Plumbing the depths on Haneef
Michelle Grattan
July 27, 2007/the AGE (this morning, before the DPP's announcement)
Illustration: John Dyson
.......
Haneef has encountered the worst and best of Australian justice and attitudes. He was held for nearly 12 days under the new terrorism law, to be eventually charged for handing over the SIM card. When a Queensland magistrate granted him bail, Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews at once revoked his visa on "character" grounds, meaning he'd be put into immigration detention if he was bailed.
Meanwhile, mistakes and discrepancies were discovered in the material relating to the caseHaneef found himself in the land of Kafka. The Government was in a more political place, playing to national security. By innuendo and directly, it painted Haneef as a bad man. But public opinion was sceptical and sections of the media persistent.
On Wednesday, Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Damian Bugg, QC, announced that he would personally review the evidence. (In a nice twist, Bugg's brother Tim, Law Council of Australia president, has been leading the push to uphold Haneef's rights.) The DPP was sensibly covering his back, given the confusion and controversy, and today will reveal how he has decided.
The review could presage the dropping of the charge and collapse of the case.
The Government expected the Haneef affair to play better politically than it has. Prime Minister John Howard was careful in his words, but his message was unmistakeable.
"I will make no comment at all on the substance of the allegations
I will compliment the police on their assiduous work. I will say that Dr Haneef is entitled, like any other person, to a presumption of innocence," he said on July 14.
He went on: "All of this is a reminder that terrorism is a global threat. You can't pick and choose where you fight terrorism. You can't say I'll fight it over there but I won't fight it here. It's also fair to say that the anti-terrorism laws that this Government has enacted are all, to their very last clause needed
If we need to strengthen them, we will
But I am not going to make any comment about Dr Haneef's case."
Howard is a master of the art of the highly interpretative no comment.
Andrews didn't worry too much about the presumption of innocence. "On
advice provided to me by the Australian Federal Police, I reasonably suspect an association with persons involved in criminal conduct, namely terrorism," he said on July 16. He insisted this went beyond simply being a relative. The visa test is a matter of ministerial discretion, not legal proof, but the fact remains that Andrews, and so the Government, trashed Haneef's reputation with those comments.
If the charge was dropped, or not proved, where would this leave Haneef? Stuck with the label of bad character, when possibly his main sin was to have been unfortunate in his relatives. Imagine what the Andrews assessment would do to Haneef's later career and chances of travelling.
The Government says it will deport him even if he faces no charge, claiming there is secret evidence (a nervous Andrews has been asking the AFP to recheck its material). Meanwhile, it is going to amazing lengths to beat up on Labor over Haneef. In an extraordinary statement yesterday, Andrews seized on comments from Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd and his deputy Julia Gillard agreeing with the Government's handling of the visa issue. People deserved more than "cheap talk", Andrews said, challenging Rudd to say what he'd do as prime minister. This was desperate stuff.
Both Government and critics are now saying there should be a fresh look at the anti-terrorism legislation.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/new-low-on-haneef/2007/07/26/1185339162544.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
)
I, too, have a feeling that there's more to this than meets the eye. But what? No idea. No doubt we'll find out before too long! It'll be interesting to see what does happen with the pipeline now. Any predictions?
