Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

So much for Rudd's 'full judicial inquiry'

By Stephen Keim - posted Monday, 29 September 2008


By the close of the following day Dr Haneef provided full explanations of the matters that may have given rise to suspicion. All of the factual matters were either confirmed by documents in their hands or easily checkable by a few phone calls to the Gold Coast; to India; and to the UK.

There is very little evidence that the checking was done. There is evidence that the most exculpatory information, like the calls to Mr Webster and the Kafeel email, was either ignored or suppressed. The duty in s.3W(2) to release Dr Haneef, if a reasonable belief was no longer available, seems to have been either not adverted to or ignored.

It seems that important decisions in this case were being made by management and not by the investigators who were being asked to make the arrests and the detention order applications.

Advertisement

Options, options, options

Dr Haneef's lawyers always assumed that the decision his visa be cancelled, thereby, facilitating his continued detention, was a panic stricken response to the sudden prospect that he might be granted bail.

However, a different picture is portrayed in the submissions.

On July 3, the day after Dr Haneef's arrest, the minutes of the whole of government National Counter Terrorism Committee show discussion about the prospect of seeking a Protective Detention Order (PDO) for Dr Haneef. The consensus of this and later discussions was that there was insufficient evidence to support these options.

The continued detention without charge under part 1C Crimes Act was seen as a good stop gap measure. However, orders for this form of detention were not seen as being available indefinitely, and the documents reveal a plea to the AFP in the UK to seek evidence from the UK authorities to support a PDO.

Into this series of discussions, the option of immigration detention thrusts its face on July 8 when non-secret and secret briefs from the AFP to Minister Andrews were revealed which would allow him to cancel the visa. They were updated a number of times.

The new picture then is one of immigration detention to detain Dr Haneef being an option along with PDOs; detention without charge; bringing a criminal charge; and control orders, at least from July 8 and probably from an earlier date. The prime advantage of the visa cancellation option seems to have been that neither the Department, nor Mr Andrews, who made the decision, placed a high bar on the standard of evidence required.

Advertisement

As it turned out, the non-secret evidence that Mr Andrews accepted indicated that the highly selective version of a chat room conversation between Dr Haneef and his brother that Mr Andrews released, that day, was the whole of that chat room conversation.

Mr Clarke’s Inquiry

Mr Clarke and his team are working very hard to discover the truth as to how what happened to Dr Haneef was able to happen. However, Mr Clarke’s job has not been made easy and his Inquiry is not the full judicial Inquiry that the present prime minister repeatedly promised.

It is not even the semi-open virtual Inquiry that Mr Clarke, himself, promised. On April 30, 2008, in his opening statement, he said:

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

This article is an edited version of a talk given by the author - The Clarke Inquiry in Progress: Tentative Observations for Reform, notes for a talk at the Federal Criminal Law Conference, at the Hilton Hotel, Sydney on September 5, 2008. Read the full article here (PDF 132KB). First published at Justinian.com.au in September 2008.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

5 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Stephen Keim has been a legal practitioner for 30 years, the last 23 of which have been as a barrister. He became a Senior Counsel for the State of Queensland in 2004. Stephen is book reviews editor for the Queensland Bar Association emagazine Hearsay. Stephen is President of Australian Lawyers for Human Rights and is also Chair of QPIX, a non-profit film production company that develops the skills of emerging film makers for their place in industry.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Stephen Keim

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 5 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy