Kevin Andrews is a sanctimonious, god-bothering twerp who acted as John Howard's cypher in torpedoing the Northern Territory's ground-breaking (if slightly flawed) euthanasia legislation some years ago. In fact, he's one of the few politicians on either side whom I instinctively dislike.
But I must say, in light of the just-released information about Dr Haneef's chatroom conversation with his brother the day before he tried to leave Australia and was arrested, that a lot of people owe Andrews an apology. AFP errors in relation to where Haneef's SIM card was found; whether he flatted with cousins in the UK; and whether he had given an explanation for his attempted departure from Australia; certainly together justified the dropping of charges against him (as did the more central factor of whether it could be proved that he knew about the terrorist propensities of his relations when he handed over the SIM card). But the contents of the chatroom conversation (if true) are suspicious as all hell, and in themselves justify both the refusal to reinstate his visa and keeping him under the closest surveillance.
Indeed, even if the Federal Court quashes Andrews' original decision to cancel Haneef's visa (as it may well do, because it was clearly based on several jurisdictional errors, namely the taking into account of the irrelevant/incorrect information outlined above), in my view Andrews (or an acting Immigration Minister whose decision cannot so easily be legally impugned) should reconsider the matter and again cancel Haneef's visa under section 501. It is almost impossible to imagine an innocent explanation for the reported chatroom conversation (assuming it occurred as alleged).
This should be an object lesson to all those who rushed to judgment without being in possession of all the facts.
On the other hand, it's difficult to see a principled justification for the AFP and DPP's withholding these allegations from Haneef and his lawyers. No doubt it falls legally under the classification of "protected information" that can lawfully be withheld under existing anti-terrorism legislation. But that simply underlines the inadequate protections in that legislation. Can it really be convincingly argued that any genuinely secret sources of intelligence would have been compromised by disclosing this information before now? You don't need a PhD to realise that authorities would certainly be monitoring all sources of communication (including email, mobile phones and Internet chatrooms) that might possibly be used by any terrorism suspect as soon as the identity of that suspect is known. Unless both Haneef and his lawyers were complete fools, they would already have contemplated the probability that the authorities were aware of all communications occurring within a day or two of his arrest. In those circumstances, what was gained by withholding the information and denying him the opportunity to advance any explanation he might have had for the conversation? If intelligence sources would not have been compromised (as I think is clearly the case), then basic principles of natural justice should have required that the substance of these allegations be disclosed to him before his visa was cancelled. ((Update - it now appears that the chatroom information WAS disclosed to the bail magistrate, so Haneef was not denied natural justice in this respect. In addition, I should also note that the decision to cancel Haneef's visa was made under section 501(3) of the Migration Act, which doesn't require natural justice to be afforded prior to a cancellation decision, but requires an opportunity to be heard after the event ~ KP))
The immediate political consequences of these revelations are unclear. Rudd has backed the Howard government's actions to date, and still hasn't backed away from that stance, despite having backtracked to an extent yesterday. Presumably he was briefed on the protected information some of which has now been revealed. That makes his refusal to criticise the government easier to comprehend in principled terms rather than just as "wedge avoidance". Nevertheless, these revelations may reinforce for the average punter the fact that Islamic terrorism is a real threat for Australia, contrary to the glib assumptions of many on the left. That could conceivably reinforce an already detectable poll trend back to the Coalition.
'It is almost impossible to imagine an innocent explanation for the reported chatroom conversation (assuming it occurred as alleged).'
(1) I can imagine an innocent explanation without the slightest difficulty: Haneef and his brother had a very realistic expectation of the kind of shit that would hit the fan once people started to build a circumstantial case against him. Exactly as subsequently happened. So they sensibly decided the best course of action was for Haneef to hightail it for home until they could see how things developed. I've never had a cousin try to blow up an airport but if I did and there was circumstantial evidence that I might have known about it in advance, I suspect I might be inclined to panic just a little bit too.
(2) Nobody knows how the conversation occurred because we haven't been told. It's a 'computer room conversation', whatever that is. It reads like an awkward translation from another language and we know nothing about the context. If someone got hold of my IM conversations they could cherry pick bits to make out I'm guilty of just about anything, and I write in English (sort of).
If and when the British (where the crime, if any, actually occurred) and Indian (unless someone thinks the Indian government is now into harbouring Muslim terrorists) governments show an interest in questioning and/or charging Haneef I'll believe he might be guilty of something apart from having unfortunate relatives. Until then I'll believe this is all political grandstanding.
And I've yet to hear a convincing explanation of why we didn't simply detain him until the Brits decided whether they wanted to extradite him. They're the ones who had loonies trying to blow things up. If they didn't want to charge him, WTF did it have to do with us?
Too true, Ken. I've been trying to get this message thru to the censorious neo-Stalinists over at Larva Prod. Harry Clarke is one of the few bloggers who has got this one right.
Absolutely, utterly, dead wrong.
There is a perfectly innocent explanation for Haneef's behaviour: he wanted to avoid getting caught up in a justice system that could detain him indefinitely without being charged. If I was in a foreign country and one of my relatives did something equally as stupid as his, I'd be just as frightened. It turns out, he was right to be frightened, as he *did* get caught up in a politicised incarceration.
Andrews on Lateline this evening was pathetic. Same tired old scripted lines, no evidence other than a very biased and opportunistic reading of a chat room transcript. The whole episode is shameful. Andrews ought to be sacked, but Howard won't do it because there is still advantage in having darkies on the TV with blood dripping from their fangs. The only scary participant is Andrews.
I wouldn't make a judgement on excerpts. Surely you have to see the context. As any historian knows, you can make up almost anything if you are carefully selective. You are giving the authorities the benefit of the doubt. Do they warrant confidence? There is a case for independent review.
Rudd has no choice but to be responsible, given he doesn't have the primary reading, or have to make the call. He can't indulge himself like normal folk, who have found the whole thing distracting, an apparent farce unfolding live. Will Haneef go down in Indian history as a celebrated citizen, liberated from a pernicious Australian election conspiracy, or will a darker side yet appear to fully substantiate the Howard government's action-packed adventure?
I keep thinking the evidence will be like kids overboard. Labels will have been dropped off, dates changed. Don't tell me they have done a deadly double-think, and played straight? You can't trust 'em, I tell ya.
A question I've put twice, hoping one of our laws can answer it, is whether there is any reason why all of this information, plus Haneef's explanation, wouldn't have been available to the bail magistrate. If Ken P is right that chat room correspondence justifies keeping him under the closest surveillance, how could he not have been a bail risk? Maybe I've got this worng, but doesn't bail depend on the nature of the charges and the implied danger to the community of letting the accused remain at large, rather than on the strength of the prosecution case at the time charges are laid?
Ken
Great.... terrific bloody post. The best on the web.
KenL
Not for nothing, but it was only a few hours after the first attempted bomb attack in London and a few hours before the second attack you were out at Road To Insanity ( Ok Surfdom) implying the fist bomb attempt was a stage managed act by the new UK PM to garner public acceptance for the Iraqi war and continued support for Bush. The timing-a few hours before before the 2nd attempt was impressive. It sounded like a bit of stretch to me but then again the site supports that sort of thing and who am I to judge.
Have you eaten a few kilos of humble pie/crow yet and apologized. If you haven't done so, you reckon you ought to be speculating on the meaning of those chatroom discussions. This isn't beginning of another one of those conspiracy theories you and the Aussie Bobster are flying over there, is it?
Just asking KenL. Not meant to place you in any corner here.
"AFP errors in relation to where Haneefs SIM card was found;" are now explained here http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22167403-23109,00.html Oops, sorry say the UK Police. Now where has that AFP are Keystone Cops bloke got to?
...hoping one of our lawyers can answer it..., I mean.
The evidence released by Andrews is perfectly susceptible of a benign interpretation, and in fact theres nothing in it but suspicion to justify any belief that he did pose a danger to this countrys citizens. It seems that the most obvious interpretation is that he and his family were aware that he could get caught up in a web by virtue of the SIM card, and that he might have found it prudent to leave the country. It doesnt show that he was associated in a criminal sense with his cousins, just that he was aware of the sort of net that was likely to be cast. Rightly, as it turned out. And it doesnt exclude a primary reason for his departure being to see his daughter.
The Act specifically denies natural justice, and as pointed out by the Solicitor-General, doesnt need a criminal association or knowledge of criminality to be made out, just an association.
Haneef it seems is guilty of having relatives.
We dont need to paint his behaviour either as perfectly rational (the whole thing about whether or not he applied for leave or not implies indecision to me) and nor do we have to suggest hes some sort of angel from heaven. What we can say on the basis of the information the public now have is that theres very little basis for the governments attempt to smear him and destroy his character and livelihood.
I dont believe that there is an answer from the government and its supporters yet to this question - why was it necessary for Andrews to cancel his visa when as a condition of bail he would have had to surrender his passport? And he could still be watched by the AFP. If indeed there was a good faith belief that he had terrorist associations, such a course (which is routine for suspects on bail) would be a far more fruitful way of bringing more evidence to light than incarcerating him in Villawood, which was Andrews' intention.
Please enlighten me.
Mark
Do you know the exact contents of the chatroom stuff?
Mark Bahnish says:
"What we can say on the basis of the information the public now have is that theres very little basis for the governments attempt to smear him and destroy his character and livelihood."
Don't be such a monkey's arse. Haneef is now a hero in India. His reputation is only damaged in a country three thousand kilometres away that is the last stop to the South Pole.
Haneef can now rake in money from television, print media and there might even be a book in it. I'm sure he cried all the way to the bank with his Sixty Minutes cheque.
For God's sake Mark, take some valium but be sure to spare some for TigTog and the other LP luvvies.
Here is Andrew's full statement of the so-called "Chatroom Conversation"
http://www.smh.com.au/pdf/haneefpdf.pdf
You'd have to say as a result of this news, the AFP were perfectly correct in putting the information received from UK police before the Court, in order to detain and investigate Haneef further, in light of the fact that time was of the essence for any investigation to uncover any more potential villains and their plans. As it turned out that information proved to be incorrect, but not to use it as part of proceedings to justify detaining Haneef longer at the time, would have been negligent. The case for a conspiracy by the AFP and the Govt has now completely unravelled.
thanks Frank.
Well if what Andrews is saying is true... case closed. Or rather Haneef has a few questions to answer and maybe 60 Mins ought to be stopping the cheque in case they get accused of financially supporting potential terror threats.
What I heard Andrews read out in the extended vision on the 7 30 Report, Joe. His defence have pointed out that the chatroom conversations were put to him by the Federal Police but Andrews hasn't released the transcript of that interview. Therefore, the one important datum we don't know is how Haneef himself explained those conversations.
So, contrary to what Ken's suggesting, anyone relying on Andrews' stuff alone is jumping to conclusions without full possession of the facts.
If Andrews has a good faith belief that he's a terrorist, I'd also be interested in how our country's security is served by now allowing him to return home where presumably we won't be able to keep track of him if he does do something.
As to Melaleuca and his comments about luvvies, if you could refrain from calling others' opinions stupid and people the "most obtuse and hysterical boutique leftist" I'd be quite happy to entertain your contribution to a civilised discussion of the issue. But the way in which you, and others like Harry Clarke with his claims about "deranged leftists" both impugn everyone who doesn't agree with you and your slavish trust in whatever the government line is and the way that you constantly harp on about "the left" suggests that to many who claim to be deeply concerned about national security their real level of interest only rises when they think they can score cheap political points domestically.
So, contrary to what Kens suggesting, anyone relying on Andrews stuff alone is jumping to conclusions without full possession of the facts.
True, but I really think Andrews would be in serious trouble if he is lying now. That's a low delta I think. I couldn't imagine anything dumber.
------------------------
If Andrews has a good faith belief that hes a terrorist, Id also be interested in how our countrys security is served by now allowing him to return home where presumably we wont be able to keep track of him if he does do something.
True. great point.
My guess.... I not a lawyer.... but it would be too difficult to prove in a court. The legal guys would know better. Dunno.
I'll re-post here my comment on LP:
Andrews was just on Lateline.
His closing statement was something like: The subsequent information, some of which I released today, it wasnt information I relied on, only served to confirm my suspicions.
I find this quite telling. Its very similar to Andrews claim that Haneefs sudden departure after Andrews handed him his passport and a plane ticket only heightens my suspicions.
Another thing Andrews found suspicious was Haneefs decision to start holding press conferences in India, but not hold any in Australia. This is quite ridiculous. It was my understanding that Andrews department was doing its best to prevent contact between Haneef and the press, not just in Australia, but also even on the plane to India, by upgrading Haneef at the last minute and moving all of the journalists to the upper deck of the plane, well away from Haneef.
My best guess is that there never was any secret information. Andrews is doing his best to manufacture justifications after the fact. The more he does it, though, the sillier he looks.
Don't be dishonest, Mark. I myself identify with the Left. It is the "boutique left" that raises my ire. You happily entertain comments from Leftists that call Howard "ratty", Noel Pearson "Uncle Tom the Coconut" and so on.
Get off that soap box and admit you can't cope with criticism.
Andrews only needed reasonable suspicion to revoke Haneef's visa. In spite of the hysterical wailing from you, Tig Tog and some other LP contributors, Andrews clearly acted with prudence and proprietary.
I don't think Andrews is lying. He's being very selective about what he's releasing. A lot of the AFP interview transcripts are already in the public domain, and it would be reasonable to allow people to read what Haneef had to say in response to the evidence of the chat room discussion put to him.
I do think Andrews (and Ken) are jumping to conclusions which may well be unwarranted on the basis of what has been released.
It may be that Andrews still thinks he's probably a terrorist. I suspect he's deluding himself, but that's not the same thing as lying.
It's a worry, anyway, when all we have for all of this is the untrained view of a Minister. I can't see how we'd be any less safe if there was some legal input into these decisions, rather than just executive fiat.
I really am interested in whether anyone can let me know why locking the guy up in Villawood would have been preferable to keeping him under surveillance while on bail and thus possibly gathering harder evidence is the best way to go.
I really don't think anything in this episode should give anyone any confidence about how this mob of clowns would be able to act effectively if there were a credible threat in Australia of terrorism. We might be being protected more by luck and distance and obscurity than anything else.
I doubt he even knows what 'luvvies' means, Mark. Don't let it get to you.
Andrews claimed on Lateline just now that the chatroom extract released was substantially the whole of the conversation. Since he must know that he'd be unmasked if that claim is false, we can reasonably conclude that it is true. Thus it isn't "selective".
There might be an innocent explanation if you're an extraordinarily credulous person. But if the handing over of the SIM card was such an innocent (and therefore trivial) event, it's hard to imagine why it would have been regarded as sufficiently vitally important for his (guilty of terrorism) cousins' mother to be warning Haneef's brother about the fact that it had been used in a "project", so that the brother was motivated to contact Haneef urgently and warn him to flee from Australia. In fact it's difficult to credit that they would even have remembered that the event had occurred at all if it really was innocent - after all the famiy had an awful lot of much more important things on their minds. At the very least, an innocent explanation for that sequence of events looks a tad stretched and implausible. It certainly could not negate a reasonable suspicion on Andrews' part that Haneef had a deeply troubling association with terrorists, and as far as both the law and my own conscience are concerned that's well and truly enough to cancel his visa and remove him from the country ASAP.
There might well have been other ways in which the government could have secured the situation that would have avoided keeping Haneef in custody after the magistrate had granted bail (e.g. close surveillance). But given the nature of the information and suspicions (and don't forget we still don't know all of the protected information), I don't have the slightest qualm about Andrews erring on the side of caution and keeping him in immigration detention by cancelling his visa on character grounds. If I had been in possession of that information I would certainly have done the same.
Moreover, and contrary to an assumption in my primary post, it appears that the chatroom conversation allegations WERE put to Haneef in his second record of interview, which hasn't yet been released. That seemed to be suggested in Andrews' Lateline interview just now. Thus he wasn't denied natural justice. I don't know the timing of the second record of interview i.e. whether it took place early enough for evidence canvassed in it to be put before the magistrate who granted bail. I agree that the question of why this material was not put before the magistrate is one that needs to be pursued and answered. On the face of it, it would appear to be evidence that might well have persuaded the magistrate to refuse bail. As I understood Andrews on Lateline, he seemed to be saying that this was evidence that was obtained fairly late in the piece, and which did not form part of the basis of his initial decision to cancel the visa.
How about an argument or two, Mel, rather than political bluster and unsubstantiated assertion?
Mark Bahnisch writes: "So, contrary to what Kens suggesting, anyone relying on Andrews stuff alone is jumping to conclusions without full possession of the facts."
How many near-hysterical anti-government Haneef posts were written by LP bloggers operating "without full possession of the facts"?
Ken, I'd make three points in response:
(1) the point I've made repeatedly - why cancel his visa then? There was no danger of him fleeing. His passport had been confiscated. What was the urgency? Would there not have been more gain in surveillance while he was on bail?
(2) The key thing with the record of interview is that we have the conversation (possibly translated from Hindi - do we know that?) but not Haneef's explanation. A large number of conversations which people don't believe are being monitored lack context, obviously. Such conversations require interpretation - that's why we have intelligence officers. Andrews is just a pollie - why is his judgement the sole judgement privileged by the Act?
(3) If he believed that he was likely to get caught up in the investigation by virtue of the SIM card, it's entirely rational to believe that he and his family were frightened of what might occur to him. Rightly, as I said.
Ken Says: "Andrews claimed on Lateline just now that the chatroom transcript released was substantially the whole of the conversation. Since he must know that hed be unmasked if that claim is false, we can reasonably conclude that it is true. Thus it isnt selective."
Ken, given the history of this case, and the way everything so far has collapsed after only a few days, that's a remarkably brave assertion.
I don't know, J F Beck, perhaps you've counted them and put up a post on your not at all hysterical blog?
Why is it impossible for those supporting Andrews on this to resist taking pot shots at lefties? Are you really concerned about discussing the best way to ensure that we're protected against terrorists or about scoring points? No need to answer. The question is rhetorical.
Mark Bahnisch says:
"It may be that Andrews still thinks hes probably a terrorist. I suspect hes deluding himself, but thats not the same thing as lying."
Again you make a fool of yourself. All the minister needed was "reasonable suspicion" to revoke Haneef's visa. The Solicitor General's advisory letter kindly supplied to us by Frank furnishes all the grounds necessary for reasonable suspicion to exist.
Your calls for the release of Haneef's interview transcripts is a mere red herring. It is irrelevant in the context of the substantive evidence contained in the Solicitor General's letter.
Ken, you directed part of your last response to me, but it had nothing to do with what I was asking.
The Solicitor-General's advice is advice to the Minister about whether he acted within the law. It doesn't contain "substantive evidence" and indeed a lot of it is devoted to establishing that the word "association" in the Act doesn't need to encompass either "criminal association" or knowledge of criminality. The advice extensively reviews the case law on this. That basically says to the Minister that he acted within his powers, but it doesn't prove anything about Haneef. As Andrew Bartlett's suggested, it's the Act here that's at fault.
I'd invite you to either re-read the advice without preconceptions, or reconsider your propensity to call others fools.
MB, rather than speculate I've written not a single word on Dr Haneef.I've been biding my time while the situation developed.
Oh and by the way, I note that the latest LP post doesn't link back to any of the more embarrassing LP posts. You know, like how the AFP are incompetent for massively fucking up the SIM card evidence. It's you guys who have the splainin' to do.
James
Your question was:
"A question Ive put twice, hoping one of our laws can answer it, is whether there is any reason why all of this information, plus Haneefs explanation, wouldnt have been available to the bail magistrate."
I answered it by saying:
(1) I don't know;
(2) It's at least possible that the second interview occurred too late for references to it to be included in the affidavit material put before the bail magistrate. However, as I said, I don't know and I agree that it's a question that should be pursued and answered by the DPP and/or AFP.
I can explain, J F Beck. Media reports were incorrect.
Just to clarify things for Melaleuca. The Solicitor-General is not forming a judgement on either the rightness of the Minister's actions or the worth of the evidence. He is advising on whether the Minister could revoke the visa on the basis of the evidence given the powers the Minister has under the Act. That's the significance of the lengthy discussion of the definition of "association". There was no evidence of criminal association or knowledge of criminal acts, but the Minister could nevertheless legally form the view that Haneef was of "bad character".
That should be of concern.
It doesn't suggest anything as to whether Haneef was a terrorist or knew of the acts in advance, though.
2) Its at least possible that the second interview occurred too late for references to it to be included in the affidavit material put before the bail magistrate. However, as I said, I dont know and I agree that its a question that should be pursued and answered by the DPP and/or AFP.
Ken, could the government have gone back again to court if the new evidence came in after the first case? Are there any restrcitions on this, such as double jeapody etc or technicl legal points of law?
Bahnisch says:
"It doesnt contain substantive evidence and indeed a lot of it is devoted to establishing that the word association in the Act doesnt need to encompass either criminal association or knowledge of criminality."
I did not say Andrews acted on the letter itself, but the letter details the evidence that made Andrews' decision correct. A Labor Government would have made exactly the same decision and you know it. You are engaged in nothing more than partisan point scoring.
I hope like hell Howard loses the next election but I find this carry on over Haneef absurdly overblown.
JC
I'm not a criminal law expert, but on first principles I imagine the DPP could have returned to court and sought either a variation of bail conditions or revocation of bail on the basis of new evidence. It's not a matter of double jeopardy because there has been no finding of guilt. However, in practical terms there was no need to seek revocation of bail, because Haneef's visa had been cancelled so that he would be in immigration detention anyway if and when he posted bail. Of course, one might well argue that seeking revocation of bail would have been the preferable course of action if indeed the information about the chatroom conversation only came to light late in the piece, rather than relying on administrative action by the Minister for Immigration. But that doesn't mean the Minister's action was improper, especially if (as both Andrews and the AFP claim) there is additional protected information that would compromise an ongong investigation if prematurely revealed.
So you're happy that the Minister can make a decision based on evidence which basically boils down to the fact that Haneef had relatives who were dodgy, and other relatives who were advising him not to get caught up in the shitstorm that hit him?
That's my interpretation, and not Andrews' obviously, but there was zero evidence of criminality or criminal association or foreknowledge of the acts. None. Zip.
And you're happy basically to leave such enormous executive discretion in the hands of a Minister (who as Ken correctly points out is a goose)?
Well, good on you for fighting the good fight against terrorism but forgive me if I don't want to sacrifice the rule of law and natural justice along with it, Mel.
And I don't accept that a Labor minister would have done the same. As I've argued repeatedly (with no response from Andrews' defenders), it would actually make more sense to let him out on bail and keep him under surveillance. His passport had been confiscated. He wasn't going anywhere.
Sorry, #36 was addressed to Melaleuca. Crossed with JC's comment.
I mean Ken's comment. Bed time obviously!
Melaleuca
You're going off on a red herring here. Mark B and others are quite correct about the nature and purpose of the Solicitor-General's advice. He was simply advising that the Minister's decision was legally open to him to make, both on the material available to him when he actually made it and on the additional material now available (including the chatroom conversation). Bennett expresses no opinion on whether the Minister's decision was the right one on its merits. That wasn't a question he was asked. Nor is there any reason why it should have been asked, or why Bennett's value/merits judgment as a lawyer should be preferred to that of the responsible Minister, whose job it is to make such decisions under the Act - and whose job it has for many years been to make such decisions including under the legislation in force under the Hawke and Keating governments.
Thanks Ken
Because this makes the thing a little curiouser .
It was Mark B or Sj who said brought a good point that needs to be examined that in light of the new information which why did they let the guy go and not charge him again?
Everyone commenting here appears to have accepted that migration law and anti-terrorism law are one and the same.
There still remains the issue where executive action can gazump judicial outcomes through the Migration Act. We have the police and all sorts of investigative arms to deal with issues like Haneef, even in areas like on-going surveillance. We don't need the use of interpretive migration law for it.
One of the interesting things of this whole episode is that since Andrews used his discretion through the Migration Act and created an exception the trial has become political.
Rather than being fought in the private space of the court room, guilt is being determined in the public space. There have been leaks galore into the media, appearances on TV etc. This is a continuation of that process as has all the postings on this issue in the blogs.
It was problematic under them, as well, as those who've pointed that out with regard to our friend the Sheik have observed many times. I think the original intent was to allow the Minister to act if bureaucratic procedures had gone wrong, but it appears to have become a routine since Ruddock's tenure as Minister.
But my understanding, Ken, from what Andrew Bartlett was saying was that the Act had been amended to exclude natural justice and to weaken the evidentiary grounds recently as part of anti-terrorism measures? Is that correct?
A response from Russo here. Russo aggressively refuted the Andrews renewed claim on a faulty line to SBS News 9.30, (can't find it online), and from these it would be expected we'll hear more again from Russo re context in the next day or so.
"But my understanding, Ken, from what Andrew Bartlett was saying was that the Act had been amended to exclude natural justice and to weaken the evidentiary grounds recently as part of anti-terrorism measures? Is that correct?"
Mark, I'll go back and look at the question in the morning, but my general recollection is that there are 2 alternative procedures available under s501. One requires that natural justice be afforded before the visa cancellation is made, whereas the other (presumably intended to be used in situation of urgency or immediate danger to the public interest) allows the visa to be cancelled without first affording natural justice, but then requires that the person be afforded an opportunity to be heard afterwards. There may well have been some recent amendments propelled by anti-terrorist considerations, but the alternative procedure which doesn't require any natural justice until afterwards (s501(3)) existed prior to September 11, 2001.
Were Dr. Haneef's alleged chat-room conversations with his brother in Hindi, as was so much of Dr. H's other communications with his family? If so, who translated it?
Andrews performed his set piece at sundown from behind a lectern and an Oz flag lapel badge, and in front of three very large semi-furled Australian flags. He emphasized that his actions were in the National Interest. Not that patriotism has ever been the last refuge of politicians like Andrews.
The Minister from Menzies is either relying on a translation, from which he has cherry picked, and can't possibly disclose fully for alleged reasons of National Secutity, or, perhaps he's lying in an attempt to frighten the living daylights out of the gullible in attempt to harvest their fearful votes come the election.
Ken, not all of us reflexly accept the word of a bloke like Andrews. Hope you don't mind if I hold off on an apology for a little while longer.
Just a small clarification. Ken says, in regard to Krudd: "Presumably he was briefed on the protected information some of which has now been revealed." Rudd said the other day that they/he hadn't been told the protected information. That is, told there was some, but not given its content.
Ken, You certainly show a lot more honesty Ken than others in the blogosphere. it is appreciated.
But, by the way of a hypothetical, would you refer to Andrews as a 'turd' or a 'god-bothering twerp' if he was a Jew or a Muslim?
Tim
In fact, it seems that this isn't the "protected information" at all. Haneef's lawyer Russo is now saying that this information WAS put before the bail hearing and was already "in the public domain" (albeit that it has never to date been canvassed in the media to the best of my knowledge). Presumably the "protected information" consists of other communications that haven't so far been disclosed either to a court or Haneef. Andrews made a veiled reference on Lateline to other conversations in the day or two before Haneef's arrest.
Again, however, I must say I don't really comprehend why their disclosure should compromise investigations at this late stage. You don't have to be all that spook-savvy to be aware that they can harvest pretty much any form of electronic communication these days with Echelon and other systems. I'm sure it's something well known to all trained terrorists (if not to someone like Haneef, who seems at most to have been a sympathetic and supportive relative of a poorly or un-trained terrorist), so it seems unlikely authorities would be tipping off Al Qaeda about something they don't already know by disclosing the protected information. Nevertheless, I read somewhere that British police/security authorities also object to disclosure of it, which at least suggests that this isn't just some blatantly manufactured political pretext. In these circumstances, Andrews really has no choice but to continue to refuse to disclose this material. However, if we assume that it is likely to be conversations along not dissimilar lines to the chatroom material, again it would further reinforce the legitimacy and reasonableness of the government's decisions and actions, notwithstanding that there were some fairly worrying cockups in the evidence that was put before the bail magistrate.
Harry
I think these expressions would be a very mild way of describing, for example, someone like Sheik Hilaly.
Just to clarify, Ken.
Given
(1) What you've said in the update, and
(2) Your view that 'the contents of the chatroom conversation (if true) are suspicious as all hell'; it's 'almost impossible to imagine an innocent explanation' for them'
you think the magistrate made a serious error in releasing a potentially dangerous person on bail.
The main issue in this whole business would then have to be the competence of magistrates, wouldn't it?
Not sure what your point is, Ken. Maybe you are just making a further clarification? I don't think I'm contradicting any of that, only saying that, whatever the protected info is, Rudd, I believe, said the other day he hadn't seen it.
Great post Ken - I was going to pick up on the natural justice but I see you got it on your own - fact-checking your own arse as well as everyone else's!
I think MB's apparent explanation sucks enormously. What
'(3) If he believed that he was likely to get caught up in the investigation by virtue of the SIM card, its entirely rational to believe that he and his family were frightened of what might occur to him. Rightly, as I said.
'
Does anyone else think they might have had a duty to actually go to the police? andd that the likes of 'nothing has been found out about you? are extra-enormously incredibly suspicious in context?
Does anyone else think that if Haneef had not been detained, and had fled, only for the UK police to reveal their disappointment at not being able to speak to him, the Larval Rodeo would be jumping up and down attacking our government's inability to protect us from terrorists, etc?
In addition, in relation to the Migration Act:
'I think the original intent was to allow the Minister to act if bureaucratic procedures had gone wrong'
Uh, the original intent, of Labor, was to make sure they could kick out any darky they wanted with no judicial oversight or review whatsoever - which latter part failed pretty comprehensively, btw.
Ditto,
'Andrews is just a pollie - why is his judgement the sole judgement privileged by the Act?', uh, cause (Labor and Liberal) pollies wrote it?
Tim
My point was that, if this wasn't protected information (albeit that it wasn't in fact in the public domain in any meaningful sense), it is possible that Rudd and/or Ludwig were briefed on it and that knowledge of it informed their decision to support the government's actions.
James
As Andrews has emphasised several times, his statutory role under s501 is different from that of a magistrate deciding a bail application. The magistrate was legally entitled to come to the view that the circumstances justified bail heing granted, and Andrews was legally entitled to form the view that Haneef failed the character test and that his visa should be cancelled under s501. Whether it was politically wise to use the s501 power in that way at that time, rather than rely on surveillance and tight bail conditions to ensure that Haneef posed no threat to national security, is a different question.
'Does anyone else think they might have had a duty to actually go to the police?'
Undisputed evidence is that Haneef made four attempts to telephone British police after hearing news from his family in the UK. Andrews conveniently made no mention of that in his statement yesterday.
I've yet to read a sensible response to my earlier question, viz 'If [the Brits] didnt want to charge him, WTF did it have to do with us?'
'Whether it was politically wise to use the s501 power in that way at that time ...'
Ken was that a poor choice of words or are you suggesting that the power is intended to be used for POLITICAL purposes? The political wisdom or otherwise of an action should surely be irrelevant to the exercise of the minister's discretion. His role is to deny visas to undesirables, not to use his executive powers to help his party's political standing.
The same criticism applies to suggestions that it was appropriate to use his immigration powers tactically as part of a criminal investigation to over-ride a magistrate's bail decision. It's a misuse of power, pure and simple.
Just to make my own position crystal clear, I think that the way the whoe thing should have been handled is:
(1) The bail decision should have been allowed to stand. The authorities should if necessary have sought a tightening of bail conditions, and relied on rigrous surveillance of Haneef's actions after release.
(2) A detailed review of the legal situation with the charges and evidence should then have been conducted (given the unavoidable haste and pressure under which decisions had been made up to the time of the bail decision). That would have resulted (as did the DPP's post-leak review) in the conclusion that, however suspicious Haneef's actions, there was no available evidence to establish that Haneef knew (or ought reasonably to have suspected) that his cousins had terrorist propensities at the time he gave them the SIM card. That would have resulted in the charges being dropped, as in fact occurred albeit after a different and messier sequence of events.
(3) Andrews should then have exercised his visa cancellation powers under s501 and deported Haneef. That would have separated the administrative process from the criminal process. Irrespective of the fact that charges could not be sustained, Haneef's actions are highly suspicious and, although I have reservations about the present version of s501, any prudent statutory visa cancellation/deportation power would certainly permit the deportation of such a person.
Andrews should then have exercised his visa cancellation powers under s501 and deported Haneef. That would have separated the administrative process from the criminal process.
Ken, there is a pretty good reason they don't do this with Visa cancellations: Anyone who has good reason to believe their visa will be getting cancelled will just do a runner. Sometimes they'll run home, but often disappear somewhere in Australia where immigration can't find them.
The fact is until we can find a better way of stopping people with no visas from disappearing, immigration detention is really the only option.
Ken,
I haven't time to read the comments on this thread, but I have read your post. You lose a shitload of credibility when you engage in the totally unnecessary self-indulgence you exhibit in your opening paragraph. I used to have a lot of respect for your contributions to the blogosphere, particularly the early days, seeing you as someone who, even though I disagreed with you more often than not, would post in a temperate and thoughtful manner, unlike many commenters (including myself) and other bloggers. What's gone wrong?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/01/1993717.htm
Perhaps Andrews' defenders can explain what Haneef was doing? Dobbing himself in to British police as a dangerous terrorist?
Excellent point Mark. I suspect Haneef was trying to assist the British police and let it be known he has nothing to hide. His actions are most plausibly consistent with innocence. However, they are also consistent with 'dobbing himself in', as you put it. Clearly he should be allowed to roam free while we figure out which is the true reason. Right?
BBB
Let's remember the timing of Andrews' decision, BBB.
Haneef had been charged with an offence, and bailed. As part of the bail requirements, he had to surrender his passport.
I've been saying this repeatedly but with no response whatever from Andrews' defenders, possibly because there is no cogent response.
The intent of Andrews' action would have been to detain him at Villawood.
What present danger did he pose to the Australian community? In many circumstances, bailed suspects are placed under surveillance in order to see what they do - contact associates, etc. The AFP would have no doubt done this. Given that the evidence against him was flimsy, it seems to me this would have been a more appropriate action to take if there was a good faith belief that he was involved in terrorism as an associate (no one has accused him of planning terrorist acts himself aside from a discredited newspaper report).
Since we're all united by a concern for national security, perhaps you can explain that to me.
I repeat - his passport had been confiscated. There was no danger that he would leave the country.
It seems to me that as we all scrabble around in speculation with a very incomplete set of facts that one of the items that should have been established somewhere in the UK investigative process is the use that the SIM card was put to between the time that Haneef gave it away and when it was found in Liverpool. I'm unsure about the technical issues here but I would imagine that a list of calls made and received, and perhaps less certainly, by whom, via that card could be recovered from phone company etc records. Is this a question to be put to Scotland Yard - who used the SIM card, and when and to whom were calls made & received?
Ken
The tone of your comments implies you suspect that Haneef was, if not a co-conspirator himself, at least aware that his relatives were up to something.
Obviously the British Government would have requested extradition if they had enough evidence to indict him for this. But let's supppose that, despite this, it's still obvious, as you imply, that Haneef is probably a very nasty piece of work.
Given that charges with laid, and that the magistrate knew all the facts that have led you to your conclusion, the question is: why did she release him on bail? Only three explanations spring to mind:
(1) She suspected, like you and Andrews, that Haneef knew about his relatives' activites, but was unable to take that into account, because the offense he was actually charged with was something much less serious.
(2) She knew more than we do.
(3) She is stark, raving mad.
At the moment, I lean to (2). But I concede that my understanding of the charge of 'material aid' is weak. Also, I don't know enough about bail rules. If a public prosecuter strongly suspects someone of being a rampant serial killer, but for the time being only has enough hard evidence for a shoplifting indictment, is he allowed to tell the bail magistrate about the murder investigation and the evidence accumulated to date?
Mark, the evidence of those phone calls would certainly help in defending a criminal charge. However, it is far from conclusive against a reasonable suspicion criteria. All we know is that he dialled the number several times; we don't really know why he "didn't get through". Hung up quickly after dialling, perhaps? (OK, the phone company's evidence of the length of phone calls could answer that.) But even if they were completely genuine attempts to tell the British investigator that he wasn't involved, it doesn't seem out of the question that a person with genuine terrorist association may still find that a prudent course of action to get his denials in first, as it may help avoid an actual arrest. The police were not going to have trouble finding him.
The final judgement over Andrew's decision remains somewhat speculative until all information is known, if ever. Doesn't stop you (and The Australian!) from putting the boot into Andrews prematurely, though.
However, they are also consistent with dobbing himself in, as you put it.
BBB, if someone's going to dob themself in, they'd try the local cops first. Haneef had two groups to choose from: the Queensland police and the Feds. As we see, his behavior is not consistent with your interpretation.
Oh, and Mark was being facetious.
"Kens entire piece is temperate and considered."
His first paragraph clearly was not that. As I said it was self-indulgent and had absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Mark, you will find I did answer your point made several times about "why not let Haneef out into the community and monitor him" over on the LP thread. Yes, here it is here:
"However, I dont see that Australia has an obligation to keep a non-citizen here in circumstances where the government has sufficient evidence to have reasonable suspicions about his connection to terrorists, yet not enough to charge with a criminal offence.
We dont have to keep such people waiting to see if they will commit an offence or not, surely. Yet that seems to be exactly the position Mark and others are arguing for."
You can't be sure that such monitoring will prevent a terrorist attack by a loner. You can be pretty sure that, having gone through the initial detention and questioning, he was not going to be communicating with his relatives about anything even vaguely suspicious. It seems quite reasonable for the government and Police to decide he may as well go.
I also made the point if that if sufficient connection is found later, then the British or Australian authorities could seek his extradition. If the Indians refused to hand him over, well, at least he remains their problem, not ours.
Your pushing this argument just justifies the coalition line that you can trust it to make the more cautious judgement in the interests of the Australian public than Labor supporting civil libertarians.
Mark, the passport issue is a diversion. Most people were reasonably worried about his ability to act in Australia, not his ability to leave. If Haneef is an innocent man, as you suspect, why are you happy for him to be closely monitored by the AFP? And on 'flimy evidence', as you put it. An abundance of caution, perhaps? One thing is becoming quite clear: the only difference between you and Andrews is that you wouldn't have locked Haneef up in Villawood. That's fine. Yet you and people like you have spent a lot of time talking about the political nature of the revocation of Haneef's visa, the abuse of Ministerial power that the decision disclosed, and Andrews' political ineptness. You really have given the game away with your last comment, Mark.
Cheers
BBB
Something that struck me immediately, but which hasn't been picked up on any of the Haneef threads I've been reading, is that all of the utterances in Kevin Andrews' account which could possibly be construed as incriminating came from Haneef's brother, not from Haneef himself.
There's a huge gap between Haneef being urged by others to leave Australia and the claims that this proves he had prior knowledge of the terror plot.
Again, Haneef appears guilty of having relatives, who in this particular account (assuming that the translation is accurate) are making unfortunate language choices when advising him to come home.
Ken Lovell says:
"Undisputed evidence is that Haneef made four attempts to telephone British police after hearing news from his family in the UK. Andrews conveniently made no mention of that in his statement yesterday."
You mean the phone lines at Sctoland Yard were busy the times he made those "attempts" and couldn't get through? Was Scotland Yard having phone problems?
Tell us why they were "attempts" Ken.
James
Here are responses to your most recent comment (#64):
I don't think the evidence raises an adequate basis for suspicion of active involvement by Haneef as a co-conspirator, but it does raise a reasonable suspicion that he had some degree of guilty knowledge (although there is no evidence that he possessed such knowledge as early as the time when he originally handed over the SIM card - hence the dropping of the charges, because reckless ness could not be established without some such knowledge or reasonable basis for suspicion)
You are still conflating the basis for visa cancellation on character grounds with the bases for establishing a criminal charge or granting bail in a criminal case. Each raises different issues. People are quite frequently denied visa on character grounds despite not being suspected of an actual criminal offence. Perhaps the most notorious example is Holocaust denier David Irving, who has been denied a visa on character grounds by both Labor and Coalition governments.
No doubt because she properly concluded that there was an adequate basis for reaching that decision given the matters she had to consider in such a bail application. You seem to think that there is some logical contradiction between the magistrate granting bail and Andrews cancelling the visa. As I've explained, the factors to be considered by the minister under section 501 are very different from those applicable to a bail application (although no doubt community safety considerations would be relevant to both decisions). A minister can quite properly cancel a visa on character grounds quite separately from whether or not there is a basis for charging that person with a criminal offence or granting them bail in respect of it. However, as I observed in a previous comment, I think it would have been preferable for Andrews to have refrained from using s501 until the criminal process was resolved.
Sorry, Steve, I don't understand your answer. You seem to assume that Andrews intended to send him back to India. The effect of Andrews' decision was intended to be to hold him in Villawood.
BBB, I'm not sure what game you mean. Obviously the AFP had an obligation to investigate Haneef's connections, and I don't disagree with detaining him in the first place. What I do disagree with is the ludicrous politicisation of this issue by the government, the shambolic way it was handled including constant prejudicial statements and press leaks, and the excess of power given to the Minister.
Mark
Andrews has some right to defend his actions especially when Haneef's legals are conducting the affair as a public trial. I'd go further, he had no choice but to release the documentation after the legal spectacle from Haneef's side.
let me see.
The Good doctor was arrested under suspicion. no problem there.
No evidence so should have been let go and let the AFP spy on him etc etc if suspicions further heightened.
Instead charged on spurious evidence.
Magistrate hears all evidence , including all of Andrews' secret evidence, to decide whether the good doctor should get bail. Decides the case against the good doctor is flimsy and lets him have bail on onerous conditions.
Andrews then withdraws business visa and locks him up NOT to deport him but rather anticipating him being charged.
oops.
No evidence or suspicion that the good doctor is a terrorist who will kill people here nor does Andrews allege that although Andrews does infer that in bits of nervousness under pressure. Also under pressure criticizes Rudd for agreeing with the Government. Suspicions of Government wedge failing?
Andrews under enormous pressure releases partial evidence the Magistrate has already heard although she unlike us has heard the God doctor's version of it.
Until we hear the good doctor's version then no-one can really judge although why hasn't his legal team been provided with the transcript.
Mark. Seriously. The only ones politicising this decision are you and people like you. And in light of your previous comments, how can you agree with detaining Haneef in the first place? He had not been heard at that point, he had not been afforded due process then. What you are really objecting to is that there is a difference between Andrews' administrative powers under the Migration Act and the magistrate's duties under the criminal law. Fair enough. Your insistence that this is a political issue says far more about you than it does Andrews, though.
Cheers
BBB
Mark: I am getting confused here. Are you only criticising Andrew's decision in so far as it meant that Haneef could have been kept in Villawood pending the criminal case? I was under the distinct impression that you are also criticising his decision because of its ultimate goal, namely Haneef's departure out of our country.
Put it this way: if Andrews had not made the revocation decision when he did, but only after the criminal charge was dropped, as Ken suggests was the better way to go, would you still be criticising him? If (as would have been obviously better all around) the charge had never been laid, but Andrews had still revoked the visa, would that be the subject of criticism?
Your insistence that this is a political issue says far more about you than it does Andrews, though.
Hear Hear.
The left always loves to accuse the Howard government of being racist, but if this Haneef guy was a white British Backpacker Accused of assault, rather than an Indian Muslim accused of terrorism, this case would never have made it out of the "public notices" section.
Bizarre. If you think it's the left that's been politicising this issue, I wonder how you can explain the frequent statements from Ministers and the leaking.
I object to the revocation of his visa on the grounds that I don't believe that such powers should reside in a Minister's sole discretion. I can't see why that's confusing to anyone.
Jc the fact that Haneef attempted to make four calls to British officer Tony Webster is undisputed, as I said, except apparently by you. The times of the calls have been confirmed. Nobody answered. Callers don't normally know why someone doesn't answer and no explanation has been published that I've seen.
'politician
noun 1 a person who is professionally involved in politics, especially as a holder of an elected office. 2 chiefly US [ not no more - KL] a person who acts in a manipulative and devious way, typically to gain advancement.'
So in the run-up to an election when lots of these politicians are desperate to cling to power, the culprits responsible for politicising the Haneef affair are obviously ... LEFT WING BLOGGERS.
Ridiculous.
M'lud Ken apparently pronounces guilty on only part of the evidence.
Remind ME never to call on him as defence counsel.
What would a person of 'bad' character do after a discourse with a rather emotional brother remembering of course which no-one apparently has he was the MAIN income earner in the family.
ring up one of the plotters?
ring up the person with the SIM card?
no ring up the detective at Scotland Yard. He has already arranged for his mother-in-law to get a visa and there are tickets in India to come back to Australia.
I might also remind M'Lud Ken it has been the Government/AFP/DPP who have leaked selectively in this case. When we got to see the first transcript we found leaks in the evidence.
Who wants to bet this will occur again that is IF the legal team get the transcript they ALREADY should have
Mark, you're starting to look very, very weaselly now! You don't need to have all the safeguards in place that you want to have an opinion on whether the Minister made a correct call on revoking the visa. (And let's set aside the timing issue for now, as I invited you in the last comment.)
If you won't express an opinion on this, I will only assume it's because you don't want to say that reasonable people could come to the same conclusion as the Minister.
"let me see"
A cry from the heart from Homer! I do hope his God takes notice and gives him back the power of seeing, assuming he ever had it.
KenLovell
It's the first I ever heard he made attempted calls. Did he leave a message? Was the line busy. Did he SMS?
Ken, I hope this isn't another one of those conspiracy theories of yours that you're somehow trying tie in with your post PM Brown had orchestrated the atttempted club bombing that you published two hours before Glasgow.
What's your speculation about the phone calls, Ken? Hit us with this one.
'Its the first I ever heard he made attempted calls.'
You really should read more widely Joe if you intend to comment on public affairs.
No I'm not. I must be expressing myself very poorly if you've arrived at that conclusion.
I just don't see how the magistrate could have granted bail at $10,000 if she thought he had 'guilty knowledge'.
James,
I am no expert on bail, but I suppose the obvious answer is that the magistrate thought Haneef was perfectly innocent. Given the evidence before her, I think that was a reasonable conclusion. Equally, Andrews' conclusion that there was a reasonable basis for him to suspect that Haneef was an associate of criminals, was entirely reasonable. Hence his exercise of discretion under 501. Am I missing something in your question?
BBB
I try to KenL, that's why I read all your posts.
James
A judge or magistrate can properly assess the apparent strength or weakness of the prosecution case as a relevant factor in the bail discretion, but doesn't usually do so simply because the strength or weakness of the substantive case usually won't be apparent at such an early stage of proceedings. However, as far as I can tell the bail magistrate in the Haneef case did not express any views about the strength of the prosecution case, although she did rely on the proposition that one relevant factor was that the prosecution did not allege any direct, intentional involement with terrorism (which suggests a view that this was at the lower end of terrorism-related offences - as it clearly was). I'm going only on an ABC radio news story for these propositions however, which isn't necessarily accurate or complete. But here's how the reporter summarised the magistrate;s reasons for granting bail:
KATHRYN ROBERTS: Well Tanya, in terrorism cases unlike in other criminal matters, there's a presumption against bail, and in order for the Magistrate to grant bail there has to be some exceptional circumstances.
Now, the Crown has argued that there were no exceptional circumstances in this case, and that Dr Haneef was a flight risk. But Magistrate Jacqui Payne seemed to disagree.
She noted that bail was "an important process in a civilised society," they were her direct words, and she said in this case, exceptional circumstances did exist, and she cited nine factors including that the Crown - as you mentioned - does not allege that Dr Haneef had any direct association with terrorist activity and that he had provided his mobile phone SIM card to his cousin when he left the United Kingdom, but he had not provided the SIM card intentionally to a terrorist organisation.
She also noted a number of other factors, including that this was a man who was a doctor and a member of the College of Physicians in Australia. He had no criminal record, he had a good employment history and his passport has been taken by the AFP (Australian Federal Police).
She also noted that he was likely to be subject to surveillance once released, so she granted bail on that basis.
TANYA NOLAN: And are there any conditions attached to the bail?
KATHRYN ROBERTS: The Crown had asked for $100,000 surety, but the Magistrate said a surety of $10,000 or two amounts of $5,000. So, what that means that if he somehow disappears or fails to report, then the people who have gone have provided that surety will have to provide that money.
He is also to report to police every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, he's not allowed to apply for another passport, he can't attend any point of international departure, and of course he is to advise police and the Commonwealth DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions) of any changes to his address.
I've repeatedly expressed an opinion on this, Steve. I believe that the Minister's view was not the most reasonable inference from the evidence.
"Ive repeatedly expressed an opinion on this, Steve. I believe that the Ministers view was not the most reasonable inference from the evidence."
Since all he needed to say goodbye to Haneef at the airport was a "reasonable suspicion", your point is irrelevant.
If I turn up at an international airport, for example Singapore airport, and the authorities reasonably suspect I am a bum they will send me back to Oz forthwith. And so they should. This happens every day without generating an ounce of hot air.
As I say, Haneef's Sixty Minutes fee and hero status in India is more than adequate recompense for his embarrassment.
No idea what you're talking about, Mel. Haneef was not "at the airport" but in Australia legally on a work visa which the Minister revoked with the intent of keeping him in Australia in Villawood.
So what? The principle is the same.
Why?
He's not having his visa being revoked for looking scruffy, as someone might be who's refused entry at an airport, but for associations. There's also a significant difference between the revocation of a visa already granted which enables someone to live and work in a country on the grounds of "bad character" and a spot judgement made about whether a wannabe tourist might not have enough money to avoid being a charge on the state.
I can't follow your logic.
What principle are you talking about?
Coming in very late, but my objection to Andrews' actions is the same as that of several commenters above. His revocation of Haneef's visa was not a good faith exercise of his immigration powers to exclude undesirables but an attempt (successful for some time) to override the decision of the courts to grant bail.
His presentation on Monday night has to be seen in this light. We got a selective summary of evidence that (although this was not mentioned) had already been tested and found insufficient to sustain even a prima facie case against Haneef. It was timed to ensure that Haneef would not get a chance to reply until the damage was done.
Mark, as Mel is indicating, the legal question is not what is "the most reasonable" inference. It's whether his suspicion was "reasonable", and legal review of the decision would look at whether that determination was "open" to the Minister on the evidence put to him. (Hence how the question was put to the Solicitor General.)
I take it that you believe that Andrews should not have revoked the visa at any stage, while the charge was pending or after it was withdrawn. Do you allow that persons (and you know there are many of us out there, including those who are not known as government groupies) who would make the same decision as the Minister, based on the evidence so far,are not acting unreasonably?
If you're not going to accuse us of being unreasonable, I think that means you should temper the criticism of the Minister as well.
I've also suggested, Steve, that the legislation is at fault. It may be a reasonable interpretation but I don't think it's the most reasonable interpretation. No doubt there are other reasonable interpretations that could be formed. It's a very weak test. It really means any plausible construction that can be placed on the evidence is acceptable.
John Quiggan: you certainly haven't been following the argument well when you (yet again on your side of the argument) suggest that the inconclusiveness of the evidence for a criminal case is a compelling reason to say that the Minister should not have found a reasonable suspicion.
Steve
fair is fair. JohnQ did say he has come in a little bit late into the discussion.
I think he may have missed Franks link above which I am sure once he reads it will clear up some of his confusion.
John, I hope this helps. It the Sol. General's report:
http://www.smh.com.au/pdf/haneefpdf.pdf
The ABC is reporting that Indian police are investigating the good Dr's possible links to terror groups.
Kelty is also saying that the investigation here isn't over and that charges could be laid against him.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/01/1994446.htm
Who said it's not over until the fat lady sings?
Mark: I think I can infer from your last comment that you admit that the Minister "may" have been reasonable in his decision. I'll take that as a minor win.
Curioser and curioser! http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22174426-29277,00.html
Curious typing/spelling too.
Nice of the Indian authorities to notify of their suspicions when he left the country, obbs. I mean aren't we all in this together? I guess they saw it a one less problem for themselves.
Hey don't worry about the typos. Do what I do and always assume that the first attempt is pefection so why waste time reading editing.
I'll tell you what's "suspicious as hell" here, people: that Andrews didn't mention at the press conference that the chatroom conversation was in Urdu and had been translated (thus a statement like "they don't know about you" could easily mean any number of things), and that he has neither released the full transcript nor released Haneef's response to it.
And it's pretty piss-poor on the journos' part that no-one asked about this at the conference. Shades of the lead-up to Iraq, where the press similarly failed to ask obvious questions.
Strangely enough, watching Andrews I no longer believe he's brazenly lying. He's the sort of person who finds it easy to believe what's he's told if it's convenient to him. His body language though says that he senses how really, really flimsy the grounds for his suspicion are. Of course, since 1998 the minister has virtually absolute discretion over visas (the Ruddster declared at the time that this power would only be used "rarely and in exceptional circumstances" - the old plea of those seeking unaccountable power) so innocence is no help to Haneef.
And don't kid - Haneef has suffered real harm. He'll have great trouble getting into the UK and the US once he's been refused an Oz visa on "terrorism" grounds, no matter how flimsy the reasons. Looks like he'll have to pursue his career (by all accounts a promising one) in India.
You're sounding rather lame Derida. I seriously doubt they dont know about you is any more ambiguous in Urdu than it is in English.
Haneef hasn't suffered much real harm at all. He has a fat Sixty Minutes pay cheque.
Steve, you've missed my point completely. If the Minister had decided, independently of the criminal proceedings to cancel the visa, I wouldn't have objected. The point is that he (ab)used his immigration power to override the magistrates bail decision.
JC,
All the Sol General is saying that Andrews action was legal. We know that.
DD is onto something with regard to translation problems. Having relations on the subcontinent I can tell you it can occur even amongst friends and this isn't even Urdu we are talking about.
and these conversations are not under time constraints which these good chappees were
Also if you have read about AQ types then the Good doctor is doing everything opposite to what they usually do in these circumstances.
Melaleuca,
you have no idea of what you are saying.
If the Minister had decided, independently of the criminal proceedings to cancel the visa, I wouldnt have objected. The point is that he (ab)used his immigration power to override the magistrates bail decision.
So, are you suggesting that Andrews should have made his decision public when the AFP provided him with their recommendations, at the beginning of the criminal proceedings, and before the bail decision?
The civil libertarians would have been screaming that Andrews had interfered with a criminal procedure, and had destroyed his chance of an un-biased jury.
...The civil libertarians would still have been screaming...
Homerston
Could you please explain if "they don't know about you" has many connotations in Indian. Is this similar to the word "snow" which in Alaskan indig is supposed to have a coupla dozen meanings depending on the tone and sound?
I could have sowrn you were an econmist and not an international languages expert.
PJQ says.
"The point is that he (ab)used his immigration power to override the magistrates bail decision."
That's certainly stretching things a little here John, don't you think? It's not as though the law suggests a visa termination is subject ot bail findings? I do suggest you read the SOl Gen report as it could help you understand the process a little better. Take a look as it won't hurt. It's been SMH sterlized too for health reasons.
Rubbish Homer. The translation would have been performed by a competent professional translator. We are not talking about an amateur translating Shakespeare into Pitjantjatjara for Christ's sake.
Mel
Homer's now Homer Trad , as in "it was taken out of context".
I have been puzzled by those 'attempted' phone calls. Don't they have answering machines at Scotland Yard?
Homas
You may to take a look at this additional information. MI5 has the good Dr. on a list as a person of interest and suggests he's been on the outer edges of terror groups.
Not to be outdone, his flatmate in Queensland has been given the boot for forging experience on his resume. There are suspicions the flatmate was also involved with terror groups and the space he filled in as part of his resume was spent cavorting with terror groups.
You still busy translating the chatroom stuff, Homes, or should we just let it go?
Good things always come to those who wait , Homes. Next time round I suggest taking a few deep breaths and push down, then wait a few days before rushing into any sort of conclusion.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22175306-2,00.html
what Andrews could do is release all the conversation. Then the God doctor's explanation.
The Magistrate heard it and pronounced the case against him flimsy.
JC & mel are simply going hysterical
Why would Andrew release information without the accused explanation.
Mel think all translator's are competent. not so and certainly not under the time pressures the AFP were under.
JC you information appears incorrect.
Try reading about what members of AQ actually do instead of displaying your ignorance
Is Jc JC?
Joe Cambria or Jacques Chester?
Who cares? There are only 12 people in Australia who think Haneef's guilty of anything (apart from not having the ability to chose his relatives) and they're probably two of them.
As it turns out, there's an explanation of why the frightened right are so scared of terrorists:
Courtesy of todays AGE:
Bed wetting linked to lower intelligence
W
Why offend Jacques by suggesting he's me?
Homas
You need to do a little more reading to get up to date .
"Mel think all translators are competent. not so and certainly not under the time pressures the AFP were under."
Don't make laugh, Homas. How much time do you need translating a brief set of conversations.
"JC you information appears incorrect."
Then tell news limited which is where I linked .
'MI5 has the good Dr. on a list as a person of interest and suggests hes been on the outer edges of terror groups.'
Ssssshh ... loose lips sink ships.
But a word to the wise ... I have it on good authority that M has developed a lethally effective chapati and 007 is winging his way to Bangalore even as I write.
Now can I interest anyone in some shares in the Sydney Harbour Bridge? I can let you have them at a very good price, as they were smuggled out of Iraq by His Excellency the Rajah of Fallujah ... please to send your bank account details as a sign of good faith.
JC,
I have already said mistakes are made in my family for conversations in bengali, I believe Urdu is even worse.
Of course you need time particularly if there are several avenues open to what they maybe saying.
The AFP and DFAT have made fundamental errors in translation. The errors I know of were in arabic so why they wouldn't have problems in Urdu where less proficient people are available is problematic.
Ask yourself. Why didn't Andrews say his allegations were from a translation and why did he not release the whole transcript.
In this case it has been the Government/ AFP and DPP who have been making errors all the time.
Lookm at his behaviour it just is totally different from terrorists as we know from experience
Is Homer and KenL the same person (I've always wondered), or twins?
Homer:
Speculation ends up getting you to the same dead end it got your brother, KenL. KenL's sleuthing ended up with Brown being responsible for the london club attempt, which I make note he still hasn't apologised for.
All I'm doing is linking to a story in the press which you two geniuses are both inferring is incorrect. You, Homas, do it by avoiding it and talking about something different. Your bro, tries his hand at bad humor.
If you have anything to say the Linked story is wrong I suggest we hear it otherwise let's see an apology from both of you- particularly you KenL.
Here, I'll link it again.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22175306-2,00.html
"I have already said mistakes are made in my family for conversations in bengali"
Ummmmm
Homer, I thought you said once you were 1/4 Greek and rest Anglo. How are you fitting the Bengali side of the family in there because only two poeple's DNA make kids. Have you discovered some new way of reproducing now? Because I was taught at school mthat 1/4+ 3/4 =1. Was it different for you?
And mistakes are made in my family conversations each day Homes.... like how I don't understand I need a bath mat and why I always leave my clothes around. What's your point? That strawman caught fire, homes.
'"The brother told him to 'tell them that you have to leave as you have a daughter born ...'
Yep, the translator is obviously a master of idiomatic English.
Joe you really should seek professional help about this obsession you have with Road to Surfdom. I tell you what, you find where I said Gordon Brown was connected with the London attempted bombings and I'll apologise profusely, although I'm not sure who to. You won't find it of course because it's a figment of your imagination, just like your eccentric idea that I have connections to the communist party.
But anyway let me know when you find it and I'll email Gordon straight away and send you a copy.
JC, My wife is from Bangladesh. I on the other hand am related to the first greek immigrant to these shores
Sure, KenL. Heres the link to your, err, story.
I have excerpted only some of the good bits so I suggest people ought to read it all.
------------------------------
http://www.roadtosurfdom.com/2007/06/30/in-which-i-become-a-conspiracy-theorist/
In which I become a conspiracy theorist
OK Im probably leading with my chin here but let me say that I find the horrifying stories of car bombs planted in the streets of London, ready to shred hundreds of innocent West End theatre-goers unconvincing. Which suggests that Im becoming a conspiracy theorist, much to my horror
Maybe I was conditioned to be skeptical.
Anyway why does this latest outrage set off alarm bells suggesting that it might not be quite as straightforward a terrorist strike on the British way of life as the MSM would have us believe?
The incidents have of course been noted in passing by the usual political suspects.
New British prime minister Gordon Brown has reaffirmed his governments determination not to allow people to be blown up
-------------------------------------
Joe you really should seek professional help about this obsession you have with Road to Surfdom.
Why? Its the biggest screamer of a site on the web. Youre right; I am obsessed with it but only because I mostly fall on the floor in fits of laughter. Between you and Bobsters conspiracy theories and the like, its the same as watching a train wreck every day.
I tell you what, you find where I said Gordon Brown was connected with the London attempted bombings and Ill apologise profusely, although Im not sure who to.
Of course you inferred it. But that wasnt the funniest point. You were flying this conspiracy kite a few hours before the Glasgow incident.
You wont find it of course because its a figment of your imagination, just like your eccentric idea that I have connections to the communist party.
Please. I'm sure they even have standards.
And you interpret this as meaning 'Brown being responsible for the london club attempt'? Oh well, if you say so Joe.
I should of course follow your example and swallow everything printed by the MSM without even chewing. I wonder how they're getting on tracking down that bunch of Gold Coast doctors with whom Haneef was taking flying lessons? Or the senior Bangalore copper who gave SBS that oh-so-authentic 'official dossier'?
Now I'm done indulging you for today Joey, some of us have work to do.
Fair enough Homes.
--------------------------
"And you interpret this as meaning Brown being responsible for the london club attempt? Oh well, if you say so Joe."
KenL, with you at a keyboard, i'm open to anything. I'm open to any conspiracy at all. Just don't hold back and keep them coming as your readers (me) demand it.
-----------------
"I should of course follow your example and swallow everything printed by the MSM without even chewing."
No of course I don't want you to be like me in that respect. What would I have to look forward to otherwise?
-----------------
"I wonder how theyre getting on tracking down that bunch of Gold Coast doctors with whom Haneef was taking flying lessons?"
Ummmm keep that as another idea for a piece ken. It's not bad. Here's a thought: send me your "ideas" for pieces and i'll size them up on my conspiracy meter.
-----------------
"Or the senior Bangalore copper who gave SBS that oh-so-authentic official dossier?"
Why would i believe them and not you? That's silly.
----------------
"Now Im done indulging you for today Joey, some of us have work to do."
Ok, didn't know. i just thought you wrote 6-20 RTI pieces a day.