Top StoriesMay’s sharp fall in jobless numbers added to the greenness of the ‘recovery’ (or less bad) thesis; overnight June’s unemployment figures were so awful that they could have stunted at least, the wavering shoots.
FOI documents: AFP changed its tune on Haneef
|
Sifting through the voluminous material that the federal Government has released under FOI in the case of Dr Mohammed Haneef (read the full set of documents here - part A, part B, part C, part D), a number of things become clear. Firstly, that the AFP and Queensland Police changed their line from the time they arrested Haneef on July 2 to the bail hearing on July 14 on what sort of risk Haneef would be if he were granted bail by Brisbane Magistrate Jacqui Payne. Secondly, that former Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews, in cancelling Dr Haneef’s visa shortly after Ms Payne granted bail on 16 July, clearly abandoned the usual practice of not interfering with a person’s visa simply because they are charged with criminal offences. And thirdly, there appears to have been some tension between the AFP and the Queensland Police over the treatment of Dr Haneef. The AFP changes it tune Mohammed Haneef was arrested at Brisbane airport on the evening of 2 July 2007and the AFP faced the prospect of having to release him by Friday July 6. Because they wanted to keep tabs on Dr Haneef for longer, the AFP looked at the possibility of obtaining a control or preventative detention order (PDO), both controversial measures in the Howard/ALP anti-terror laws which allow persons to have their movements curtailed even though they have not been charged with an offence. But in memos dated 3 July 2007, the AFP made it clear that at that stage “there is no reasonable suspicion that there is need to preserve evidence and that the detention is reasonably necessary for this purpose.” And the AFP noted in its memo that it had no information to indicate that there “is outstanding evidence which is required to be preserved.” Eight days later and Dr Haneef was still in custody. AFP Officer Adam Simms, in a document dated 11 July, used to justify further detention of Dr Haneef, asserted that continued detention of Haneef was necessary to “(i) preserve evidence; (ii) obtain evidence; and (iii) to complete the investigation.” Three days later, on July 14, a senior AFP officer, Ramzi Jabbour, in a document filed in the bail hearing, said that if Dr Haneef were granted bail he could have destroyed potentially incriminating evidence that has not yet been located, and organise for others to provide innocent explanations for potentially incriminating evidence. In short, the AFP appears to have done a 180 degree turn on the issue of preservation of evidence. On 3 July it did not regard the need to preserve evidence to be a ground on which Dr Haneef should be continued to be detained, but on 11 July and 14 July it had changed its mind. There is nothing on the public record, or in the volumes of material just released under FOI which explains this change of attitude. Did Kevin Andrews ignore AFP advice? On 18 July last year, former Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews told a media conference that in making his decision to cancel Dr Haneef’s visa he “carefully examine[d] what the Federal Police provided to me and on the basis of the information from the Federal Police and then looking at the criteria in the migration legislation, I came to the conclusion that I should revoke his Visa.” One of the documents released under FOI is an AFP Case Note dated 14 July. It notes that an AFP agent, whose name has been blacked out, “contacted the DIAC BNE Manager Compliance”. This is shorthand for the Department of Immigration and Citizenship Manager of Compliance in the Brisbane office. The AFP agent stated while DIAC could “choose to cancel the visa” of Dr Haneef, the AFP agent “further stated that he believed a person’s visa would not normally be cancelled as a result of criminal charges.” It is reasonable to assume that the AFP’s view about not cancelling visas in these circumstances would have been conveyed to Mr Andrews. So why then did he ignore it in this case, particularly given the paucity of evidence against Dr Haneef and the obvious weakness of the case against him which was exactly why Ms Payne granted him bail? Tension between the AFP and the Queensland Police? An email dated 27 July from the AFP deals with the placement of Dr Haneef in a residence in the riverside Brisbane area of Kangaroo Point. The author, whose name has been blacked out, wants the recipient to pass on a message to the Queensland Police about how it deals with Dr Haneef while he is under detention in Kangaroo Point. “Due to the media scrutiny this matter has experienced it would be pertinent that no action/behaviour by QPS officers could be perceived as being harassment.” Of course this comment begs the question of whether or not Dr Haneef had been harassed or treated inappropriately by any police officers up to that point. And it seems to assume that if there were no media scrutiny of the Haneef case, there would not be the same level of concern for Dr Haneef’s welfare. |
|
|
9 Comments
Given the revelation that Dr Haneef had been in close touch with his cousins who turned out to be terrorists, Kevin Andrews in his capacity as Immigration Minister acted properly and responsibly in exercising his discretion to cancel Dr Haneef’s visa.
Please keep pursuing issues of justice, few others are doing so. This whole affair and Andrew’s part in it is a shameful stain on our collective conscience.
Ralph
Greg Barnes did not notice the British gov’t deporting one of Haneef’s terrorist cousins’ relatives out of the country because he coul dnot be trusted due to his terror links. An innocent man does not try to flee the country and then lies when stopped from leaving. What explanation does Greg Barnes and other terrorists’ friends (or useful idiots as Comrade Stalin called such fools) have for Haneef leaving an Australian registered SIM card with his terrorist cousins in UK? They certainly did not need the card for financial reasons so surely it was to avoid detection while planning their psychopathic mass murder attempt. Explain it Barnesy or bugger off and take the other idiots with you. And David Hicks was an innocent tourist - though I notice the terror portectors have gone abit cold on him - bit like innocent Chappelle Corby.
So Greg Barnes, lawyer, resorts to politicallies to sustain his mythical case against Howard government. Kevin Andrewsa did not “interfere” with Haneef’s visa simply because of criminal charges. Surely Barnsy can be truthful enough to acknowledge that as the Minister, Kevin Andrews had power to cancel visas on basis of his own judgement over character of the visa holder and the opinons of others are essentially irrelevant. Kevin Andrews, as then Minister, exercised his power well to cancel the visa of a man connected to terrorists and who tried to flee the country, lying as to his reasons yet never satisfactorily explaining why his cousins needed his SIM card or why he lied.
That this matter has shown the AFP to be incompetent is widely accepted. The question is did Kevin Andrews lie to the australian people? If he thus wilfully abused his powers for political ends then we need to know. Unfortunately Rudd & Co will play the political game but that is the essential question that needs to be answered and not opinionated on.
It amazes me every time how the truth seems to come out despite earnest efforts to suppress it, and the repetition by some of old lies that have been long exposed, like the WMD`s!
At it`s height (or is it it`s low) the case against Haneef attracted about 600 agents with resources to match, and it`s reported that there are still a number of police assigned, all at taxpayers` money, long after the whole sorry and shameful affair has been exposed as a crude frame-up. Clearly, politically, there was a lot at stake for the Government, or they would not have risked a popular backlash, much less an international incident. I believe there were two reasons: 1. To create a climate af fear and uncertainty during an election campaign which could have easily gone either way, and 2. To show some results for the 20-odd `anti-terrorism` laws passed with the acquiescence of the Opposition, about which the public was getting increasingly sceptical. That is the reason that Dr. Haneef is still hounde
Question is Tony, will you bare your bum in Bourke street if Andrews is found to have acted politically rather than truthfully and fairly. Your assertion of the sim card holds no water. If it was so dangerous, one would have simply thrown it away. Given the widely known “anti-terror” laws’ power and implications at the time, anyone who may have been caught up in it would have made some attempt to be at arms length from it, so Haneef’s alleged action is not so surprising. To me, none of these actions are”terror” related, but to you, they are enough for a conviction.
Come on, people: how many of you have had relatives in jail? Or relatives who are a bit dodgy, or even relatives whom you don’t like? Pointing at Haneef’s cousins and saying he’s one of them is a bit rich, isn’t it? Or should we arrest Dr James Wright because he is Chopper Read’s uncle?
Bill Clinton’s brother was a drunken cheque bouncer who did time-even while Clinton was president. George Bush’s daughters are convicted underage drinkers with criminal records. Come off it Tony Papafilis-put up your proof or shut up. Even the AFP with million dollar budgets and hundreds of their goons couldn’t pin anything on Dr Haneef .It’s people like you that this country should be afraid of. As for Kevin Andrews you can excuse him all you want. The blokes out of office, out of power and for the high jump.