So much for Rudd's 'full judicial inquiry'

The long delayed transcripts reveal that, when Dr Haneef was first arrested and offered to have a lawyer present, he stated at least twice that he wanted a lawyer. He was not provided with a lawyer and the interview proceeded without one.

They also reveal that, although part 1C allows a detained person or his lawyers to make submissions to a magistrate who is hearing applications under part 1C, Dr Haneef was never given an opportunity to make submissions himself.

Further documents may yet come from the AFP despite legal obligations to have provided them, earlier. Recently, we have been advised by the AFP’s lawyers that there may be some thousands of documents held by the AFP which have not even been considered by the AFP when processing our original FOI application. These documents had also been overlooked when processing our request for internal review under the FOI Act. We are trying to ascertain whether these same documents were ignored when deciding which documents should be provided to Mr Clarke.

We have, of course, received submissions from the Queensland Police Service; ASIO and the Office of the CDPP. I will let you decide whether the submissions from the Attorney-General’s Department and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship are worth anything other than raw material for the next Hollow Men episode.

Interestingly, none of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet; the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; or the Australian Customs Service bothered to provide a submission.

Mr Keelty’s moment on the road to Damascus

At 4.35pm, on August 29, my instructing solicitors received a letter from the lawyers acting for the AFP. The media noted how the public announcement, nine minutes later, was attempted to be snuck through with no fanfare, as late as possible, on a day when many of Australia’s journalists were on strike.

I want to mention, very briefly, the niggardly, mealy-mouthed and ungracious language used in the documents. The letter and the press release conclude with the words: “At the present time, there is insufficient evidence to institute proceedings against Dr Haneef for any criminal offence.”

There is no apology for the 14 months of negative impacts on Dr Haneef's life and reputation. There is no use of the words: “Our investigation has cleared Dr Haneef.” It appears to be a last attempt by an agency, which has an inability to apologise or admit error, to leave one last, nasty slur on the character of Dr Haneef.

Mr Keelty and the AFP should be called to account for the manner and content of their announcement as well as the 14 months of investigation that preceded it.

Conclusion

Dr Haneef's case raises some of the great conundrums faced by a consideration of law and its application. The law was not obeyed by the authorities. Is this the fault of the law or the authorities? Do we rewrite the law or do we restructure the authorities?

I make some very tentative observations.

The test required to be satisfied, to arrest under s.3W of the Crimes Act, reasonable satisfaction that the person has committed the offence, is a good test. I do not think it was applied. Nor does the evidence suggest that the requirement that one must release, if the reasonable satisfaction evaporates, was ever adverted to.