The AFP MUST BE ASKED why the investigating officers were not present at the bail hearing and where they were at the time.

Until that has finished and reports sent to McClelland the government should quite rightly say and do nothing.

“The problem with the Clarke inquiry is that it is not a “judicial inquiry”, a court of law or, more relevantly, a royal commission. Rather, it is an informal inquiry without the powers of a royal commission to procure files, compel witnesses to attend and give evidence and, most importantly, it has no ability to afford protection to witnesses for the evidence they may provide.

Nor, as an informal inquiry, and not a court of law, does the inquiry offer any right of appeal from its conclusions.

The Federal Government has maintained that a royal commission would be too expensive and take too long. There are many precedents for royal commissions meeting deadlines and being cost-effective.

Also, the Attorney-General has suggested that royal commission powers of investigation were not needed as all relevant agencies and key witnesses concerned have indicated a willingness to assist the inquiry.

While no one doubts the abilities of Clarke, it is not known whether his inquiry, without royal commission powers of investigation, will be able to gain all the files from relevant agencies and to ensure all witnesses come forward.

Experience suggests that when reputations, careers and organisational interests are at stake, voluntary co-operation quickly declines.

Persistent use of the term “judicial inquiry” may just reflect a lack of appreciation of this matter.”

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7333&page=0

“The term “judicial inquiry” is applied to the Clarke inquiry and similar inquiries such as royal commissions because such bodies are chaired by former or current judges or senior legal counsel.
In fact, although these inquiries, especially royal commissions, may have the outward trappings of courts, they are not “judicial” or courts in any way.
The problem with the Clarke inquiry is that it is not a “judicial inquiry”, a court of law or, more relevantly, a royal commission. Rather, it is an informal inquiry without the powers of a royal commission to procure files, compel witnesses to attend and give evidence and, most importantly, it has no ability to afford protection to witnesses for the evidence they may provide.”

That said thanks again for the information

Everybody believes what the prosecution and the police say and believe nothing said in defence of the “criminal” or the “terrorist”. This gives the Commonwealth and the State Crown a Licence to Lie and they exploit this advantage wherever possible.

The dearth of evidence is often buried behind secrecy provisions. We do not want to show you our evidence because then you will see we do not have any.

Much corruption is disguised as incompetence. This was not so much a cock-up or SNAFU but a Fit-up. The verbal, the bash and the load are alive and well in Australia.

Another politically inspired “Muslim-over-Board” from the Howard era comes home to roost. Mick Keelty should know that if you run with the foxes, you can get shot for your pelt.

As long as the Summum bonum rules, that black putrid thread that runs through Australian justice will continue to demand that nothing is sacred, no one is barred and no act is too low, as long as you can at least claim to be acting for the “greater good”.

In Australia the end does justify the means. The notion, “we got a conviction, they must have been guilty” is supported by all the Appellate Courts who look only at the veracity of the conviction in terms of the notion that the criminal must have been guilty anyhow and steadfastly refuse to consider the lawfulness of the means used to perpetrate the convictions obtained. Any unlawful and corrupt means are mere “lesser evils” tolerated and required to serve the “greater good”.

If the “mistakes” had not been discovered until after the trial and conviction of Haneef, no Appellate Court in Australia would have overturned the conviction. Haneef would have been just another Lindy Chamberlain.

“Kangaroo Justice” perpetrated in “Kangaroo Courts” will continue to be notorious throughout the civilized World as long as “due process of the law” remains as subjugated as the citizen. Welcome to Australia Dr Haneef.