We took the decision to detain him for questioning.

"If he had not attempted to leave, we might have had the luxury of more time to conduct the investigation."

Request Kevin Andrews' resignation

2007-08-03T20:50:00.000+10:00

Request his resignation

View Signatories

PM rules out Haneef inquiry - National - brisbanetimes.com.au

2007-08-03T20:49:00.000+10:00

Prime Minister John Howard says there is no need for a judicial inquiry into the Mohamed Haneef case following a ruling by the High Court which upheld the new anti-terrorism laws.

The High Court yesterday ruled a terrorism law used to impose an interim control order on Joseph Terrence "Jihad Jack" Thomas was constitutionally valid.

The court ruled the section of the anti-terrorism laws relating to control orders was supported at least by the defence power in the constitution.

Thomas was cleared of terrorism charges by a court last year but judged by authorities to still pose a potential terrorist threat.

Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd has called for an independent judicial inquiry into the handling of the Indian doctor's case which resulted in charges being dropped.

But Mr Howard said there was no need for an inquiry because the terrorism laws already had passed an important test.

"We don't need a judicial inquiry, that is a politically inspired call by Mr Rudd," Mr Howard told Sky News.

"I think the great litmus test of the new anti-terrorism laws was yesterday's decision by the High Court of Australia, upholding the control order legislation.

"I'm very pleased that the High Court has ruled in favour of the constitutionality of those laws and I think that demonstrates that the laws were soundly based."

Mr Howard also denied any prior knowledge of an Indian police file on Dr Haneef which alleged he had links with terrorist group al-Qaeda.

"I knew nothing of this until I heard about it from SBS," he said.

"I have nothing to do with the report, it didn't come from me.

"It came from an SBS program, it came out of India, as to whether there's anything in it, I do not know.

"I do however intend to let the police do their job, they should be left alone."

AAP

Al-Qa'ida evidence flimsy: reporter | The Australian

2007-08-03T08:39:00.000+10:00

IT was inevitable that sooner or later someone would connect the al-Qa'ida network of terrorists to Mohamed Haneef -- a man deemed so dangerous that Australian Federal Police, ASIO and Immigration authorities let him out of custody to go home to India a day after the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions had dropped its discredited criminal charge against him.

According to SBS journalist David O'Shea, who disclosed the al-Qa'ida angle on Dateline on Wednesday night after meeting a police officer in Bangalore, the evidence suggesting a possible connection to Osama bin Laden's network was "flimsy", and the documentary material "pretty sloppy".

O'Shea told The Australian that a four-page police document, a rough biographical sketch he was given while on assignment in India, could have been compiled in part by an officer or clerical staff with access to Google News.

He said he hoped people would not read too much into the document, while criminal lawyers, including Lex Lasry QC, described it as irrelevant.

Dr Haneef's lawyer, Peter Russo, said the Haneef saga was akin to the movie Groundhog Day, where the central character was forced to endlessly repeat the same experiences every day.

"In this case, Dr Haneef has to endure a fresh slander every day, based on the most outrageous or unsourced claims," Mr Russo said. "It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Dr Haneef is being used for political reasons."

O'Shea told The Australian: "At the very least it shows you how a document can have such an impact on (Dr Haneef's) reputation. When I was first given this, I treated it with complete scepticism. I'm obviously sceptical about the line about the link to al-Qa'ida. It's flimsy yet tantalising."

Logistical difficulties prevented O'Shea from questioning the Bangalore officer when he was handed the document about the sourcing of the material in it or its veracity, but he suspected the officer gave it to him because of suspicions about Dr Haneef.

Gopal Hosur, Bangalore's deputy police commissioner, said in India yesterday that police in the city did not even have a file on the doctor. "That is all incorrect and false," Mr Hosur said. "I don't know where they got this information from or who they're quoting."

The document SBS revealed misstated Dr Haneef's age, suggested he was working at the Gold Coast Hospital in Britain, and misstated the name of his second cousin, Kafeel Ahmed.

Next to the heading "Organisational set-up", it stated "Alleged links with al-Qaida". There was no elaboration. Next to the heading "Overall assessment", it stated: "After having his education in Karnataka (in India's south), Mohammed Haneef must have come into contacts with the members of terrorist entities and assisted."

Under the heading of "General information", it said: "It is learnt that a bank locker key was found in his position, which belongs to someone else. Mohamed Haneef is suspected to have rendered assistance to the prime accused persons in the Glasgow airport blast."

Despite the AFP having a presence in India and a top priority investigation into Dr Haneef, Commissioner Mick Keelty said the document and al-Qa'ida link were news to him.

"I think, you know, I haven't seen the dossier, but I presume it's an intelligence-related dossier, in which case, it could be supposition, and it could be an amalgam of a number of different pieces of intelligence," he said.

"So, in terms of its face value, it's something that needs to be followed through, and obviously we need to chase up with our Indian colleagues."

Haneef's lawyer alleges dirty play - National - smh.com.au

2007-08-03T08:29:00.000+10:00

THE Immigration Minister and Federal Police Commissioner are "tarnishing" Mohamed Haneef's legal challenge to get his visa back by commenting on his character, his lawyer says.

"Dr Haneef has to endure a fresh slander every day, based on the most outrageous or unsourced claims. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Dr Haneef is being used for political reasons" - Peter Russo
Peter Russo said the daily leaks and allegations that Dr Haneef has terrorist associations "could only come from official sources" and suggested Kevin Andrews and Mick Keelty were pursuing a political agenda.

The Queensland solicitor suggested Mr Andrews was trying to set up Dr Haneef so he could cancel his visa again should the Federal Court order its reinstatement next week. "Dr Haneef has to endure a fresh slander every day, based on the most outrageous or unsourced claims. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Dr Haneef is being used for political reasons," Mr Russo said.

A senior Indian police officer has denied reports linking Dr Haneef with al-Qaeda. Mr Keelty yesterday said there was no evidence at this stage linking Dr Haneef to al-Qaeda, but allegations aired in the media would be looked into. He said a federal police officer now in India had been instructed to try to obtain an original version of the purported Indian police dossier, which was reported by SBS television this week.

But Bangalore's deputy police commissioner, Gopal Hosur, said police in Dr Haneef's home town had no file on him. "We are not investigating Haneef or planning to question him over anything at the moment," he said. "We made some initial inquiries earlier when we saw the first reports in the Australian press but we found nothing. If the Australians give us further information on him that may warrant further inquiries, we will do so."

Dr Haneef's legal team said a "rogue" policeman in India may have compiled the dossier.

Mr Russo said his client was starting to wilt under the intense media scrutiny. "He can't handle this aspect of it," he said. "It's not in his nature to."

Haneef case will scare off foreign doctors: Beattie - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

2007-08-02T22:36:00.000+10:00

Queensland Premier Peter Beattie says he is worried the handling of the Mohamed Haneef case is damaging efforts to recruit desperately-needed foreign doctors to Australia.

Dr Haneef has returned to India after charges against him were dropped but Australian Federal Police are continuing their investigation.
"What worries me out of all this is we send a dreadful international signal."- Peter Beattie
Federal officers are also looking into financial transactions as well as an Indian police dossier that says Dr Haneef has alleged links with Al Qaeda.

Mr Beattie says Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty is doing his job but still believes an inquiry is needed.

"I don't want to say anything disparaging about any individual, I'm not trying to personalise this with anybody," he said.

"All I'm trying to do is to ensure we can continue to recruit overseas-trained doctors.

"What worries me out of all this is we send a dreadful international signal."

VIDEO: Watch the story online | SBS Dateline

2007-08-02T21:36:00.000+10:00

Watch Video

Judge says terror power 'too broad' | The Australian

2007-08-02T20:18:00.000+10:00

HIGH Court judge Michael Kirby has used a minority judgement today to lament that his colleagues are allowing governments too free a rein and allowing laws that might be misused in the future.

A five to two majority of the the High Court today upheld the constitutional validity of an interim control order under the anti-terrorism laws made last year against Joseph Terence Thomas, also known as Jack Thomas.

The court found the use of the defence power under the constitution was not limited to external threats or to war between nations but extends to protecting the public from terrorist acts.

Justice Kirby – who dissented along with Kenneth Hayne - believes the use of the Constitution’s defence powers to combat terrorism was too broad and invited the danger that the military could one day intrude in civilian affairs.

The outspoken liberal has questioned whether the present terrorism threat is exceptional and while political “rhetoric’’ may invoke a state of war, the courts have to make an objective judgement.

Justice Kirby also laments that the tide of judicial opinion had turned so far in the past fifty years that laws banning the Communist Party which were quashed by the High Court in 1951 might be found to be valid today.

“It is another instance of the constitutional era of laissez faire through which the Court is presently passing,’’ he says.

The High Court was being asked to decide whether judge could place an interim order limiting an individual’s liberty at the request of authorities before a full hearing on the facts could take place.

Chief Justice Murray Gleeson argued that the fact there would be an eventual hearing should allay concerns.

“There is nothing to suggest that the issuing court is to act as a mere instrument of government policy,’’ he said.

“On the contrary, the evident purpose of conferring this function on a court is to submit control orders to the judicial process, with its essential commitment to impartiality and its focus on the justice of the individual case.’’

Justice Gleeson said the level of risk of the occurrence of a terrorist act, and the level of danger to the public from an apprehended terrorist act, will vary according to international or local circumstances.

But assuming there is a sufficient connection between the order and the protection of the public “the legislation is supported by the defence power supplemented, where necessary, by the external affairs power’’.

Justice Kirby argued that State police powers were sufficient to deal with combatting criminal acts by terrorists.

Any expansion of powers should be by means of a reference from the States to the Commonwealth.

Justice Kirby said terrorism was not a new phenomena and “conduct sharing features now associated with “terrorism" has occurred for centuries

"It should reject legal and constitutional exceptionalism,'' he said.

"Unless this court does so, it abdicates the vital role assigned to it by the constitution and expected of it by the people. That truly would deliver to terrorists successes that their own acts could never secure in Australia.''

Some acts which might have been done with intention of "intimidating the public or a section of the public", and be therefore be defined as a terrorist act, might not involve endangering life, he suggested.

“Moreover, drawing a line between acts designed to coerce or intimidate an Australian government for a political, religious or ideological cause (thus falling within the definition) and pure advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action (falling outside of the definition) could be difficult,’’ he says.

Justice Kirby says courts had carefully guarded against properly defining threats and limiting the scope for military to interfere in civilian affairs.

“This Court should maintain and uphold that historical approach. It should do nothing to undermine it. Any departure invites great danger, as the constitutional history of less fortunate lands, including some that once shared our tradition, has repeatedly demonstrated.’’

Justice Kirby lamented that principles set in the case that struck down attempts to outlaw the Communist party in 1950 were now being disregarded and if the matter were held today it might be upheld.

It was not enough for the executive to declare a state of war exists, there had to be evidence that could be objectively judged by the court, he argues.

“I did not expect that, during my service, I would see the Communist Party Case sidelined minimized, doubted and even criticized and denigrated in this Court.’’

Attorney General Philip Ruddock said the decision was a very important one and had put the counter terrorism measures beyond legal doubt.

“It extended it beyond just looking at external threats to also include terrorist activities and on that basis the control order is seen to be within the Government’s legislative competence.’’

“It’s the traditional understanding of legal practitioners is that: something happens then you investigate and that would be far too late.’’

Constitutional law lecturer at the University of Adelaide Alex Riley said the ruling had clarified concerns about control orders and other related legal instruments such as apprehended violence orders.

The majority ruling confirmed that judicial power is quite broad and made it clear that they were not simply following the lead of the Executive.

He said the issues raised by Justice Kirby showed there was a question about the limits of the defence power.

Mr Riley said there was a debate about whether terrorist acts should essentially be dealt with as criminal offences and what turned an act, such as potentially murdering people, into a defence matter.

“And there is no question that Justice Kirby and the majority differ widely on that.

“For Justice Kirby there is no question that the courts have to decide the factual circumstances for the defence powers to be invoked.

“Its not for the executive to say there is such a big threat that we have to evoke the defence power, the court has to be satisfied that those circumstances exist.’’

Mr Riley said Justice Kirby was making the point that terrorism laws not only criminalised acts of terror, or support for terror, but extended to advocacy and speech.

Haneef al-Qaeda link 'incorrect'

2007-08-02T18:31:00.000+10:00

A senior Indian police officer today labelled as "incorrect and false" a media report that linked Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef to the al-Qaeda terrorist network.

Australia's SBS television yesterday reported that an Indian police file completed after Haneef's arrest in Australia said the 27-year-old doctor had "alleged links with al-Qaeda".
Haneef was later charged with recklessly supporting a terrorist organisation in relation to the recent failed attacks in London and Glasgow.

But the case collapsed due to a lack of evidence and he has since returned to India.

Gopal Hosur, Bangalore's deputy police commissioner, today said police in Haneef's hometown did not even have a file on the doctor.

"That is all incorrect and false," Hosur told The Associated Press of the media report.

"I don't know where they got this information from or who they're quoting."

Before Hosur's comments, Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty said Australian police intended to check the claims with police in Bangalore, where Haneef has returned to his family.

Keelty said he was not aware of an al-Qaeda link but did not dismiss one outright.

Haneef's lawyer Peter Russo said the alleged al-Qaeda link is "simply untrue".

Haneef, who had worked in an Australian public hospital for almost a year, was arrested on July 2 at a Brisbane airport as he was about to fly to India.

British police had advised Australian investigators that two of Haneef's cousins had been arrested and his mobile phone SIM card had been seized as evidence after failed car bombs in London and Glasgow, Scotland. He was charged with supporting the failed attack.

Terror policies will remain tough: Downer - Queensland - brisbanetimes.com.au

2007-08-02T16:21:00.000+10:00

The Australian government will continue its tough stance on terrorism because it is aimed at saving lives, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer says.Downer, speaking on the sidelines of South East Asia's major security summit, the ASEAN Regional Forum, said he was "amazed" at the controversy the case of Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef had caused.

Australian police have said it is possible that Haneef may face charges in the future.
He left Australia last week after a charge of recklessly supporting a terrorist group dramatically collapsed due to a lack of evidence.

In the latest twist, a dossier on Haneef said to have been compiled by Indian police contains unsubstantiated claims the former Gold Coast hospital registrar had "alleged links with al-Qaeda".

Downer, who discussed the case with his Indian counterpart in Manila this week, said he had no knowledge of the dossier.

"I haven't seen the Indian police dossier, nor has the Indian foreign minister told me about the police dossier - probably because he'd never heard of it himself," Downer said.

"What does that mean? It doesn't mean anything except to say this: the police should be allowed to deal with this issue and be allowed to deal with these investigations."

He said the Australian government, like India, was "very sensitive about terrorism".

"A lot of people are saying we are too tough on counter-terrorism," he said.

"If a terrorist attack occurs and dozens of Australians ... are killed, what will you say to their families?

"We are trying to preserve lives with tough laws and I'm amazed that these tough laws generate as much controversy as they do in Australia, particularly bearing in mind what I've seen ... in Bali and at the Australian embassy in Jakarta, and in the hospitals surrounding them."

He said critics of the government over its tough laws were "making a very, very big mistake".

"Not to suggest Dr Haneef is a terrorist ... (but) I say we should take no risks and we will continue to pursue that policy regardless of what our critics say."

Rudd launches attack on Andrews - National - brisbanetimes.com.au

2007-08-02T16:19:00.000+10:00

Federal Labor leader Kevin Rudd has launched his strongest attack on Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews over the Haneef case, listing a string of inconsistencies in the minister's statements.
Labor has supported in principle the government's handling of the terror case against Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef but has called for an independent judicial inquiry.

Mr Rudd went a step further today, outlining a series of inconsistent statements by Mr Andrews since the minister cancelled Dr Haneef's work visa last month.
"Take this for example - on 27 July Mr Andrews says he would not release Dr Haneef from immigration detention, on 28 July he releases Dr Haneef from immigration detention," Mr Rudd told Southern Cross Broadcasting.

"I don't know the basis for the change in that position.

"On 28 July, Mr Andrews claimed that he had no objection to Haneef leaving Australia; on 29 July Mr Andrews claimed Haneef's decision to leave actually heightened rather than lessened his suspicions.

"And on 29 July, Mr Andrews claimed that Dr Haneef attempted to fly home to India, his baby having been born for a month at that stage, and later he admitted it had only been born six days previous.

"All I'm saying is that these positions are difficult for us to understand, those most recent positions and statements by Mr Andrews."

The only way to restore public confidence that the case had been handled properly was through an independent judicial inquiry, he said.

"We're getting bits and pieces of new information every day and I think the view of your listeners and the public right across Australia is they would actually like to know the whole picture, the whole story," he said.

"We've supported this legislation through the parliament but as the alternative government we want to have absolute confidence that these laws have been properly applied as well.

"And with bits and pieces of new information dribbling out each day ... I think the public would just like a properly constituted independent judicial inquiry just to go through the facts."

AAP

Haneef 'set up' for another visa rejection | The Australian

2007-08-02T16:17:00.000+10:00

MOHAMED Haneef was being 'set up' to lose his visa a second time if we won his Federal Court appeal, his lawyer said.

Dr Haneef's lawyer Peter Russo said the AFP and the Immigration Minister needed to accept that the criminal charge against Dr Haneef had been abandoned, and it was abandoned in the full knowledge of all of the claims and "disclosures" being leaked to the news media now.

"If the appeal against the visa cancellation succeeds, I'm wondering if Dr Haneef is being set up to have his visa cancelled again, based on allegedly " new" information, which we know is not new at all- just recycled old claims," Mr Russo said.

"The courts and the DPP knew what was in the interview transcripts, and the decision to abandon the charge against Dr Haneef was based on information the AFP put before the court. Now we have the Federal Police suggesting there are more investigations.

"Meanwhile the UK authorities have shown no further interest in Dr Haneef. An English police officer flew out to talk to Australian investigators but did not, the end, interview Dr. Haneef. The English authorities have shown no interest in extraditing or even further investigating Dr. Haneef," Mr Russo said.

Australian federal Police commissioner Mick Keelty today said police were probing a "money trail" as part of an ongoing investigation into claims Mohamed Haneef had links to al-Qaeda.

An Indian police file on Dr Haneef completed after his arrest in Australia said the Gold Coast doctor has alleged links to al-Qaeda.

The so-called dossier, revealed on SBS television last night, is an Indian police record of Dr Haneef that contains details about his education, earnings, relatives' names, his family's economic status and physical abnormalities, but lacks any detail of the allegation, or any coroborating evidence.

Mr Keelty said the ongoing Australian investigation of Dr Haneef included a thorough examination of all his financial dealings.

"Some of those avenues of inquiry I can confirm relate to financial transactions, but as I keep saying this is very much an ongoing investigation, it's a live investigation, and we need to let the investigation take its course."

Asked if investigators were following a "money trail", Mr Keelty said: "We are."

Mr Russo said the repeated comments remarks from Mr Keelty and Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews about his client's character was tarnishing Mr Haneef's upcoming legal appeal.

"Every day there are new leaks and claims that can only come from official sources, and inflammatory remarks by Mr Keelty and Mr Andrews, both of whom should shut up because they are tainting a matter before the Federal Court," he said.

"The Federal Police had ample opportunity to question Dr Haneef during his period in detention. Based on the information they gathered, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions abandoned the charge against him.

"Now, a week later, we have Mr Keelty talking about other investigations and Mr Andrews muttering about his suspicions, and now we have Mr. Keelty and government Ministers giving credence to obviously groundless assertions (coming from anonymous but, obviously, rogue police officers in India) trying to link Dr Haneef to Al Qaeda,'' Mr Russo said.

"Why? Is Dr Haneef being set up so the Minister can again cancel his work visa, if he loses the court case next week?" Mr Russo asked.

He said the Haneef saga was descending into something like the movie "Groundhog Day" where the central character was forced to endlessly repeat the same experiences every day.

"In this case Dr Haneef has to endure a fresh slander every day, based on the most outrageous or unsourced claims. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Dr Haneef is being used for political reasons," Mr Russo said.

Mr Keelty said Australian authorities had no evidence that Dr Haneef was linked to al-Qaeda, but the allegations need to be followed up.

One entry in the police file, which is marked "restricted", says "Organisational set up: alleged links with al-Qaeda".

Mr Keelty said the alleged links were new information to him.

"We don't have anything that positively says that in Australia but of course it is an avenue of inquiry and if that is what the Indians are saying it needs to be followed through,'' he told ABC radio.

Mr Russo said the claims were "simply untrue", and had never been put to Dr Haneef either in Australia or India.

"I accept that to the point we have to remember that presumably Peter Russo's relationship with Dr Haneef only commenced in the very recent past," Mr Keelty said.

"It would be more preferable if Mr Russo said to his knowledge in the four weeks that he has had any relationship with Dr Haneef he has no knowledge of his alleged links to al-Qaeda.

"Nor do we in the AFP, but to be definitive is a big call."

The dossier notes Australian police detained Dr Haneef at Brisbane airport on July 2, indicating it was completed after his arrest in connection with the failed bomb attacks in London and Glasgow.
It also notes a bank locker key belonging to someone else was found in Dr Haneef's possession.

Mr Keelty would today not confirm the existence of the key, saying only it was part of the "ongoing investigation".

Today Health Minister Tony Abbott aid there is no reason to believe Australian authorities knew about the Indian police file.

"I honestly don't know if anyone else in our security apparatus might have been aware of it, but certainly it's the kind of thing the AFP will be talking to their Indian counterparts about," Mr Abbott told the Seven network.

"I certainly didn't know about it, it's not in my portfolio area, but I have no reason to think anyone else would have known about it."

He said there were advanced plans to have a system of national medical registration, which would mean a high uniform Australian standard for foreign trained doctors.

"The vetting process is as reasonable as we can make it but it is not absolutely foolproof and we're trying to make it better," he said.

Let Andrews fill in the blanks | The Australian

2007-08-02T11:54:00.000+10:00

KEVIN Andrews's decision to cancel the work visa of former terror suspect Mohamed Haneef was soundly based in law.This appears clear from the opinion of David Bennett QC, the commonwealth Solicitor-General, that was released on Tuesday. Still, serious questions dog the Immigration Minister's conduct.
The Migration Act simply requires that the minister form a reasonable suspicion that Haneef was associated with a criminal group. Here, the group is the Ahmed brothers who were allegedly involved in the recent terrorist actions in London and Glasgow. Decided cases seem to state that a family association is sufficient. Haneef was the second cousin of the Ahmeds and had frequent contact with them before the attempted bombings.

Haneef, remember, had given them his phone and SIM card and received a loan from them. They had stayed at the same accommodation in Britain. And there were the very suspicious internet chat room conversations, set out in this newspaper yesterday. Bennett's opinion that the minister could validly make the decision on this was material.

In any event, this issue will be decided in the Federal Court when Haneef's challenge to the cancellation is heard. I think Bennett is right and I think Haneef will lose.

Still, serious issues remain. On any view, the trigger for the cancellation was the bail decision. When was Andrews provided with the immigration material by the Australian Federal Police? If it was before Haneef was charged, then Andrews had a statutory duty to act immediately and cancel the visa. The delay until after bail was granted suggests expediency: Haneef was not to be released at any cost. This is an improper purpose and not a statutory basis for cancellation. I expect this point will be litigated in court.

Next, was it that the AFP had kept the immigration papers in its back pocket so that as soon as bail was granted it rushed to the minister and obtained the visa cancellation? In that circumstance, Andrews could not be criticised (but the AFP would be the culprit).

A further question: how dangerous was Haneef? The visa cancellation implied he would go into detention at Villawood in Sydney's west. Andrews offered no alternative. The further implication here is that Haneef was too dangerous to be on the streets. Yet when the criminal case collapsed and the charge was withdrawn, Andrews immediately prevented Haneef from going into detention by granting him a residential visa. Nothing had changed, but now Haneef was not sufficiently dangerous to be detained. Again, this decision was driven by another failure in court. More expediency.

Finally, Andrews must have been aware from the saturation media reports that the crown prosecutor incorrectly alleged at the bail hearing that the SIM card was in the burning vehicle in Glasgow, thus connecting Haneef more directly to the crime. About that time, Andrews must have had the immigration papers that said the SIM card was recovered from Sabeel Ahmed elsewhere. (Bennett says Andrews was never told the false car story.)

Yet, knowing that false and incriminating information about the SIM card had been given to the court and the public, Andrews revoked the visa and took no steps to have a correction made.

Accordingly, the public was entitled to conclude that Andrews made his decision on the basis of the incriminatory material on the public record: that the SIM card was in the vehicle.

Later, when this turned out to be false, the public naturally concluded that Andrews had acted on false and unreliable material. Andrews, by his failure to correct the public record, implied to the public that the SIM card was in the vehicle and that he had relied on that in making his decision. Was this expediency as well?

It is very important that the public has confidence in all its ministers in terror matters. It is also important for Prime Minister John Howard in an election year. As things stand at the moment, Andrews has let everyone down badly. But if there is an explanation, then let's have it.

Peter Faris, a Melbourne QC, is a former head of the National Crime Authority.

Search powers too broad, says ALP - National - smh.com.au

2007-08-02T06:17:00.000+10:00

INTRUSIVE new "sneak and peek" powers enabling federal police to search homes and computers without notifying those affected are unnecessary and too broad in scope, lawyers and the Federal Opposition say.The proposed laws, which go before Parliament next week, expand the ability of federal law enforcement agencies to monitor communications and decrease supervision of undercover operations that involve officers engaging in criminal acts.
In a sign of an increasingly vocal Opposition on security laws, Labor's homeland security spokesman, Arch Bevis, said yesterday his party would oppose the breadth of the controversial delayed notification search warrants.

"They go beyond what we think is fair," Mr Bevis said. "It clearly needs to be changed and Labor will be moving amendments."

The warrants allow police to secretly search a residence or building, plant listening devices and scour computer and communications records for six months without telling the affected person. That period can be extended, potentially indefinitely.

Mr Bevis said such powers must be restricted to serious terrorism or organised crime investigations, not the offences envisaged by the Government. A sunset clause should also be introduced.

The Law Council of Australia's president, Tim Bugg, said there was no need for the new powers, which represented a serious infringement on citizens' rights.

"Simply uttering the word 'terrorism' should not be enough to justify granting police further powers, which are so clearly amenable to misuse or overuse," he said.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, and the Federal Police Commissioner, Mick Keelty, said yesterday that the terrorist threat meant the legislation was justified.

Mr Bugg said he was disturbed that police and other officers would be given a "freer rein" to conduct so-called "controlled" operations, where undercover officers are permitted to break the law.

Such operations normally have to be approved by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, an oversight mechanism that will be removed.

The Minister for Justice, David Johnston, told the Herald on Tuesday that there would be no judicial oversight of the new "sneak and peek" warrants, saying it would risk operational security. "I don't want to impugn anyone, but the security of these operations have to be pristine," he said.

But the warrants will have to be approved by a judicial officer.

Senator Johnston's perceived slight against the legal profession caused anger and incredulity among lawyers, civil libertarians and even within Government ranks.

Concern over how AFP got comments - Technology - smh.com.au

2007-08-02T06:15:00.000+10:00

FEDERAL POLICE are refusing to say how they got snippets of online conversations between Mohamed Haneef and his brother.The Herald asked the Australian Federal Police yesterday how they got the transcript of the internet conversation last month.
But a spokesman refused to specify whether the snippets came from logs stored on Dr Haneef's computer or from internet-based surveillance conducted by police, citing the ongoing investigation.The chairman of the online users' lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia, Dale Clapperton, said under existing laws the police would have had to obtain a "telecommunications interception" warrant to conduct internet surveillance.

He said questions remained about how such a warrant was obtained. "The police do not seem to have enough information to have gotten a TI [telecommunications intercept] warrant," he said. "They didn't even have enough information to make the SIM card charge stick."

Federal police are refusing to reveal the extent of their surveillance in Australia, but the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act gives police the power to monitor virtually all internet activity provided they first obtain the warrant.

"Anything you do using the internet can be monitored by law enforcement agencies, it doesn't matter whether it's emails, web browsing, chat rooms, whatever," Mr Clapperton said.

But under new laws to go before Federal Parliament next week, the warrant can be issued by the head of a police service or a security agency, bypassing judicial oversight.

"If the police don't trust the judges, how are we supposed to trust the police?" Mr Clapperton said.

Nigel Waters, chairman of the Australian Privacy Foundation's policy committee, accused the Government of rushing unprecedented surveillance legislation through Parliament before the public had the chance to work out how the provisions applied to new technologies.

"There is no doubt that there is significant erosion taking place in the privacy of telecommunications and internet communications," he said.

New election, same old tactics | The Australian

2007-08-02T06:10:00.000+10:00

DIFFERENT election, same cynical stunt. From the moment the investigation into Mohamed Haneef began to unravel, the Government has had two objectives: to save something, anything, of Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews' ravaged reputation and to ensure it still made some electoral mileage from the affair.We have been here before with this sort of direct pitch to people who are nervous about everything and everybody outside their range of experience.
In the 2001 election campaign, the Government assured us we were at risk from people who could be terrorists and who were willing to throw their children into the ocean to gain entry.

"We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come," John Howard promised in response. The principle was fair enough, but the information it was based on was a collection of outright lies.

It was a message with many meanings -- an assertion of sovereignty on one level, an appeal to people's prejudice on another -- because it wasn't hard to guess who former One Nation supporters imagined when they heard those words. They saw Islamic immigrants, people who looked like, well, Haneef.

Now the Government is using the same tactics. It is appealing to the race-based prejudice of voters who supported the Government in 2001 and 2004, following their flirtation with One Nation, but are now looking favourably on Rudd Labor.

So if Labor denounces the Government's handling of the Haneef affair, so much the better: this would drive a wedge between Labor and the voters who deserted the party for One Nation at the end of the 1990s.

To date, Labor has avoided the trap. With the exception of Queensland Premier Peter Beattie, the party has stayed silent.

But whether the wedge will work with the voters it is meant to separate from Labor, it will not be for want of trying.

Two weeks ago, Andrews was talking about the way he "formed a reasonable suspicion" that Haneef was associated with people involved in the recent British terror attacks. Not that he had any idea of what Haneef had been up to, you understand.

"Nothing that I've done has said anything one way or the other about the innocence or the guilt to be determined by the court," he said.

Last Friday, as the case against Haneef deteriorated, Andrews invoked national security to support his pious posturing. "I will continue to regard this with the upmost seriousness because, as I have said, it does go to the whole question of national interest and national security."

By Tuesday night, it appeared Andrews was worried that people were not getting this message. So he upped the argument on ABC TV's Lateline. "I think ordinary Australians can understand quite well that you might not be able to make out every element to convict somebody beyond reasonable doubt, yet there are still very real suspicions about the activities and the associations of that person."

Everybody got that? With foreigners who look like terrorists, it is better to be safe than sorry. To cap it off yesterday, the minister said the Australian Federal Police had considered Haneef's desire to see his newborn child in India "to be a false pretext".

The message from the minister was clear: bombs not babies may have been on the doctor's mind.

Andrews has had help in trying to turn this mess into a political plus. Last Friday, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock assured us he was on the case against Australia's enemies. "Should an attack happen in Australia, I want to be able to look into the eyes of those affected and know I did everything I could to stop terrorism."

Just like his cabinet colleague, the Immigration Minister.

This is desperate stuff. By playing politics with the terror laws, the Government is reducing the public's faith in them. And all because Andrews is trying to present his own incompetence as patriotism.

In his opportunism, Andrews is not blowing a dog whistle but a set of bagpipes. And the noise he is making is as politically tuneless as it is desperately opportunist.

Keelty blunders again on Haneef | The Australian

2007-08-02T06:07:00.000+10:00

AUSTRALIAN Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty yesterday added another gaffe to the mistake-strewn case against Mohamed Haneef, confusing the location of the terror suspect's mobile phone SIM card.Just days after the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions dropped the case against Dr Haneef after admitting errors in its evidence relating to the SIM card, Mr Keelty was yesterday forced to retract claims made earlier in the day that the card was found in the vicinity of the failed bomb attacks in London and Glasgow in late June.
The card, which prosecutors told the court was found in the burning Jeep that crashed into Glasgow airport, was actually found 300km away in the English city of Liverpool with Dr Haneef's second-cousin Sabeel Ahmed. Mr Keelty yesterday argued that the fact the card was not in the explosive-laden jeep did not diminish its importance.

"For all that's been said about the SIM card, the SIM card is still in the vicinity of London at the time that the devices were attempted to be exploded," he told journalists. "The SIM card is still at Glasgow, at the airport, at the time that the attempted bombing happened there."

An AFP spokesman later corrected the comment, explaining that the commissioner had intended to say the SIM card was linked to people in the vicinity of the attempted bombings.

Mr Keelty's blunder came as it emerged that a conversation between Dr Haneef and his brother, relied upon by Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews to deport Dr Haneef, had been conducted in Urdu and translated into English.
Mr Andrews yesterday conceded the conversation was not in English, but rejected calls for the original-language version to be released for independent scrutiny and translation.

According to the translation provided by Mr Andrews on Tuesday, the conversation on an internet chatroom shows Dr Haneef's brother urging the terror suspect to leave Australia as quickly as possible as "nothing has been found out about you".

Dr Haneef, speaking in Bangalore last night, agreed that the transcript as released by Mr Andrews had been taken out of context. "Once you get the (full transcript of) the whole chat, you will understand it," he said.

Mr Keelty said the troubled investigation into Dr Haneef was neither over nor bungled, and the 27-year-old Indian Muslim, now home in Bangalore, could still face criminal charges. "It's still potentially possible that a brief of evidence will be submitted against Dr Haneef," he said.

And he confirmed that a second Indian-trained doctor in Queensland, Mohamed Asif Ali, an associate of Dr Haneef who was initially detained on suspicion of links to the British terror attacks and then released, remained a person of interest and would be "until we satisfy ourselves we know everything we should know about Dr Ali".

Last night SBS's Dateline program showed an undated Indian police dossier suggesting a link between Dr Haneef and the al-Qa'ida terrorist group, but it remained unclear whether it had been prepared after advice received from Scotland Yard or the AFP. One section -- titled "Organisational set-up" refers to "alleged links to al-Qa'ida" but provided no other details.

Asked last night about the claims, Dr Haneef said: "I have no idea on these things. Sorry, I can't comment."

Dr Haneef, a registrar at the Gold Coast Hospital, was arrested at Brisbane International Airport on July 12, held for 12 days and charged with reckless assistance to terrorists. After being granted bail, his work visa was controversially cancelled on character grounds by Mr Andrews, and Dr Haneef was ordered to remain in custody. He was released last Friday after the prosecution case collapsed over the flawed evidence.

Mr Keelty yesterday raised the possibility Dr Haneef might face further questioning in India.

"We are communicating with the Indian police," he said.

Indian anti-terror police last night warned Dr Haneef they wanted to "interrogate" him over his links to alleged British bombers Sabeel and Kafeel Ahmed. Officers of the Anti-Terrorism Squad in Bangalore were reported to have called at Dr Haneef's family home and told relatives to pass on the message they wanted to speak to him.

The joint Commissioner of Police in Karnataka state, Gopal B. Hosur, told The Australian last night it was likely that Dr Haneef would be called for questioning in a few days.

Mr Keelty's confusion over the SIM card, and his new warning that Dr Haneef could again be charged, drew an angry response from Queensland Premier Peter Beattie, who said it was imperative for a national inquiry to resolve the saga.

Mr Beattie told The Australian last night he was "amazed" at Mr Keelty's latest comments. "I can't understand why, if that's true, they let him leave the country," Mr Beattie said when asked about Mr Keelty's comments that a prosecution could still ensue.

Mr Beattie remained scathing of Mr Andrews, accusing him of trying to save his political hide by selectively releasing parts of an internet conversation between Dr Haneef and his brother.

"I think most people will only be satisfied when they get the whole transcript," he said.

Dr Haneef's solicitor, Peter Russo, who has been in Bangalore with his client since the weekend, sharply criticised the latest development. Mr Russo said he was sick of seeing Dr Haneef's name slandered without reason, and he called on police to produce the entire record of interview.

Additional reporting: Bruce Loudon, Sarah Elks

Victoria slams migrant plan - National - theage.com.au

2007-08-02T06:01:00.000+10:00

A RADICAL new plan to assess whether a migrant is capable of integrating into Australian society before granting them a visa has been condemned by the Victorian Government.The new hardline policy was also branded a return to the days of the White Australia policy by the Australian Council for Civil Liberties.
But Opposition immigration spokesman Tony Burke said it was not clear how a person would be prevented from entering Australia as a result of the changes, and he did not want to be "alarmist" before seeing precisely what the Government intended.

Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews this week announced that immigration officers would assess factors including migrants' attitudes towards learning English and their knowledge of Australia when considering whether to grant them visas.

"One of the things which the interviewing immigration officer will look at is, you know, someone who's going to fit in basically," Mr Andrews said on Wednesday.

He conceded people might give lip service to integrating, when in their hearts they did not agree.

"That's always going to be the case when you are dealing with human beings. But at least we are putting up front that we do have an expectation about integration in society and if somebody does give the indication that that is not what they agree with, well then obviously we would take our investigation further about whether or not they are suitable to come to Australia."

Daniel Andrews, the minister assisting the Premier on multicultural affairs, said the State Government did not support creating additional hurdles for people wanting to settle in Australia.

He said the Government welcomed proportionately more skilled migrants and refugees than any other state.

"We are committed to provide the necessary support to ensure they can build a better life in Victoria," a spokesman for Mr Andrews said.

Australian Council for Civil Liberties secretary Cameron Murphy said trying to ascertain whether a migrant would integrate before they got to Australia was "unworkable and ridiculous".

"This is exactly the same as the White Australia policy in a different guise," Mr Murphy said.

"It provides a very wide discretion for an officer from the Immigration Department to exclude people because they don't like the look of them. All they have to say is they don't think the person is someone who shares Australian values or has the ability to integrate into the Australian community."

Under the White Australia policy, migrants were asked to sit a dictation test designed to exclude non-European immigrants.

Waleed Aly, a representative of the Islamic Council of Australia, said the Government was trading on the broad suspicion of migrants in the community.

"There is an anxiety about migrants and the Government tends to reflect that in a populist way, like asking them to sign values statements and lecturing them on integration," he said.

Haneef may face further charges - National - theage.com.au

2007-08-01T22:34:00.000+10:00

The Australian Federal Police (AFP) could yet recommend further charges against Mohamed Haneef, even though its original case against the Indian doctor collapsed due to lack of evidence.AFP chief Mick Keelty today stressed the investigation into Dr Haneef was far from over, suggesting police could still submit a new brief of evidence against him.
Dr Haneef returned to India at the weekend after prosecutors dropped a charge against him on Friday, nearly a month after he was initially arrested.

Mr Keelty today defended the police handling of the case, denying that the investigation had in any way been bungled.

"At the moment it is quite annoying that people are saying this is a bungled investigation," he told reporters.

"It is not bungled at all. It is continuing.

"It's still potentially possible that a brief of evidence will be submitted against Dr Haneef."

Lawyer Peter Russo, who is in India with Dr Haneef, expressed exasperation that his client could again be in police sights.

"For crying out loud, it was his (Mr Keelty's) information that the director (of public prosecutions) relied on not to proceed with the matter," he told the Nine Network.

Dr Haneef was held without charge for 12 days following his arrest at Brisbane International Airport on July 2.

He was eventually charged with one count of providing support to a terrorist organisation and was granted bail, only to remain in custody after Mr Andrews used his discretionary powers to cancel his visa.

The Gold Coast based registrar was finally released on Friday after the case against him collapsed, amid admissions that mistakes had been made by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

One of those mistakes was prosecutors' initial claims Dr Haneef's mobile phone SIM card was found in a burning Jeep used in a terrorist attack on Glasgow Airport on June 30. It was in fact found in searches at Liverpool, 250km away.

The SIM card issue caused more problems today.

Mr Keelty added to the confusion when he mistakenly indicated today that the SIM card central to investigations had been "in the vicinity" of the failed bomb plots in London and Glasgow.

His office was later forced to clarify that he meant the SIM card was linked to people in the vicinity of the two attacks.

The renewed focus on the police investigation helped ease pressure on besieged Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews, who yesterday released new information about the Indian doctor to back his decision not to reinstate his visa, even after the charges were dropped.

While Mr Andrews released only selected material, Prime Minister John Howard said his explanation was now "full and complete".

"I've always believed that he took the right decision, I was across the reason for him taking that decision, I've made that known, I've supported him," he told reporters.

"He has been unfairly criticised but he has, to some extent, been vindicated by it being possible to make some of this information available."

But Mr Andrews' critics accused the minister of using the information to protect his political skin.

Queensland Premier Peter Beattie was not convinced that Mr Andrews had released the information for the right reasons.

"What Mr Andrews is doing in my view is trying to protect his political hide," he told ABC radio.

Mr Russo said the information was not new, and was contained in a second record of interview with Dr Haneef.

He accused the government of running a campaign of smear and innuendo against his client to cover its embarrassing mistakes on national security.

"If the government will give us the second record of interview then we can make a judgment call on whether it should be released, so that then the public can be fully informed," Mr Russo said.

Mr Andrews said the government did not have the record of interview and said its release was a matter for the federal police.

Mr Keelty ruled releasing the interview transcript and said the defence team had the record of interview already.

"If the defence wants to leak this, that's a matter for them but I think it's unethical behaviour," he said.

"They've been in possession of tapes of the interview since day one."

AAP

Government defends greater police powers - National - theage.com.au

2007-08-01T22:32:00.000+10:00

The federal government has dismissed calls to withdraw a planned law giving federal police more power to investigate major crimes, despite unease over the Mohamed Haneef case.A bill currently before the federal parliament would give federal police and security agencies investigating serious crimes the power to apply for "delayed notification search warrants".
Authorities would be able to conduct searches of premises and plant surveillance devices without telling the affected people for months.

The Law Council, the Australian Greens and the Australian Democrats today all said the bill should be dumped.

Australian Greens senator Kerry Nettle said no more powers should be given to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) until after an inquiry had been conducted into the Dr Haneef investigation.

Prosecutors last week dropped a terrorism-related charge against Dr Haneef after it was revealed incorrect evidence had been given to a Brisbane court.

"Now is not the time to be proposing extensive new powers for the Australian Federal Police," Senator Nettle told reporters.

"There needs to be a federal inquiry into the mistakes of the case of Dr Haneef before any proposal comes forward to give more powers to the federal police."

Justice Minister David Johnston defended the bill, saying it would give security agencies powers they needed to fight major crime and terrorism.

"It is about simply being able to conduct investigations against serious crime and that's crime which carries a penalty of more than 10 years," Senator Johnston told Sky News.

"So that people can be quite confident that if the police are investigating serious crimes and terrorism-related offences, then they will have the appropriate powers at their disposal."

Law Council president Tim Bugg said the government had failed to demonstrate why police needed the new powers.

"No clear need for the various additional or extended powers conferred by the bill has been demonstrated and, until it is, no further erosion of Australian citizens' rights should be sanctioned by parliament," Mr Bugg said in a statement.

"Simply uttering the word 'terrorism' should not be enough to justify granting police further powers, which are so clearly amenable to misuse or overuse," Mr Bugg said.

Federal Labor leader Kevin Rudd said if there were any changes to the legislation - which is before parliament - then the opposition would need to study them.

"We'll obviously examine any proposal on the merits in terms of the government's injection of any further elements into them but I'd rather get a detailed briefing on those elements," Mr Rudd told reporters.

Australian Federal Police chief Mick Keelty defended the need for greater powers.

"The terrorist threat is real; the activities of terrorists has not stopped," he told reporters.

"Whilst there is not an increase in the threat in Australia, we are much more aware of the terrorist threat now than we have been before."

AAP

Police in new Haneef SIM card bungle

2007-08-01T17:52:00.000+10:00

POLICE this afternoon withdrew their latest claim about a SIM card central to police investigations into Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef.The 'clarification' came after Australian Federal Police chief Mick Keelty added to the existing confusion about Dr Haneef's SIM card when he suggested it was in the vicinity of both failed bomb plots in London and Glasgow.
However, an AFP spokesman was later forced to clarify the police chief's comments, saying he had meant to say the SIM card was linked to people in the vicinity of the failed bombings.

Dr Haneef returned to India at the weekend after prosecutors dropped a charge against him that he had recklessly provided support to a terrorist organisation by having given his mobile phone SIM card to a relative linked to a plot to bomb targets in Britain.

Australian prosecutors' claims the SIM card was found in a burning Jeep used in a terrorist attack on Glasgow Airport on June 30 later proved to be a mistake, as it was in fact found in searches at Liverpool, 250km away.

Earlier today, Mr Keelty compounded confusion about the SIM card when he suggested it had been in the vicinity of both bomb plots.

"For all that's been said about the SIM card, the SIM card is still in the vicinity of London at the time that the devices were attempted to be exploded," Mr Keelty said.

"The SIM card is still at Glasgow, at the airport at the time that the attempted bombing happened there."

"There's been a lot of focus on exactly where the SIM card was, as I've said, in these sorts of investigations, information changes very quickly, there's a high volume of information to be got through very quickly.

"We need to be patient about this, we haven't had a bombing in Australia."

The AFP spokesman later said: "The SIM card was considered significant in the UK investigation and was identified as being in contact with individuals alleged to have been involved in both the London and Glasgow attack."

This morning a besieged Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews said it was up to Australian Federal Police to decide whether to release a full transcript of a second record of interview with Dr Haneef.

Mr Andrews said he did not even have a copy of the transcript.

This afternoon Prime Minister John Howard said Mr Andrews release of selected police material partly vindicated his decision to revoke the Indian doctor's visa.

Mr Howard said today Mr Andrews' explanation had been "full and complete".

"I've always believed that he took the right decision, I was across the reason for him taking that decision, I've made that known, I've supported him," Mr Howard told reporters in Tasmania.

"He has been unfairly criticised but he has, to some extent, been vindicated by it being possible to make some of this information available.

"But there will some people who will continue to attack him."

Labor was still running a "cynical double game" on the Haneef affair, with federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd staying out of the row and allowing Queensland Premier Peter Beattie to attack Mr Andrews, Mr Howard said.

Pressure to make Haneef 'guilty' | The Australian

2007-08-01T12:37:00.000+10:00

IT is neither new nor incriminating, but Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews is becoming desperate.

His bid late yesterday to escape the political noose by citing a nebulous internet conversation as the basis for Mohamed Haneef's incarceration, and ongoing demonisation, is as flawed as the policing and prosecuting that preceded it.On the material disclosed by Andrews yesterday, Haneef is guilty, but not of terrorism.He is guilty of being extremely perceptive and fearful of the probability that he would be wrongfully framed in Australia for giving away his mobile phone SIM card, a year earlier, to his second cousin, Sabeel Ahmed in Britain.

Haneef is also guilty of receiving an internet chatroom message from his brother Shoaib in Bangalore, who was concerned that the family's sole breadwinner would be unjustly linked to the failed terrorism plots in London and Glasgow because of the connection to the SIM card.

But we already knew this. Haneef had volunteered it to the police in his first interview on July3, a record of which was subsequently leaked to The Australian.

He had told police he was worried about being framed over the card, and that he had tried to contact a British counter-terrorism police officer four times before trying to board a flight to India on the evening of July 2.

And he told Australian police in that first interview how Ahmed's mother had been concerned that the police discovery of the SIM card, which had once been in Haneef's name, would inevitably lead to the police being interested in Haneef.

But do fleeing terrorists try to contact British police investigating terrorism attacks? On four occasions?

If the AFP did not advise Andrews of Haneef's repeated attempts to contact the British police, AFP commissioner Mick Keelty has some more explaining to do.

The reality is that the AFP and Brisbane prosecutors can never have truly believed that the internet conversations, released selectively yesterday, were incriminating. And nor did the DPP, Damian Bugg QC, who threw the case out last Friday.

It is also difficult to understand why the conversations were regarded as so top secret and protected that they could not be released, given that Haneef and his brother knew what they had exchanged with each other, and knew that police also knew because of the confiscation of the computer equipment.

The efforts of Andrews to throw a sinister light on the material after it had been thoroughly vetted, and written off as of no consequence, are further proof of the original paucity of evidence in this case, and the knee-jerk reactions of politicians to extract capital from it.

Last-ditch bid to save political skin | The Australian

2007-08-01T12:31:00.000+10:00

WITH Mohamed Haneef now back in India as a free man, the belated release of parts of the police dossier on him yesterday was designed to achieve only one thing: save the political career of Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews.The Haneef case was already being bungled perfectly well by commonwealth prosecutors and by the police before Mr Andrews waded into the fray on July 16.
Yet today, Mr Andrews is widely seen as bungler-in-chief of the terror case -- a testament to the quality and quantity of his gaffes.

What makes his predicament unique is that the political damage Mr Andrews has suffered is almost all self-inflicted.

No one involved in the Haneef case, from the prosecutors to the Australian Federal Police, asked Mr Andrews to intervene on July 16, when he arbitrarily revoked Dr Haneef's visa -- thereby extending his detention -- after the Indian doctor had been granted bail.

That action transformed a police investigation into a political trial, triggering a firestorm of public criticism and instantly turning Dr Haneef from terror suspect to political victim.

Mr Andrews' decision, taken after discussions with John Howard and the national security committee of cabinet, caught the AFP by surprise. Investigators had already planned how they would tail a bailed Dr Haneef on the Gold Coast.

It also angered the AFP because it complicated and inflamed the Haneef investigation, putting greater pressure on a case that was already crumbling.

Mr Andrews said Dr Haneef had failed the character test in the Migration Act because he was suspected of an association with criminals -- a reference to his two second cousins in Britain who are under arrest for terrorism charges.

The decision denied natural justice for Dr Haneef but was defended by Mr Andrews on the grounds that he had secret information -- which the court did not hear -- that convinced him of Dr Haneef's bad character.

Over the next 10 days, the case against Dr Haneef gradually crumbled, mostly through a series of leaks by Dr Haneef's legal team that highlighted fundamental inconsistencies in the prosecution case.

When Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Damian Bugg QC decided last Wednesday to review the evidence in the troubled case, Mr Andrews was left exposed.

The next day, he asked for a reassurance from the police that the information on which he based his visa decision was still correct.

The answer was yes, but then the very next day -- Friday -- Mr Andrews was again left exposed by the DPP's decision to drop all charges against Dr Haneef.

The DPP's decision came as no surprise to those following the case but it seemed to catch Mr Andrews off guard.

Rather than restore Dr Haneef's visa -- or deport him immediately -- Mr Andrews said he would ask the commonwealth Solicitor-General for advice on the implications of the DPP's decision.

In the meantime, Mr Andrews said Dr Haneef would be held in "residential detention" only, meaning he was free to move about in the community.

Yet only 11 days earlier, Mr Andrews had said part of the reason for revoking Dr Haneef's visa was for "the protection of the Australian community".

The glaring inconsistencies in his position were roundly condemned in the Saturday newspapers, and Mr Andrews began to fight for his political life.

On Saturday, he said he wanted to release the secret AFP information on which he had made the decision to revoke Dr Haneef's visa.

Mr Andrews hoped this would ease the pressure on him, but it only highlighted another inconsistency: 11 days earlier he had claimed it would be illegal to release such information, yet now he was agitating for its release.

Mr Andrews also spoke without checking first with the AFP, which told him on Sunday that the release of the information might compromise the AFP's continuing investigations.

Under growing pressure, Mr Andrews dug in, insisting that Dr Haneef's visa would remain cancelled despite Haneef choosing to leave the country the previous night.

What's more, Mr Andrews made the extraordinary comment that Dr Haneef's decision to fly home to see his wife and new baby girl after a month of being demonised and detained in Australia "actually heightens rather than lessens my suspicions (about him)".

With Mr Andrews clearly in trouble, Labor abandoned its bipartisan position on Dr Haneef and called for a judicial inquiry into the debacle.

Since then, Coalition colleagues have rallied around the besieged minister, who yesterday finally released part of the secret AFP dossier on Dr Haneef.

It remains to be seen if it will help save the career of this accident-prone minister.

Dodgy outcome demands review | The Australian

2007-08-01T12:26:00.000+10:00

THE Howard Government repeatedly defended its anti-terror laws during the 25 days it detained Mohamed Haneef.
Attorney-General Philip Ruddock, for example, said: "The system is working as intended." In fact, key parts of the law did not operate as intended and, to the extent that they did, this only strengthens the case for reform.

No one should be allowed to judge their own mistakes, especially where extraordinary powers have been exercised and national security is at stake. There should be an inquiry into Haneef's case by a respected, independent person such as a former High Court judge. It should not be left to a Senate committee to deliberate for months, only to provide a partisan report.

The inquiry should examine the actions of the prosecutors and police as well as the underlying law. The focus must be on operational errors and on a legal regime that has its own flaws.

Australia does need strong laws to prevent terrorist attacks. These must also include effective checks and balances, and reflect democratic principles such as the presumption of innocence. The laws should also prevent terrorism investigations becoming politicised by ministers using immigration or other powers.

The inquiry should examine whether Australian law matches these goals. It should examine whether it is right to hold a person without charge for an indefinite period. The Crimes Act says a terrorism suspect can be questioned for 24 hours. However, it also says a magistrate can permit "dead time" so questioning can be spread across an undefined number of days. This enabled Haneef to be detained for 12 days rather than about 12 hours, as for other serious offences.

When the law was passed in 2004, I argued before a Senate committee for a maximum of two days detention without charge. This was to overcome the possibility of significant periods of dead time causing an over-lengthy detention. The Attorney-General's Department rejected this, with a senior official saying: "I would be extraordinarily surprised if the dead time, for example, in relation to the time zones, would get anything like the sorts of time periods that were being suggested by Professor Williams."

Of course, Haneef was detained for 12 days, not two.

Concerns about the law led then justice minister Chris Ellison to promise in parliament: "Should the Senate pass this updated dead time mechanism, I make the undertaking that the Government will conduct an independent review of the new investigatory framework for terrorism investigations approximately three years after they become law. Such a review would provide an opportunity to exhaustively analyse the operation of the new provisions and remedy any evident operational or legal shortcomings."

Both operational and legal shortcomings are apparent, yet we have not seen the promised review. It was due on June30.

The independent inquiry should also examine the immigration law used to detain Haneef after he had been granted bail. That law allows the Immigration Minister to revoke a person's visa where he reasonably suspects they fail a character test, such as due to association with someone else suspected of criminal activity. The minister can cancel a visa in the "national interest" using secret information and without allowing the person to put their case. This power is open to political manipulation and, as in Haneef's case, can be used to circumvent the justice system. It needs immediate amendment.

These problems expose some larger issues. Australia has adapted anti-terror laws from other nations such as Britain without including their safeguards. British law, for example, must be read in light of Britain's 1998 Human Rights Act, which sets out the basic standards of liberty needed for a democracy.

That act has allowed new terror laws while also ensuring they do not undermine the values the laws are meant to protect. If Australia is not to enact a national charter or bill of rights, we must take extra precautions to make sure our anti-terror laws operate fairly and without political interference.

The Haneef case has exposed big problems with Australia's anti-terror legislation. However, it dealt only with one small aspect of the laws. Since September 11 the federal parliament has passed 44 anti-terror statutes. They provide for everything from limiting freedom of speech under sedition offences and control orders to the secret surveillance of innocent people and ASIO being able to have non-suspects detained to gather intelligence.

While many of Australia's anti-terror laws are in good shape, others are not. The unfairness and injustice in the Haneef case can be too easily seen in other laws that have yet to be pressed into service. These laws also require attention, lest we see another case such as Haneef's.

George Williams is the Anthony Mason professor and director of the Gilbert and Tobin Centre of Public Law at the University of NSW.

Beattie unconvinced by 'new' Haneef info - National - smh.com.au

2007-08-01T11:28:00.000+10:00

Queensland Premier Peter Beattie says he is unconvinced by information revealed by Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews to justify cancelling Mohamed Haneef's visa.
Mr Andrews yesterday released some of the police material he used to make his decision on July 16 to revoke the Indian doctor's visa, hours after a magistrate granted bail to the hospital registrar.
The minister cited suspicious phone calls and an internet chat with Dr Haneef's brother - after the UK bomb plot was foiled - as reasons for cancelling the visa, and for not reinstating it despite the terrorism-related charge against Gold Coast-based doctor being dropped.

However, Mr Andrews would not release the second record of police interview with Dr Haneef, citing Australian Federal Police advice.

Asked whether he was now convinced the cancellation of the visa was the right thing to do, Mr Beattie told ABC radio: "The answer to that is no. I'm yet to be convinced.

"What Mr Andrews is doing in my view is trying to protect his political hide," he said.

Mr Beattie said he was concerned the anti-terrorism laws had not been applied appropriately in this case, because there was too much politics mixed up in it.

The Queensland premier renewed his call for a full judicial inquiry into the matter.

"Why wasn't this (information) put before the magistrates court?" Mr Beattie said.

"Why isn't he for example still a matter of interest to either the British police or our own federal police?

"There are just too many questions which remain unanswered."

Mr Beattie also said the information Mr Andrews released was not new.

"The reality is, as I understand it, this material that Mr Andrews has released is not new, it was known to the defence lawyers, it was around for a little while," he told ABC radio.

"What Mr Andrews is doing in my view is try to protect his political hide.

"That's why at the end of this I have grave concerns that there's so much politics mixed up in all of this that we are not applying these anti-terrorism laws appropriately."

AAP

UK police admit they were cause of error - National - smh.com.au

2007-08-01T11:27:00.000+10:00

SCOTLAND YARD has admitted it was responsible for passing incorrect information to the Australian Federal Police that led to the arrest of the Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef.
The federal police Commissioner, Mick Keelty, had publicly blamed British police on Sunday for telling Australian investigators that a SIM card belonging to Dr Haneef was found in the Jeep that rammed Glasgow Airport on June 30.

The SIM card was in fact found in the house of Dr Haneef's cousin, Sabeel Ahmed, in Liverpool eight hours later. Dr Haneef had given it to him when he left to work on the Gold Coast.

Dr Haneef was released on Friday after a charge of providing material support for a terrorist organisation was dropped.

Scotland Yard had declined to comment on the record throughout the investigation, but a spokeswoman confirmed Mr Keelty's statement yesterday.

"Initial information provided was not correct but was quickly remedied," she said. "This had no impact on the charging decision or the subsequent action. Investigations of this nature are fast moving, complex and dynamic. Information shared with law enforcement agencies is continually updated and reviewed as further details come to light as a result of further enquiries."

She would not comment on whether Scotland Yard informed the federal police of the mistake before the Brisbane court hearing where it was used as evidence against Dr Haneef, or on whether there would be an internal inquiry into how the error was made. She also declined to comment on whether Scotland Yard would seek to extradite Dr Haneef to Britain.

On Sunday Mr Keelty defended the actions of the federal police, saying: "Errors in the investigation came to us from the UK. We were all under time pressures.

"If we had let him go we would have been accused of letting a terrorist escape our shores."

A former Scotland Yard commander, John O'Connor, told the ABC that Scotland Yard and the federal police should be embarrassed by the bungle, and that Australian police should have spent more time corroborating information from Scotland Yard before arresting Dr Haneef.

"It doesn't matter how fast moving, complex and dynamic this inquiry was. What doesn't change are the facts. It's the facts that have been relayed incorrectly and led to the federal police of Australia arresting Haneef," he said.

"To my view it is unforgivable that they are given information which is either incorrect, glossed or deliberately passed over to them. The driving force behind this was a bit of glory hunting."

New secret search powers - National - smh.com.au

2007-08-01T11:17:00.000+10:00

POLICE and security agencies will be given unprecedented "sneak and peek" powers to search the homes and computers of suspects without their knowledge under legislation to go before Federal Parliament next week.The extensive powers - which also give federal police the right to monitor communications equipment without an interceptions warrant - come amid growing public disquiet about counter-terrorism powers following the bungled handling of the Mohamed Haneef case.

Under the laws, officers from the federal police and other agencies would be able to execute "delayed notification warrants", allowing them to undertake searches, seize equipment and plant listening devices in businesses and homes.

Police and security officers will be able to assume false identities to gain entry and conduct the surreptitious searches.

But the person affected by the raid does not have to be informed for at least six months, and can remain in the dark for 18 months if the warrant is rolled over.

The warrant is to be issued by the head of a police service or security agency without the approval of a judicial officer. It can also be extended for more than 18 months with the sanction of the minister.

The lack of judicial oversight was justified by the Minister for Justice and Customs, David Johnston, on the grounds that a court or judicial officer might leak news of the warrant.

"I don't want to impugn anyone, but the security of these operations has to be pristine," Senator Johnston told the Herald.

Moreover, the warrant can be issued for any offence that carries a prison term of 10 years or more, despite a strong recommendation from a bipartisan Senate committee earlier this year that it only be used for investigations into terrorism, organised crime and "offences involving death or serious injury with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment".

The new powers have their genesis in a meeting of state, territory and federal police ministers two years ago to create uniform search warrants.

They are scheduled to be introduced to the Senate on Tuesday when Parliament resumes.

But they are likely to be scrutinised more heavily in the wake of the detention and subsequent dropping of terrorism-related charges against Dr Haneef.

The Greens senator Kerry Nettle said the handling of Dr Haneef's case served as a reminder that law enforcement and intelligence agencies made mistakes, and already had extensive and intrusive powers.

"Given the Haneef debacle, now is not the time to be giving more powers to the Australian Federal Police," she said.

The position of the Labor Opposition is unknown. The party did not return calls yesterday.

Federal police say they need the powers because current rules mean suspects are tipped off that they are under investigation.

"It then allows associates unknown to the police to destroy or relocate evidence or activities to other premises not known to police," the Deputy Commissioner John Lawler told a Senate committee earlier this year. "It often prevents the full criminality of those involved being known."

The bill also deals with "controlled operations" - undercover operations where federal agents are permitted to undertake criminal activity in order to further their investigations.

Federal authorities will have far greater scope to undertake such operations and will no longer need approval from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The bill provides for immunity not only to the undercover police or security officer involved but also civilian informants.

For the first time it also allows foreign police and intelligence agencies to take part in undercover operations and to use false identities.

Migrant test on integration - National - smh.com.au

2007-08-01T11:15:00.000+10:00

PEOPLE seeking to immigrate will face stricter scrutiny of their ability to integrate into Australian society, the Minister for Immigration, Kevin Andrews, said last night.Mr Andrews said the Government would put more emphasis on new "integration criteria" when assessing applications from people seeking to settle in Australia on a long-term basis.

Factors to be taken into account when considering the capacity of would-be migrants to integrate would include an assessment of the applicants' adaptability and resourcefulness.

Immigration officials would also consider applicants' knowledge of Australia, their expectations about living here, their English language skills and attitudes to learning English.

Mr Andrews said the integration criteria would apply to those seeking permanent or provisional visas, including humanitarian visas, which lead to permanent residency. Those seeking temporary skilled worker visas would be exempt.

Mr Andrews said that in the past almost all migrants had come to Australia from places with liberal democratic traditions. "Now people come from a range of different traditions," he said.

The move follows the requirement for people seeking citizenship to pass a test of their knowledge and acceptance of "Australian values".

In a report released yesterday, Labor backed proposals for a citizenship test but joined Coalition members of a Senate committee in calling for the questions to be made public.

The Government has insisted the test, which would involve a selection from more than 200 questions, must remain secret so people would not learn the answers in advance.

But the committee suggested that, given the level of community disquiet about the test, "the questions be tabled in Parliament to provide additional reassurance to those concerned. It would also help to ensure transparency and accountability of the proposed regime."

In a speech at the Sydney Institute last night, Mr Andrews said immigration would remain critical to the country's prosperity but promoting integration was essential to ensuring immigration's continued success.

"Never has there been a more prescient time for Australia as one of the world's most stable democracies to protect and secure its future by redoubling its commitment to the traditions, values and institutions that have made this nation what it is today," he said.

"This is especially so when … we are now welcoming migrants who have not been exposed to these values and heritage, who may not have experienced them in their past and who may not have thought about how intrinsic they are to the Australian way of life they seek to enjoy.

"We should be unapologetic in requiring migrants to make commitment to our way of life. This should include having a knowledge and appreciation of the events that have shaped this country and the values and institutions that have been established as a result."

The Senate committee said it was disappointed that proposed citizenship test questions, which will be based on material in a proposed resource book, had not yet been completed and made public.

The Greens senator Kerry Nettle opposed the bill. She said it placed too much power in the hands of the minister for immigration to formulate the questions prospective Australians would be asked.

with Ben Cubby

Claims are 'smoke and mirrors': Russo | The Australian

2007-08-01T11:13:00.000+10:00

THE lawyer for Mohamed Haneef said information released tonight by Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews was 'more smoke and mirrors'.
Dr Haneef's lawyer Peter Russo said the material disclosed by Mr Andrews was not confidential evidence, as he had led Australians to believe.
Tonight Mr Andrews released supposedly previously unreleased evidence of a chat room conversation involving Dr Haneef, in which his brother told him to leave Australia quickly.

Speaking from Bangalore in India, Mr Russo said the details, including a run-down of the chat room conversation between Dr Haneef and his brother in India, were covered during a police interview.

He said he was yet to receive a transcript of that particular interview.

"If the Government will give us the second record of interview then we can make a judgment call on whether it should be released, so that then the public can be fully informed," he told Macquarie Radio tonight.

Mr Russo said the information covered in that interview was "hardly secret".

"(Mr Andrews) has led the Australian public to believe that this is the secret information, it is hardly secret information if it was put to my client in the second record of interview," Mr Russo told Southern Cross Broadcasting.

"And therefore, the Director of Public Prosecutions would have had access to that when they were making their judgment call (to drop the case).

"It is more smoke and mirrors from the minister."

Brother's web alert: they know nothing about you - National - smh.com.au

2007-08-01T11:00:00.000+10:00

AN INTERNET chatroom comment by Mohamed Haneef's brother that "nothing has been found out about you" has been cited by the Federal Government to back its suspicion that the doctor had advance knowledge of terrorist attacks in Britain.
The Immigration Minister, Kevin Andrews, yesterday quoted from a police brief of edited snippets of conversation showing that the brother, Mohammad Shuaib, told Dr Haneef on the day he was trying to leave Australia, July 2, to "tell them you have to as you have a daughter born. Do not tell them anything else." Mr Shuaib had urged Dr Haneef not to delay leaving and not to let anyone else use his phone number in Australia or give it to anyone, Mr Andrews said. The brother referred to their cousin, Kafeel Ahmed, who was pulled from the burning Jeep that rammed Glasgow Airport.

Dr Haneef had given his mobile phone SIM card to Kafeel's brother, Sabeel Ahmed, before he left Britain to work at the Gold Coast Hospital. "Aunty told him that brother Kafeel used it in some sort of project over there," Shuaib told Dr Haneef in the chatroom.

No context is provided for the quotes Mr Andrews released.And Dr Haneef's lawyers insisted yesterday that he explained the chatroom conversation when interviewed by federal police. Mr Andrews had been under intense pressure to explain his refusal to restore Dr Haneef's cancelled work visa, even though the charges against him, of recklessly supporting a terrorist organisation, were dropped last Friday.

Yesterday Mr Andrews released an 11-page document containing the tightly edited snippets of Dr Haneef's online chat with his brother. But he said he could not, as earlier intended, release classified information because federal police feared it could prejudice investigations into possible links between people in Australia and the attempted bombings in Britain.

At a Sydney news conference, Mr Andrews said of Dr Haneef: "It was not until after he received two telephone calls, one from India, having been told in both calls that there was an issue about his SIM card, that he applied for leave from the hospital."

Dr Haneef, back with his family in India, told a news conference in Bangalore that he was the victim of "an Australian conspiracy".

Some of the details of the chatroom conversation emerged at Dr Haneef's bail hearing in Brisbane on July 14, but they were not widely reported.

One of his lawyers, Peter Russo, is with him in India and he accused Mr Andrews of "clutching at straws" by suggesting that the chatroom conversation could show Dr Haneef was aware of the British car bomb plans. Mr Russo told the Herald "if that's all he's got" it would not alter his determination to challenge the visa ban in the Federal Court next week.

Imran Siddiqui, a cousin of Dr Haneef's wife, said in Bangalore last night: "This is just another desperate attempt by Kevin Andrews to mislead the people of Australia. Why doesn't he release the second transcript of the second [police] interview with Haneef? In that, we'll see all the questions that were put to Haneef and what he answered about that online conversation with his brother."

Defence lawyers noted that Dr Haneef had tried to get through by phone to British police immediately before leaving Australia to urgently explain why he gave his SIM card to Sabeel Ahmed.

Referring to the chatroom conversation, Mr Russo told Southern Cross Broadcasting: "[Mr Andrews] has led the Australian public to believe that this is the secret information. It is hardly secret information if it was put to my client in the second record of interview. And, therefore, the Director of Public Prosecutions would have had access to that when they were making their judgment call [to drop the case]."

Mr Andrews released a legal opinion from the Commonwealth Solicitor-General, David Bennett, that it would still be open to him to cancel Dr Haneef's visa even though the charge was dropped.

The minister said AFP investigators believed Dr Haneef's attempted urgent departure from Australia, on a one-way ticket, was on a false pretext. Dr Haneef has said he was going to his newborn daughter. Police saw it as "highly suspicious", and Mr Andrews said it might reflect Dr Haneef's "awareness of the conspiracy to plan and prepare the acts of terrorism in London and Glasgow".

He noted Dr Haneef had not mentioned to a fellow Indian doctor at Gold Coast Hospital that he was planning to return to India.

Mr Andrews told 2GB yesterday: "You know, sometimes when I listen to the critics I wonder whether people want a bomb to go off in Sydney before they'll actually do something."

He said he shared police suspicion about why Dr Haneef wasn't in India for his girl's birth.

Dr Haneef said: "I don't know what reasons he has. I would like him to come forward and give these facts." He said the restoration of his visa was important for his honour and because he wanted to return to Australia.

PM seeks advice on Haneef dossier release | The Australian

2007-07-31T14:06:00.000+10:00

PRIME Minister John Howard said the government was still seeking advice about what information it could release that had been available to Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews when he made his controversial decision to cancel Dr Haneef's Australian visa.Mr Andrews this morning said he had been advised not to release information he used when deciding to cancel Mohamed Haneef's visa.

But he is today expected to release advice from the solicitor-general David Bennett QC that says he acted correctly when he cancelled the Indian-born Gold Coast-based doctor's visa on suspicions that he had an association with people involved in criminal activity.

But the actual information on which that decision was based may be kept secret.

This morning Federal Education Minister Julie Bishop refused to publicly support the embattled Mr Andrews.

Ms Bishop, asked today if she supported Mr Andrews' handling of the case, replied: "I'm a member of cabinet."

Asked if his future was shaky, she added:"Today's not the occasion for me to discuss government policy."

When pressed, Ms Bishop refused to comment any further.

Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile said Australians should not lose confidence in federal and state law enforcement agencies because of the controversial detainment.

"The most important thing that we need to focus on at the moment is that the broader community doesn't lose confidence, nor we should we undermine the effectiveness of our law enforcement agencies,'' Mr Vaile told reporters.

Under a storm of criticism for his decision to cancel the visa just after Dr Haneef was granted bail by a Queensland court on now abandoned criminal charges Mr Andrews had said he wanted to show why he had terminated the visa on "character'' grounds.

Mr Andrews and the Australian Federal Police had indicated the decision to cancel the visa had been made on basis of information not provided to the court.

But on ABC radio this morning Mr Andrews said the information may not be released after discussions with the Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty.

``One of the difficulties in this regard ... is that there is an ongoing investigation both in Australia and in the UK, and the Commissioner of the AFP Keelty has said to me that this protected material, if released, could jeopardise that investigation,'' he said.

``I think I have a responsibility not to jeopardise an investigation in this manner.''

Mr Howard, who attended a Cabinet national security committee meeting review information before Mr Andrews made his decision on July 16 - the day Dr Haneef was granted bail - has supported his minister's action.

Mr Howard would not be drawn on whether he believed the doctor was a terrorist supporter but told the Seven Network last night that there was a suspicion that he had associations with people engaged in criminal activity.

Labor has until now supported the ministers' decision on the basis of its own AFP briefings. But after doubts over aspects of the information provided in the dropped criminal case has now asked for a review.

Opposition leader Kevin Rudd, yesterday was questioning of the advice.

"I’d like to be confident of the entirety of the information and advice provided and again I make no accusation on that score either.,'' he said in Adelaide.

"I’d just like to see the entire amount of information laid out of the public.

"This is a matter of public concern. People are concerned legitimately about the proper application of our counter terrorism laws. I believe in a hard line on terrorism, always have, always will do.

"You’ve got to make sure that the laws have been properly implemented and that’s why we believe this is the best way to get to the bottom of it."

Dr Haneef has returned home to his family Bangalore after his release from custody on Friday. He claims to have been victimised by Australian authorities.

The ABC is reporting that United Kingdom police have not rejected suggestions there may have been wrong information passed onto Australian authorities, particularly a mobile telephone SIM card.

A Commonwealth prosecutor Clive Porritt mistakenly told the Queensland magistrates court the card was in Glasgow at the time a relative of Dr Haneef rammed a car into an airport terminal. It was actually in Liverpool.

However, the AFP have maintained its investigators knew the card was in Liverpool and the error was a mistake in court not in its briefings.

This morning prominent lawyer Lex Lasry said police may not want Mr Andrews to release the secret information because of embarrassment about its lack of substance.

Mr Lasry, chairman of the Victorian Criminal Bar Association and a high-profile human rights advocate, today said there were two reasons why police may want to keep the information under wraps.

"One is the police are embarrassed about the lack of substance to the information and would find it embarrassing if it was released," Mr Lasry told ABC radio.

"The alternative version is that there is some continuing investigation and that they don't want that investigation prejudiced.

"In either case, but particularly in the second case, that puts the minister, I would have thought, in a fairly difficult position."

Asked whether he has sympathy for Mr Andrews, Mr Lasry said: "No I don't because I thought at the time that the visa was cancelled that it looked very much like a misuse of his power.

"I suppose we have to wait and see what the factual basis for that decision was.

"But at the moment it still looks like a misuse of power to me."

Mr Andrews has also shrugged off Mr Rudd's call for a full judicial review.

"This process has been overseen by the judiciary at every step," he said.

"The investigation and the timing of it, the amount of time that people could question Dr Haneef was all under the direction of a magistrate.

"Secondly, there was a bail hearing in which the magistrate made a decision.

"And thirdly, the director of public prosecutions personally reviews the whole case.

"There's been a review of this process all the way through."

'Glory hunting' behind Haneef arrest - World - theage.com.au

2007-07-31T12:17:00.000+10:00

Glory hunting was the driving force behind Britain's Scotland Yard providing incorrect information leading to the arrest of Mohamed Haneef on terrorism charges, a former senior British detective says.But Australian police should have spent more time corroborating that information before acting, former commander of Scotland Yard's Flying Squad John O'Connor said.
Dr Haneef returned to India on Sunday morning after a charge of supporting a terrorist organisation was dropped because of a lack of evidence.

He had been charged with recklessly providing support to a terrorist organisation by giving his mobile phone SIM card to a relative linked to a plot to bomb targets in Britain.

That related to a mobile phone SIM card, which according to information provided by British police to the Australian Federal Police (AFP), was found in a burning Jeep used in a terrorist attack on Glasgow airport.

In fact it was located in searches at Liverpool, 250 kilometres away.

AFP commissioner Mick Keelty blamed Scotland Yard for providing incorrect information.

British police have all but acknowledged its error, declaring such investigations were fast moving, complex and dynamic with information constantly updated and reviewed as fresh details emerge.

Mr O'Connor said that was not good enough.

"It doesn't matter how fast moving, complex and dynamic this inquiry was. What doesn't change are the facts. It's the fact that have been relayed incorrectly and led to the federal police of Australia arresting Haneef," he told ABC radio.

"To my view it is unforgivable that they are given information which is either incorrect, glossed or deliberately passed over to them. The driving force behind this was a bit of glory hunting.

"If they pass on information to the federal police in Australia and the federal police end up uncovering a terrorist cell and preventing terrorist incidents, then Scotland Yard will claim the credit for it. That may indeed be the driving force behind this."

Mr O'Connor said if that was the case, it needed to be rooted out and exposed.

He said some apologies were due.

Mr O'Connor said he believed Scotland Yard was privately telling the UK media that they had not sought Dr Haneef's arrest and there might be some truth in that.

"Had they had any evidence, they would have applied for extradition and clearly they didn't do that," he said.

"So it might very well be that the Australians should have spent a little bit more time on corroborating the information and really checking on the source and making sure that it was right and getting something in writing."

AAP

Poor law, poor decisions: Immigration vs Dr Haneef - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

2007-07-31T10:32:00.000+10:00

Revocation of Dr Haneef's visa focuses attention on fundamental breaches of human rights and the rule of law under the Migration Act 1958.Dr Haneef's case is subjudice: his lawyers have sought a review of the Minister for Immigration's decision to revoke Dr Haneef's visa. Yet Australians can and should query the Act's provisions as they could apply in future cases, to future visa holders or applicants.Principles of 'natural justice' or procedural fairness are fundamental in Australia's legal system. They rest squarely on notions of fairness.

Nonetheless, since the 1990s the Australian Parliament has, to its shame, infected the Migration Act with provisions seriously breaching individual's rights to natural justice in decision-making, ignoring international treaties and conventions Australia has ratified.

Every politician who voted for these restrictions is responsible for the serious erosion not only of the rights of those directly affected by the Act, but of the whole community. Everyone has (or should have) an interest in ensuring that Australia's laws are fair. The Migration Act is not fair.

Natural justice requires that a before a judicial or administrative decision is made, the person concerned has a right to be heard. It requires the party making the decision to be unbiased, taking into account relevant information only, and putting aside irrelevant information. Decisions must be prompt or timely.

Yet the Migration Act is framed to deny or truncate natural justice. It is responsible for decisions denying fairness to visa applicants and visa holders, many of whom have lived in Australia since they were infants, believing they were, for all purposes, Australian. It is responsible for poor decision-making by successive ministers for immigration, officers of the Immigration Department, migration and refugee tribunals, and courts constrained by its provisions.

The High Court has sometimes interpreted the Act's restrictive provisions to reincorporate fairness and the Federal Court has generally done its best to avoid the worst consequences of executive and legislative repressive excesses. Indeed, the Federal Court's response in promoting fairness led to the major parties introducing and supporting provisions seeking to further restrict the court's ability to ensure the Act is fair.

Ministerial power vs natural justice

Section 501(3), the section applied to Dr Haneef, restricts to the Minister the decision to refuse or cancel a visa. It differs from section 501(1) and (2) where the Minister or Minister's delegate has the power of visa cancellation or refusal. Whereas a section 501(1) and (2) decision is subject to natural justice, section 501(3) is extraordinary in saying 'natural justice' does not apply.

Under section 501(1) and (2) the decision is made if the Minister or delegate "reasonably suspects the person does not pass the character test" and the person whose visa is in question fails to satisfy the Minister or delegate that s/he passes the character test. Under section 501(3) the decision depends upon the Minister's reasonably suspecting the person does not pass the character test, and being satisfied refusal or cancellation is "in the national interest".

Under section 501(1) and (2), the person affected has a right to be told ahead of any decision that the Minister or delegate in considering refusal or cancellation, and to be heard on the question. Section 501(3) has been interpreted by the Minister as denying the person any right to be heard before that decision is made, although such interpretation is not necessarily required. Clearly, any failure to hear from the person concerned inevitably leads to inferior decision-making.

Section 503A compounds the problem. It 'protects' "information supplied by law enforcement agencies or intelligence agencies". Yet even that provision can be overridden by the Minister.

Albeit it restricts authorised migration officers from divulging the information to anyone other than the Minister or another authorised migration officer, the Minister is entitled to make a written declaration that the specified information can be provided to, amongst others, a "specified court" or "specified tribunal" and the Federal Court or Federal Magistrates Court.

Protected information

Canada has dealt with a similar problem, with the Supreme Court striking down a provision preventing visa holders from being able to see and respond to "protected" information. Though the court may be criticised for not going far enough, the principles applied have a resonance with the Australian situation.

In the Charkaoui case, decided in February this year, Adil Charkaoui spent 21 months in gaol as a suspected terrorist. Chief Justice McLachlin, with whom the entire court agreed, accepted as one of "the most fundamental responsibilities of a government" ensuring security of its citizens.

This means sometimes a government must "act on information it cannot disclose and detain people who threaten national security". However, in a constitutional democracy "governments must act accountably and in conformity with the Constitution and the rights and liberties it guarantees".

The tension "lying at the heart of modern democratic governance" must be resolved so to respect "the imperatives both of security and of accountable constitutional governance".

In Canada, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act said visa holders or applicants had no right to look at or respond to "protected information"; it was open to scrutiny by the judge alone. This, the Court said, not only hampered the affected person, but put judges in an invidious position, limiting their decision-making capacity.

The adversary system - inherited from Britain by Canada and Australia - counts on each party being able to answer material provided by the other. It depends on cross-examination, countering evidence, and the possibility of challenge and contradiction. It relies on judges weighing countervailing evidence and arguments. If "protected information" is not subject to this process, judges are denied a key aspect of the adversary system, are hampered in their judicial role, running the risk of poor decision-making.

Invalidating the provision, the court gave government and Parliament 12 months to get it right. It suggested that at minimum "protected information" should be subject to the scrutiny of appointed special counsel as an antidote to the one-man band approach. This might at least obviate the risk of false information influencing decisions, untruths dictating the outcome of decisions, or "errors" being allowed to stand unchecked.

Ministers and minister's delegates, like courts and judges, cannot make decisions in a vacuum filled with the "evidence" of one side, or one party - particularly a party with huge resources and powers.

Hopefully, when they get the chance, Australian courts will follow Canada in recognising the unwisdom of the Migration Act's provisions and the Minister's interpretation, their breach of fundamental justice principles and international treaties, and the need to strike them down.

Dr Jocelynne A Scutt is a barrister and human rights lawyer.

Haneef dossier may stay secret - National - theage.com.au

2007-07-31T09:50:00.000+10:00

Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews says he has been advised that releasing secret information which he says convinced him to cancel Mohamed Haneef's visa could jeopardise an ongoing investigation.Mr Andrews previously said he wanted to use the information to demonstrate why he made the decision he made, and show why Dr Haneef's visa should not be reinstated, even though a terrorism-related charge against the Indian national was dropped.But Mr Andrews today indicated the information may remain under wraps.
"One of the difficulties in this regard ... is that there is an ongoing investigation both in Australia and in the UK, and the Commissioner of the AFP (Australian Federal Police) Mr (Mick) Keelty has said to me that this protected material, if released, could jeopardise that investigation," Mr Andrews told ABC radio today.

"I think I have a responsibility not to jeopardise an investigation in this manner."

Dr Haneef has returned home to his family Bangalore after his release from custody on Friday. He claims to have been victimised by Australian authorities.

Mr Andrews said he would be happy to release the information but was not about to act improperly.

Asked if he ever expected to be able to release the information, Mr Andrews said: "I don't know. I take advice.

"I keep saying, and I have been saying for a week now, at every step of the way I have sought advice, I have sought legal advice, I've sought the advice as to evidence from the federal police, I have sought as to procedures from my department.

"I will continue to do that because I think it's important that I act on advice when I make decisions."

Mr Andrews shrugged off opposition calls for a full judicial review of the case.
"This process has been overseen by the judiciary at every step," he said.

"The investigation and the timing of it, the amount of time that people could question Dr Haneef was all under the direction of a magistrate.

"Secondly, there was a bail hearing in which the magistrate made a decision.

"And thirdly, the director of public prosecutions personally reviews the whole case.

"There's been a review of this process all the way through."

AAP

Haneef apology the first step | The Courier-Mail

2007-07-31T09:25:00.000+10:00

AUSTRALIA is not a country in which citizens would willingly accept that a man or woman can be taken away from their lawful business, questioned for several days and then charged based on facts mistakenly contrived by a prosecutor hastily making his way to court.

Nor is it a country in which we would willingly accept that someone can have their reputations trashed by a minister acting on secret information that is not subject to any appeal.Yet this is the situation we are in with the treatment administered to Dr Mohamed Haneef, the Gold Coast-based medico recruited a year ago to help bail the nation out of its failure to properly plan for the medical needs of a growing and ageing population. Make no mistake. Dr Haneef was in Australia because we wanted him here. But he is now on his way home to India, the victim of a sequence of events that must leave any reasonable citizen startled. It is true that Dr Haneef had associations with one of the architects of the failed Glasgow bombing. It is also true that he gave his mobile phone SIM card to his associate. But there is no evidence that he has any further association with terrorism or terrorists.

Three weeks after his arrest at Brisbane Airport on his way home to see his wife and new child, there are many troubling aspects to this affair. But two stand out. The first is the refusal of anyone in authority to apologise to Dr Haneef for his handling. The second is the failure of anyone in government to want to get to the bottom of what has happened here.

There is no doubt that Dr Haneef is owed an apology. He has been arrested, held in custody, charged with a serious offence on spurious grounds and had his reputation trashed and no one in authority from the Prime Minister down believes he is owed an apology. Even worse, both the Commonwealth Director of Prosecutions and the Australian Federal Police believe his ultimate freedom is proof the system works. It's doubtful that Dr Haneef or his family could agree and the insult to him can be easily healed in the traditional way.

But the systemic failure this case reveals is another problem. This newspaper reluctantly supported the anti-terror laws which give federal agencies previously unscoped powers over individuals suspected of an offence. We did so understanding that the nation is locked into a war on terror.

These laws do allow longer arrest periods. In some cases – but not in the case of Dr Haneef – they allow secret court proceedings. This is not the traditional Australian – or British or American – way but it is a modest impost on our freedoms if properly conducted. The Haneef case raises very serious doubts about the ability of federal law enforcers to properly conduct themselves in handling these laws. The AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty said at the weekend that his agency had acted on the say-so of British advice in detaining Dr Haneef. It had no information of its own and didn't succeed in obtaining any before having him charged.

The Commonwealth Director of Prosecutions, Damian Bugg, QC, took a personal interest in the case only after its conduct become so publicly unpalatable. He revealed on Friday that he had known for a week or so that a key component of the case – the allegation that Dr Haneef's SIM card was in the car used to bomb Glasgow Airport – was false. His agency's intention had been to correct the record when the case came back to court. Mr Bugg should have acted with more haste. In the absence of a standing inquiry, the Federal Government should take the alternative approach and appoint a senior legal figure to get to the bottom of this very serious failure of public administration. Our continued faith in the law and the people who administer them demands nothing less.

Haneef terror cry backfired | The Courier-Mail

2007-07-31T09:11:00.000+10:00

By Clinton Porteous

JOHN Howard and his ministers will be celebrating the departure of Mohamed Haneef from Australia as they try to minimise the political fallout.
The whole sorry tale has highlighted incompetence in key agencies crucial to the nation's counter-terrorism effort.But on top of that, the Federal Government repeatedly tried to play the terrorism card on the back of Dr Haneef and it backfired spectacularly.
Mr Howard and his ministers were much too keen to point the finger of blame at the Australian Federal Police and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd should not be proud of his efforts as he wimped it by following Mr Howard's lead.

Only Premier Peter Beattie stood up, copped lots of criticism, and was eventually proved right that there wasn't much of a case against the Indian national.

The uninspiring Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews was at it again yesterday, self-righteously declaring that Dr Haneef's original bid to leave Australia on a one-way ticket was "highly suspicious".

Mr Andrews' decision earlier this month to cancel Dr Haneef's work visa, and keep him in detention, stank of politics after a court had granted him bail.

We are now hearing Dr Haneef's side of the story.

The Howard Government thought it was on a vote winner by beating its chest about national security, after the detention of Dr Haneef, but it was desperate politics that went wrong.

Crikey - Politics - The Haneef fiasco: It's the law stupid

2007-07-31T09:06:00.000+10:00

Greg Barns writes:

Over the course of this past week two commentators on the Haneef case – The Australian’s Janet Albrechtsen and lawyer Peter Faris – have got it badly wrong.
They both think that the laws under which Dr Haneef has been detained and charged are ok, but it’s just that the investigation has been sloppy. Mr Faris has even taken to calling for Commonwealth DPP Damien Bugg and AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty to resign over their roles in this farcical case.But get this Peter and Janet – it's the law, stupid!

The anti-terror laws have been shown by the Haneef case to be dangerously flawed and open to manipulation by the authorities. These are the laws which allow the detention of an individual for days on end in solitary confinement.

These are the laws which allow for the prosecuting authorities to provide secret affidavits to magistrates, and which the defence is not allowed to view, even though the affidavits impact on their client. And these are the laws that allow for up to 12 hours of questioning of suspect in a manner that can be grossly unfair to the accused – you can string the 12 hours of questioning out over days and weeks.

Remember also that these laws are poorly drafted. No one has yet been able to provide an adequate explanation of what it means to ‘recklessly’ support a terrorist organization.

The Howard government/ALP anti-terror laws have enabled the Haneef farce to occur because these laws lack transparency safeguards and checks on power.

So yes, there are grounds for calling on Mick Keelty to resign given what looks to be an appallingly poor investigation by his team, and Damien Bugg’s people in Brisbane may have let him down, but how about Mr Faris and Ms Albrechtsen take off their Conservative cheerleader outfits and recognize the reality of the Haneef case?

And why don’t Faris and Albrechtsen attack the Howard government for its disgraceful politicization of the Haneef case? How about they stand up for traditional values and demand that the Nation’s first law officer, the Attorney-General, not provide a running commentary on terrorism cases and seek to twist public sympathy against the suspect?

And what about the capricious actions of Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews in this matter? Surely Mr Andrews’ conduct has been nothing more than a political stunt in which he is beastly careless about the rights of Dr Haneef and due process.

It is time to amend the anti-terror laws so we can prevent another Haneef.