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


“… I have received assurances from each of the relevant government agencies that they will fully co-operate with the Inquiry.”

This promised co-operation would allow Mr Clarke to provide an open Inquiry, subject to narrowly defined exceptions.

By July 9, 2008, things were not rosy and it appeared that Mr Clarke was not calling the shots: somebody or something was making Mr Clarke’s openness very difficult. He said:

Advertisement

“While the documents have, in the main, been delivered to the Inquiry, gaining access to the documents has involved a protracted period of negotiation. The delivery of the documents has, however, been on a confidential basis and the Inquiry has not been given authority to publish those which are classified.”

And so Mr Clarke has been forced to abandon an open Inquiry. The final word appears to be that Dr Haneef's lawyers and the general public will receive no information as to the evidence before the Inquiry until it is too late.

In our submissions, we drew upon a revealing fossil record (obtained mainly through FOI processes) and were able, with some guesswork, to cobble together to raise important issues that must be answered by agencies, officials and politicians. With very few resources, and little time allowed by the Inquiry’s guidelines, we put together 125 pages of analysis.

Submissions from agencies such as ASIO, the CDPP and the Queensland Police Service have confirmed many of our guesses and filled in some of the knowledge gaps. Though it has lodged a submission, the AFP maintains (at time of writing) that national security considerations prevent it from allowing one sentence of its submission be published by Mr Clarke.

However, in making final submissions on behalf of Dr Haneef, we will not have the benefit of knowing what questions were asked of witnesses nor what answers they gave. We will have no further documents apart from those we are continuing to seek and obtain by FOI processes.

As a result, we will be able to provide only limited assistance to Mr Clarke as to how or why Dr Haneef was subjected to the indignities he experienced over 26 days in July 2007.

Advertisement

Such a set of circumstances does not constitute Mr Rudd’s “full judicial Inquiry”.

Recent developments

A letter we received from the AFP’s lawyers on July 4, 2008 revealed, at the request of counsel assisting the Clarke Inquiry, five transcripts of interviews between Dr Haneef and the investigating police officers. Dr Haneef's lawyers had never been told of these transcripts. In fact, the AFP had written to them in September 2007, saying: “… the AFP has complied with its obligations … and to this end your firm has been given copies of all the audio records of interviews … as well as the associated transcripts”.

Obviously, they hadn’t complied with their obligations at all.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 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