The botched case of Dr Muhammad Haneef

By Neena Bhandari

Sydney, 2007- 2008 (IANS): Dr Muhammad Haneef, an Indian doctor working in Gold Coast (Queensland), was wrongly accused and detained on terrorism charges linked to the Glasgow international airport attack in 2007.

On 24^th December 2010, he received a formal apology, and substantial compensation from the Australian Government. In a statement, the Australian Federal Police said that it “acknowledges that it was mistaken and that Dr Haneef was innocent of the offence of which he was suspected. The Commonwealth apologises and hopes that the compensation to be paid to Dr Haneef will mark the end of an unfortunate chapter and allow Dr Haneef to move forward with his life and career.”

Earlier, The Clarke Inquiry Report 21st November 2008, had cleared him of any wrongdoing and concluded that mistakes had been made. The litany of errors by the Australian police and the government had not only stained the reputation and career prospects of the young doctor, but it also had a major backlash on Indian doctors in Australia.

Minister who revoked Haneef’s visa to face inquiry (October 14, 2008): Former Australian immigration minister Kevin Andrews, who had controversially cancelled Indian doctor Muhammad Haneef’s work visa, will give evidence Wednesday before the inquiry investigating the botched terrorism case.

The Justice John Clarke inquiry is investigating the series of events from the arrest of Haneef at Brisbane International Airport on 2 July 2007 until his release from detention and return home.

Haneef, a former Gold Coast registrar, was incarcerated in Australia for three weeks last year in July after being charged with supporting a terrorist organisation by “recklessly” giving his mobile phone SIM card to people planning the botched London and Glasgow bomb attacks.

Andrews, who will give evidence Wednesday behind closed doors, came under much criticism for cancelling Haneef’s visa hours after a Brisbane magistrate granted him bail on 16 July 2007.

The charges against Haneef were later dropped and he returned to his family in Bangalore on 29 July last year. Haneef’s work visa was reinstated last December by the new Labour Immigration Minister Chris Evans.

“Unfortunately, the flawed process of an inquiry without legislative… coercive powers, means that we do not get the opportunity to question Mr. Andrews. We do not have the opportunity to hear him give evidence and we do not get the opportunity to cross examine him,” Haneef’s lawyer Rod Hodgson told the Australian Associated Press (AAP).

“It’s flawed and there’s a real risk that because of those flaws Mr. Andrews will not be subject to the same rigorous scrutiny that might occur if other people had the opportunity to question him,” Hodgson added.

Recently, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) dropped its investigation, after over a year of pursuing the botched terrorism case against Haneef that has caused the AFP much embarrassment and cost the taxpayer A$8.5 million (US$6.02 million).

Haneef is expected to seek compensation after the federal inquiry into the case is over.

The Clarke Inquiry, instituted by the Kevin Rudd-Labor Government, will report its findings on 14th November.

‘Haneef’s plight underlines need for public scrutiny of terror laws’ (September 22, 2008): A public forum held here Monday on Indian doctor Muhammad Haneef’s botched terrorism case has been told that robust public scrutiny is the key to ensuring Australia’s terrorism laws strike the right balance between community protection and respect for individual rights.

“We have long argued that our anti-terrorism laws strike the wrong balance between community safety and individual freedoms,” Law Council of Australia president Ross Ray told the forum convened by the Justice John Clarke inquiry investigating the series of events from the arrest of Haneef at Brisbane International Airport on July 2, 2007, until his release from detention and return home about a month later.

“As the Haneef case demonstrates, the content of these laws is only part of the problem. The difficulties endured by Dr. Haneef have shown us that the way these laws are understood and applied by the officers responsible for their implementation is also a problem,” Ray told the forum, joining a panel of legal and law enforcement experts.

Haneef, a former Gold Coast registrar, was incarcerated in Australia for three weeks last July after being charged with supporting a terrorist organisation by “recklessly” giving his mobile phone SIM card to people planning the botched London and Glasgow bomb attacks.

The charges against Haneef were dropped and he returned to his family in Bangalore on July 29 last year. His work visa was reinstated last December by the new Labour Immigration Minister Chris Evans.

Haneef’s lawyer Peter Russo, who had flown in from Brisbane for the forum aptly entitled “Too safe or too sorry”, told IANS: “The inquiry is very important to get a clearer picture of what exactly happened.”

Queensland Health Minister Stephen Robertson recently told Australian Broadcasting Corporation Radio Haneef had been treated “absolutely appallingly” and was welcome to return to work in Queensland.

Haneef’s lawyer Rod Hodgson has said his client would be seeking compensation after the federal inquiry into the case was over. “We have made no secret of the fact that he will be seeking compensation for the immense damage to his career, his family and his reputation.”

The Clarke Inquiry will report its findings on Nov 14.

Haneef welcome to work in Queensland, says Queensland minister (September 5, 2008): Indian doctor Muhammad Haneef, who was jailed on terrorism charges that were subsequently dropped, had been treated “absolutely appallingly” and was welcome to return to work in Queensland, the state’s health minister said Friday.

“Despite all of the hullabaloo that went on around the allegations and investigations under way, there was never any suggestion that he was anything other than a competent doctor,” Queensland Health Minister Stephen Robertson told ABC Radio.

“From our perspective, there are no outstanding issues. My personal view is I think he’s been treated absolutely appallingly. Certainly the Gold Coast health district have always held him in high regard,” Robertson said, adding that Haneef was welcome to apply for his former job.

Last week, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) dropped its investigation, after over a year of pursuing a botched terrorism case against Haneef that has caused the AFP much embarrassment and cost the taxpayer A$8.5 million.

The charges against Haneef were dropped and he returned to his family in Bangalore on July 29 last year. Haneef’s work visa was reinstated last December by the new Labour Immigration Minister Chris Evans.

“Haneef has been cleared of any involvement in the terrorism attack on Glasgow airport and that he is ‘no longer a person of interest’ are testimony to the way the previous federal government used Dr. Haneef as a political pawn,” said United India Associations (UIA) president Raj Natarajan.

“It is high time that the federal government should not only apologise to Dr Haneef but also to the law-abiding and socially responsible Indian community in Australia, in particular overseas trained Indian doctors, who experienced a community backlash because of this bungled investigation and the resulting unwanted media spotlight,” Natarajan told IANS.

The series of events from the arrest of Haneef at Brisbane International Airport on July 2, 2007, until his release from detention and return home to Bangalore on July 29 last year is currently being investigated by the John Clarke inquiry – which was Friday granted an extension by Attorney General Robert McClelland and will submit its report on Nov 14 instead of Sep 30.

Justice Clarke, who had been willing to speak with Haneef either in Australia or overseas, has said it wasn’t necessary to interview the Indian doctor as the submission provided by his lawyers was sufficient.

He has also announced that his inquiry would hold a public forum in Sydney on Sep 22 on the effect of terrorism laws relevant to Haneef’s case.

Australian police drop terror probe against Haneef (August 29, 2008): The Australian Federal Police Friday dropped investigations in the botched up terror case against Indian doctor Muhammad Haneef that has caused it much embarrassment for over a year and cost the tax payer millions of dollars.

In a statement, police said it had advised Haneef’s solicitor Rod Hodgson that it had recently informed Attorney General Robert McClelland and Home Affairs Minister Bob Debus that Haneef “is no longer a person of interest”. Haneef was a registrar at the Gold Coast hospital in Queensland.

“The Australian Federal Police (AFP) has concluded its active inquiries, although some long-standing overseas inquiries are yet to be fully resolved. At the present time, there is insufficient evidence to institute proceedings against Haneef for any criminal offence,” the AFP statement said.

The police investigation has cost a whopping A$7.5 million to taxpayers for a case that strained India-Australia bilateral relations, caused the 240,000-strong Indian Australian community much grief and earned Australia and the former John Howard government bad press not only at home and in India, but across the world.

Haneef, now 28, was incarcerated in Australia for three weeks last July after being charged with supporting a terrorist organisation by “recklessly” giving his mobile phone SIM card to people planning bomb attacks in London and Glasgow.

The charges were later dropped and Haneef returned to his family in Bangalore July 29 last year. Every day in last July, as the drama unfolded in the media, a new leak, a fresh faux pas, another denial, caused the Haneef case to slip into a shambles.

Lawyers, civil liberty groups and many in the wider Australian community were aghast at the twists and turns in the case.

The series of events – from the arrest of Haneef at Brisbane International airport on July 2, 2007, until his release from detention and return home to Bangalore on July 29 last year – is currently being investigated by the John Clarke inquiry, which is expected to report its findings to the federal government by Sep 30.

Haneef’s solicitor Hodgson told The Australian newspaper that he had spoken to his client today, who was extremely happy with the news but he was unable to say whether Haneef wanted compensation or would return to work in Australia.

Haneef’s work visa was reinstated last December by the new Labour Immigration Minister Chris Evans.

Haneef posed no threat, says Australian security agency (July 29, 2008): In yet another revelation on the botched case of Muhammad Haneef, the Australian Security Intelligence Agency (ASIO) has said it had time and again told the former John Howard-led liberal government that the Indian doctor posed no security threat.

In an unclassified submission to the John Clarke-led inquiry, investigating the former Gold Coast registrar’s incarceration on terror charge and subsequent release, the ASIO Director General Paul O’Sullivan has revealed his organisation never believed Haneef was a threat.

The Clarke inquiry is investigating the series of events from the arrest of Haneef at Brisbane airport July 2, 2007, until his release from detention and return home to Bangalore July 29.

“In conducting its intelligence investigation, ASIO considered whether Dr. Haneef posed a threat to security and provided advice across government on this issue. ASIO participated in whole-of-government meetings in relation to Dr. Haneef”, said O’Sullivan.

“ASIO’s consistent advice to these meetings was that, based on available information, ASIO did not assess Dr. Haneef as a threat to security and did not have grounds to issue an adverse security assessment,” added O’Sullivan.

He said ASIO was not involved in the decisions to arrest, charge, prosecute or release Haneef.

ASIO conducted an intelligence investigation and provided analytical support to the Australian Federal Police (AFP), but never questioned Haneef himself.

According to the Australian Associated Press (AAP), ASIO reported in a written advice to the government and various agencies on July 11 that it did not have information to indicate Haneef had any involvement in, or foreknowledge of, the failed terror acts in Britain.

ASIO also advised there was no information to indicate Haneef was undertaking planning for a terrorist attack in Australia or overseas.

Meanwhile, Haneef’s lawyers reiterated their demand for granting royal commission powers to the Clarke inquiry.

“Whatever this inquiry is, it is not judicial and it is not open,” Haneef’s lawyer Rod Hodgson told AAP Tuesday.

Justice Clarke, who is expected to produce a public and a private report, says he will not seek the powers of a royal commission to conduct the remainder of his inquiry. He will report his findings to the federal government by Sep 30.

The charges were later dropped and Haneef returned to his family in Bangalore. His work visa was reinstated last December by the new Immigration Minister Chris Evans.

Details of Haneef’s travails may remain secret (July 28, 2008): Most details relating to Indian doctor Muhammad Haneef’s incarceration on terror charge and subsequent release will remain an enigma as the judge heading the judicial inquiry into his case has declared that much of the information he has cannot be made public.

In a message posted Monday on the inquiry website, former New South Wales Supreme Court judge John Clarke, who is heading the judicial inquiry, said: “Since I was appointed to conduct this Inquiry in March 2008, I have endeavoured to meet the desire of the Attorney General and my own assurances to make public as much of the proceedings and material before the Inquiry as was possible without jeopardising matters of national security or pending trials in Australia or overseas.

“Reluctantly, I have today advised the Attorney General (Robert McClelland) that it will not be feasible to make public as much information as was initially envisaged.”

The Clarke inquiry is investigating the series of events from the arrest of Haneef at Brisbane airport July 2, 2007, until his release from detention and return home to Bangalore July 29.

Haneef was incarcerated after being charged with supporting a terrorist organisation by “recklessly” giving his mobile phone SIM card to people planning the botched London and Glasgow bomb attacks. The charges were later dropped and Haneef returned to his family.

His work visa was reinstated last December by new Immigration Minister Chris Evans.

Justice Clarke said he had been given a vast amount of relevant material by the commonwealth and state departments and agencies and also by Haneef’s representatives.

“A very high proportion, however, of the material from departments and agencies carries a security classification which limits the extent to which it can be shown to other people or disclosed generally,” Justice Clarke said.

He had not sought the declassification of the documents because he said the hurdles would be “virtually insurmountable”.

The originating agency alone had the authority to remove the classification and the inquiry had not been given authority to publish classified material, the judge said.

A spokesman for the attorney general told Australian Associated Press (AAP): “The government accepts Clarke’s decision as sensible approach to progressing the inquiry’s important work in fully examining the facts of the Haneef matter and reporting to government.”

Haneef’s lawyer Peter Russo said Justice Clarke’s move would continue to shroud in secrecy the roles of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the federal Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) office.

“It was an important process that needed to be gone through for the Australian public to have any degree of confidence that the AFP know what they’re doing. It was their opportunity to come clean and they’ve obviously elected not to do that,” Russo told AAP.

Justice Clarke, who is expected to produce a public and a private report, says he will not be seeking the powers of a royal commission to conduct the remainder of his inquiry. He will report his findings to the federal government by Sep 30.

Haneef should never have been charged, believed Queensland Police (July 10, 2008): Indian doctor Muhammad Haneef should never have been charged with terrorism offences, at least that is what the Queensland state police believed, according to a submission Thursday to the inquiry probing the botched case of the former Gold Coast registrar.

The submission made to the Justice John Clarke-led inquiry reads: “The Queensland Police Service was of the view there was insufficient evidence to support a charge against Dr Haneef.”

Earlier, documents obtained by Haneef’s legal team under Freedom of Information Laws had indicated that former Liberal prime minister John Howard’s department became involved in the case within 48 hours of Haneef’s arrest in connection with the botched British bombings on July 2 last year.

So was Haneef, indeed, a victim of conspiracy for political gains? Documents had revealed officers from the then prime minister’s department and cabinet met with counterparts from the immigration and foreign affairs departments to discuss options for handling Haneef’s case on July 4.

Haneef was arrested at Brisbane airport on July 2, just before boarding a flight home to India.

The Indian doctor was incarcerated in Australia for three weeks last July after being charged with supporting a terrorist organisation by “recklessly” giving his mobile phone SIM card to people planning the botched London and Glasgow bomb attacks. The charges were later dropped and Haneef returned to his family in Bangalore on July 29 last year. His work visa was reinstated last December by the new Labour Immigration Minister Chris Evans.

The Clarke inquiry is investigating the series of events from the arrest of Haneef at Brisbane airport until his release from detention and return home to Bangalore.

Justice Clarke is expected to produce a public and a private report. He will report his findings to the federal government by Sep 30.

Haneef’s legal team’s fight for immigration documents continues (June 17, 2008): The legal team of Indian doctor Muhammad Haneef Tuesday succeeded in getting 250 documents from the Australian immigration department as the judicial inquiry into Haneef’s failed terrorism case continues.

The lawyers last month had appealed to the Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Brisbane for access to documents under Freedom of Information laws after the immigration department withheld them from release.

Haneef’s legal team plans to provide the documents to the judicial inquiry, headed by former New South Wales Supreme Court Justice John Clarke, which is investigating the series of events from the arrest of Haneef at Brisbane airport on July 2, 2007, until his release from detention and return home to Bangalore on July 29, 2007.

According to the Australian Associated Press, the immigration department lawyers told the tribunal they could not release about 15 documents sought by Haneef’s lawyers because they either contain national security information or advice to former immigration minister Kevin Andrews.

Since the announcement of the inquiry in March this year, Haneef’s lawyers have been demanding additional powers that would compel potential witnesses to give evidence.

Both Andrews, who cancelled Haneef’s 457 work visa soon after he was granted bail by a Brisbane magistrate to continue his incarceration, and Australian Federal Police Chief Mick Keelty have said they will cooperate with the inquiry.

Other government agencies involved, including Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, have also agreed to fully cooperate.

Justice Clarke is expected to produce a public and a private report. He will report his findings to the federal government by Sep 30.

The charges were later dropped and Haneef returned to his family in Bangalore July 29, 2007. His work visa was reinstated last December by the new Labour Immigration Minister Chris Evans.

Haneef lawyers win bid for withheld immigration papers (May 14, 2008): Indian doctor Muhammad Haneef’s lawyers have succeeded in fast-tracking a court challenge securing the release of documents from the immigration department, which they say are crucial to the judicial inquiry into his failed case.

Haneef’s lawyers last week appealed to the Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal (CAAT) in Brisbane requesting a review of the immigration department’s decision to withhold information on Haneef’s cancelled work visa.

The CAAT Wednesday decided to fast-track the matter for a hearing June 16 and 17 so the documents could be provided to the inquiry headed by former New South Wales Supreme Court Justice John Clarke.

Haneef’s legal team wants the immigration department to release 250 documents relating to the cancellation of his work visa.

His lawyer Rod Hodgson told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: “We want full disclosure of all the documents that can assist the Clarke Inquiry. We want to fast track this with a minimum of bureaucracy.”

“Our prime objective is to assist the Clarke Inquiry in addressing its terms of reference and getting to the bottom of what happened last year,” Hodgson added.

Hodgson had last week told reporters that documents obtained under the Freedom of Information had been heavily edited on several grounds, but could be vital to the current judicial inquiry into the handling of Haneef’s bungled terrorism case.

Haneef’s lawyers want Clarke to be given “coercive powers” to force witnesses including former Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews, who had cancelled Haneef’s work visa despite the terrorism charge against him being dropped, and Australian Federal Police (AFP) Chief Mick Keelty to give evidence.

The Clarke inquiry, which is due to submit its report by September 30, will investigate the series of events from Haneef’s arrest at Brisbane airport July 2, 2007, until his release from detention and return home to Bangalore July 29, last year.

The charges were later dropped and Haneef returned to his family in Bangalore last year. His work visa was reinstated last December by the new Labour Immigration Minister Chris Evans.

In the Kevin Rudd Government’s first budget Tuesday, an extra A$2.2 million (US $2 million) was allocated to fund the judicial inquiry into the way official agencies handled the terrorism case against Haneef.

Australia allocates $2 milliomn more to fund Haneef inquiry (May 13, 2008): The Australian government has set aside an extra A$2.2 million (US$ 2 million) to fund the judicial inquiry into the way official agencies handled the terrorism case against Indian doctor Mohammed Haneef.

The amount has been allocated in the first budget presented by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s government.

Haneef, 28, was charged with recklessly providing support to a terrorist organisation by giving his mobile phone SIM card to his cousin Sabeel Ahmed, one of the men accused in the botched British bomb attacks in 2007.

Former immigration minister Kevin Andrews cancelled Haneef’s work visa, just hours after a magistrate granted him bail on July 16, 2007, ensuring his continued incarceration. The charges against Haneef were dropped and the former Gold Coast registrar returned home to Bangalore last year.

The inquiry, headed by New South Wales Supreme Court Justice John Clarke, will investigate the series of events from the arrest of Haneef at Brisbane airport on July 2, 2007, until his release from detention and return home to Bangalore on July 29 last year. Clarke is due to submit his report by Sep 30.

Budget papers show the total cost of the inquiry is likely to be about $4.2 million with $2 million of that coming from the existing budget of the Attorney-General Robert McClelland’s Department.

“The inquiry will also examine and report on the effectiveness of cooperation, coordination and interoperability between commonwealth agencies and with state law enforcement agencies,” the budget papers said.

The Australian Federal Police, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and Kevin Andrews have all drawn flak for the embarrassing faux pas in the failed case of Haneef.

The bungled terrorism investigation by Australian police into Haneef’s case has been costing the tax payer a whopping A$8 million. There are still nine Australian federal police staff working on Haneef’s case.

Haneef’s work visa was reinstated last December by the new Labour Immigration Minister Chris Evans and keeping to his pre-election promise, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd instituted a judicial inquiry into Haneef’s case in March this year.

Haneef lawyers appeal for release of immigration documents (May 9, 2008): Indian doctor Muhammad Haneef’s case has taken yet another turn with the Immigration Department refusing to release documents and his lawyers appealing against it. An application was filed in the Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in Brisbane Thursday requesting a review of the Immigration Department’s decision to withhold information on Haneef’s cancelled 457 work visa.

Haneef’s lawyer Rod Hodgson told reporters that documents obtained under Freedom of Information had been heavily edited on several grounds, but could be vital to the current judicial inquiry by former New South Wales Supreme Court justice John Clarke into the handling of Haneef’s bungled terrorism case.

Hodgson told local media: “We’ve asked for documents, we believe are relevant, held by that department. They’ve said `No’. We want an umpire to make a decision on the access to those documents. We want the umpire to put our case at the top of the queue because of the current constraints with the Clarke inquiry.”

Haneef’s lawyers want Clarke to be given “coercive powers” to force witnesses to give evidence. The potential witnesses include former immigration minister Kevin Andrews, who had cancelled Haneef’s work visa despite the terrorism charge against him being dropped, and Australian Federal Police (AFP) Chief Mick Keelty.

“What we have are a number of pieces of the jigsaw puzzle as to what happened last year – there are many pieces missing,” Hodgson told reporters.

The Clarke inquiry, which is due to submit its report by Sep 30, will investigate the series of events from the arrest of Haneef at Brisbane airport on July 2 last year until his release from detention and return to Bangalore on July 29.

The bungled terrorism investigation by Australian police into Haneef’s case cost the tax payer a whopping A$8 million (US$7.2 million). There are nine Australian federal police staff working full time on Haneef’s case.

Haneef was incarcerated in Australia for three weeks last July after being charged with supporting a terrorist organisation by “recklessly” giving his mobile phone SIM card to people planning the botched London and Glasgow bomb attacks. The charges were later dropped and Haneef returned to his family in Bangalore. His work visa was reinstated last December by the new Labour Immigration Minister Chris Evans.

Lawyers fail to get coercive powers for Haneef inquiry (April 30, 2008): The much awaited judicial inquiry into the failed terrorism case against Indian doctor Muhammad Haneef heard fresh calls Wednesday for coercive powers to investigate the circumstances surrounding his arrest and detention last year.

But former New South Wales Supreme Court judge John Clarke, who is heading the inquiry, rejected a request from Haneef’s barrister Stephen Keim to ask the Federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland for royal commission powers, which include the right to compel witnesses to give evidence or provide documents.

The inquiry will investigate the series of events from the arrest of Haneef at Brisbane airport July 2, 2007, until his release from detention and return home to Bangalore July 29 last year.

Since the announcement of the inquiry in March this year, Haneef’s lawyers have been demanding additional powers that would compel potential witnesses to give evidence.

“We would rather have the ability to cross examine witnesses and we’ve been making that clear since the inquiry was first announced. We think that having the coercive powers that we’ve asked for is the best way to get to the bottom of what happened to Dr. Haneef,” said Rod Hodgson, partner of Maurice Blackburn, a leading law firm, who is acting on Haneef’s behalf during the judicial inquiry along with his legal team of Peter Russo and Stephen Keim.

Justice Clarke told reporters: “I want to emphasise that any report that bears my name will be a proper report.” He said he would request an interview with Haneef.

Former immigration minister Kevin Andrews, who cancelled Haneef’s 457 work visa soon after he was granted bail by a Brisbane magistrate, and Australian Federal Police Chief Mick Keelty have said they will cooperate with the inquiry.

Other government agencies involved, including Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, have also agreed to cooperate fully.

Keim told the inquiry: “It is apparent … that a series of appalling decisions have been made by police, prosecution and immigration officials including possibly by persons at a high level in those organisations.”

“Dr. Haneef continues to have his reputation imperilled and his personal safety threatened by public statements by the Australian Federal Police that he continues to be the subject of investigation by that organisation.

“Because Dr. Haneef’s reputation continues to be sullied by innuendo that he is a person of sufficiently dubious conduct to deserve to be investigated for now over 10 months and continuing, he is very keen to clear his name, once and for all.”

Assuring that if need be, the powers of the inquiry will be strengthened, McClelland told ABC Radio: “We have informed him (Justice Clarke) that if, at any stage, he believes his inquiry is prejudiced as a result of the absence of coercive powers, then we will certainly be receptive to any approach that he may make to us in that respect.

“I sincerely believe the inquiry will proceed in a full, proper and comprehensive manner and I have every confidence that outcome will be achieved by Mr Clarke. You can be assured it’s a full inquiry.”

As the one-hour preliminary inquiry heard evidence in Canberra Wednesday, Hodgson told the media: “We have great faith in Mr Clarke’s history and his acumen, but he has his hands tied behind his back.”

Clarke is expected to produce a public and a private report. He will report his findings to the Federal government by Sep 30.

Judicial enquiry into Haneef’s saga begins Wednesday (April 29, 2008): As the judicial enquiry into the handling of the bungled case against Indian doctor Muhammed Haneef begins Wednesday, his lawyers doubt whether there would be “full and frank cooperation” from some of the key players involved.

The review will be carried out by former New South Wales Supreme Court judge Justice John Clarke. He will conduct a one-hour preliminary hearing in Canberra Wednesday afternoon into the circumstances surrounding Haneef’s arrest and detention last year.

Haneef’s lawyers want Clarke to be given “coercive powers” to force witnesses, including former Australian immigration minister Kevin Andrews and Australian Federal Police (AFP) Chief Mick Keelty, to give evidence.

Both Andrews and Keelty have said they will cooperate with the inquiry and, according to media reports, “are expected to present their evidence in secret”.

Haneef’s lawyers, however, are sceptical. “I do not have confidence that there will be full and frank cooperation from some of the key players,” said Rod Hodgson, a partner with Maurice Blackburn, a leading law firm which will be acting on Haneef’s behalf during the judicial inquiry along with his legal team of Peter Russo and Stephen Keim.

“We don’t have answers to questions we want answered, and are concerned that Mr. Clarke is going to have some trouble getting to the bottom of those matters without being given coercive powers.”

Meanwhile, Haneef’s lawyers have also dismissed claims made in some sections of the media by a former John Howard government source that the AFP did not anticipate Andrews’ decision to cancel Haneef’s visa.

“…..we know that the AFP was in contact with the migration department before the visa was cancelled. They cooked up a scheme between the two of them to cancel the visa in the event that they got an adverse finding in the magistrate’s court,” Hodgson told the Australian Associated Press.

The source had told Fairfax newspapers, publishers among others of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, that the cancellation, which came just hours after Haneef was granted bail by a Brisbane magistrate, had “spoiled the police investigation”.

“If Dr. Haneef had been freed on bail the police would have kept him under surveillance and gathered any evidence that might be out there,” the source was quoted as saying.

According to evidence emerging at the Old Bailey court in London April 11, Haneef was innocent all along, but the AFP and the Commonwealth Director of Prosecutions ignored the evidence to continue his incarceration.

For a failed case that has earned Australia and the former John Howard government bad press not only at home and in India, but across the world.

Taxpayers have also borne a heavy price.

Andrews has spent more than 200,000 Australian dollars ($186,676) on monitoring the media, much of it on the bungled investigation of Haneef, a Senate Estimates Committee was told recently.

The bungled investigation is still costing the tax payer a whopping eight million Australian dollar ($7.4 million). There are nine Australian federal police staff working full time on Haneef’s case.

After the Labour government came to power, the new Immigration Minister Chris Evans had reinstated Haneef’s work visa in December last year. Haneef has earlier said that he would be seeking compensation and is hoping the inquiry will give him a “clean slate” to get on with his life.

Clarke is due to submit his report by Sep 30.

Haneef was innocent all along, but Australian police ignored evidence (April 14, 2008): Indian doctor Muhammad Haneef was innocent all along, according to evidence emerging at the Old Bailey court in London, but the Australian Federal Police and the Commonwealth Director of Prosecutions ignored the evidence to continue his incarceration.

The 28-year-old was charged with recklessly providing support to a terrorist organisation by giving his mobile phone SIM card to his cousin Sabeel Ahmed, one of the men accused in the botched British bomb attacks.

On Friday, in the Old Bailey, Justice Calvert-Smith accepted there was “no sign” of Sabeel Ahmed “being an extremist or party to extremist views”. Sabeel did plead guilty to a charge of withholding information about terrorism. He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment but released over the weekend to be deported to Bangalore.

A source in Britain has told the Sydney Morning Herald that the police in Sabeel’s home town of Liverpool had his brother Kafeel Ahmed’s jihad confession email text within 72 hours, which showed Sabeel was never part of Kafeel’s plans to detonate car bombs in London and Glasgow airports.

It was around this time that the Ahmeds’ second cousin Haneef was spending his third day in the Brisbane watchhouse after being arrested at Brisbane airport on July 2, hours before boarding a flight to India.

The Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the Commonwealth Director of Prosecutions (DPP) continued with terrorist charges against Haneef though they knew that Sabeel was not involved in his brother Kafeel’s plans. Haneef’s legal team were not shown Kafeel’s emails.

The bungled terrorism investigation by Australian police into Haneef’s case is still costing the taxpayer a whopping Australian $8 million ($7.2 million). There are nine Australian federal police staff working full time on Haneef’s case.

Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty and Attorney-General Robert McClelland were recently in Britain for talks with their counterparts on cooperation in security, intelligence and terrorism investigations and the case of former Gold Coast registrar Haneef, who eight months ago returned home to Bangalore.

Former Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews had cancelled his work visa, just hours after a magistrate granted him bail on July 16, 2007, ensuring his continued incarceration. The charges against Haneef were eventually dropped and he returned home last year.

In December 2007, the new Immigration Minister Chris Evans reinstated his visa after the Labour Government came to power.

A judicial inquiry to probe the handling of the failed terrorism case against Haneef is expected to start this month.

Australian top cop in Britain over Haneef case (April 9, 2008): The Muhammad Haneef saga continues to make news in Australia with Australian Federal Police (AFP) Commissioner Mick Keelty flying to Britain for talks with his counterparts on issues that will include the botched up case of the Indian doctor.

Keelty and Attorney-General Robert McClelland have flown to Britain for talks with their counterparts on cooperation in security, intelligence and terrorism investigations and the case of former Gold Coast registrar Haneef, who eight months ago returned home to Bangalore, The Australian newspaper said.

The trip comes after a bungled terrorism investigation by Australian police into Haneef, which is costing the taxpayer a whopping A$8 million ($7 million). There are still nine AFP staff working full time on Haneef’s case.

Former immigration minister Kevin Andrews cancelled his work visa, just hours after a magistrate granted him bail on July 16, 2007, ensuring his continued incarceration. The charges against Haneef were dropped and he returned home last year.

In December 2007, the new Immigration Minister Chris Evans reinstated his visa after the Labour government came to power.

A judicial inquiry to probe the handling of the failed terrorism case against Haneef is expected to start this month.

Australian police are still at it on Haneef case (April 4, 2008): As unbelievable and unnecessary it may be, but eight months after Indian doctor Muhammad Haneef has returned home, there are still nine Australian federal police staff working full time on his bungled case.

The investigation cost, since his arrest in July last year, is nearing a whopping Australian $8 million ($7.2 million).

A judicial inquiry to probe the handling of the failed terrorism case against the former Gold Coast registrar is expected to start this month.

According to a report in the Fairfax newspapers, Australian Federal Police (AFP) had nine members working on the Haneef matter full time, while five others provided assistance to the investigation “periodically”.

The 27-year-old was charged with recklessly providing support to a terrorist organisation by giving his mobile phone SIM card to his cousin Sabeel Ahmed, one of the men accused in the botched British bomb attacks.

Former Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews cancelled his work visa just hours after a magistrate granted him bail on July 16, 2007, ensuring his continued incarceration. The charges against Haneef were dropped and the former Gold Coast registrar returned home to Bangalore last year.

Immigration Minister Chris Evans had reinstated his visa in December 2007 after the Labour government came to power.

The independent inquiry into what went wrong in his case will be carried out by former New South Wales Supreme Court Justice John Clarke, who is said to have rejected entreaties from Haneef’s lawyers to widen his powers, which do not allow him to subpoena witnesses or documents.

Leading law firm, Maurice Blackburn, will be acting on Haneef’s behalf during the judicial inquiry into the circumstances surrounding his arrest and detention last year.

“It’s extraordinary that, after more than A$7.5 million ($6.83 million) of taxpayers’ money and many months after the director of publicprosecutions said he had no case to answer, my client is still a suspect,” Maurice Blackburn Partner Rod Hodgson told the Sydney Morning Herald.

“If there was anything to be found, it would have been found a long time ago. I question their motives when they are about to face an inquiry. It’s a smokescreen to avoid the scrutiny that the AFP should be subjected to,” Hodgson told the newspaper.

A federal police spokesman told the newspaper: “The resources allocated to the investigation are appropriate and proportional to the work being carried out.”

Haneef to seek compensation from Australian Government (March 17, 2008): Indian doctor Muhammad Haneef will seek compensation and wants the Australian government to broaden the powers of the judicial inquiry into his bungled terrorism case, according to his lawyers.

Leading law firm Maurice Blackburn will be acting on Haneef’s behalf during the judicial inquiry into the circumstances surrounding his arrest and detention last year.

Maurice Blackburn partner Rod Hodgson said: “Whilst Dr. Haneef has shown great dignity in the face of grave allegations, he is also understandably upset at what has occurred and has instructed his legal team to seek compensation for the damage inflicted upon him and his family.”

The Australian Federal Police and former immigration minister Kevin Andrews have not apologised to Haneef.

Hodgson said, “‘Sorry’ would not be enough. Dr. Haneef has had his reputation trashed, his career stalled, his liberty taken away, his life in Australia interrupted, his earnings reduced, and his life turned upside down. Those are all wrongs, absolutely deserving of compensation.

“There are several grounds… the wrongful imprisonment… One important part of this case is not just what happened at the outset but also the period of time that Dr. Haneef was kept in custody,” he added.

Haneef was incarcerated for three weeks after being charged with supporting a terrorist organisation by “recklessly” giving his mobile phone SIM card to people planning the botched London and Glasgow bomb attacks.

The charges were later dropped and Haneef returned to his family in Bangalore in July last year after then-minister Andrews cancelled his 457 work visa.

Hodgson said: “Dr. Haneef is looking forward to the inquiry commencing as soon as possible, and the process being broad ranging and transparent. Dr. Haneef remains stunned by what has occurred and, above all, wants the truth to emerge about what happened and just as importantly, why”.

The Kevin Rudd government last week appointed former New South Wales Supreme Court judge John Clarke to head the inquiry into Haneef’s failed case and report by Sep 30.

Welcoming the appointment of Clarke to head the inquiry, Hodgson said: “Whilst the terms of reference are sufficiently broad to examine the conduct of the Migration Department and the Australian Federal Police, the powers vested in the head of the inquiry are not strong enough.

“It is regrettable that the government has not given the inquiry coercive powers to compel people such as former minister Andrews and Mr. Keelty (of the police) to give evidence and be cross examined.”

Haneef told The Australian newspaper Monday: “Hopefully, it will take the right course. I think there should be powers to compel people to give evidence, otherwise the truth won’t be revealed.”

The former Gold Coast registrar is grateful to the Australian public for their support and the fact that an inquiry now appears imminent.

Maurice Blackburn would be acting with the assistance of Haneef’s legal team of Peter Russo and Stephen Keim.

Australia launches judicial probe into Haneef episode (March 13, 2008): Indian doctor Muhammed Haneef can look forward to justice, as Australia’s Kevin Rudd-led Labor government kept its word and Thursday launched a judicial inquiry into the handling of a failed terrorism case against him last year.

Former New South Wales Supreme Court justice John Clarke will carry out a review of the case.

Attorney-General Robert McClelland said Haneef will be asked to give evidence at the inquiry and Clarke has offered to travel to India to meet him. The report is due by September end.

McClelland told the media that the agencies involved in Haneef’s case have admitted to failures. He said, “What we want to ensure is that they are functioning at their absolute best both individually and collectively.”

“Certainly, we believe that this inquiry and recommendations flowing from it will be of assistance in ensuring that that occurs,” he added.

The 27-year-old doctor from India was charged with recklessly providing support to a terrorist organisation by giving his mobile phone SIM card to his cousin Sabeel Ahmed, one of the men accused in the botched British bomb attacks in July 2007.

Former immigration minister Kevin Andrews cancelled Haneef’s work visa, just hours after a magistrate granted him bail July 16, 2007, ensuring his continued incarceration.

The charges against Haneef were dropped and the former Gold Coast registrar returned home to Bangalore last year.

Immigration Minister Chris Evans had reinstated his visa in December 2007 after the Labor government came to power.

McClelland said the Haneef case had undermined public confidence in Australia’s anti-terror laws, and the inquiry would ensure security agencies learned any necessary lessons.

There were embarrassing faux pas made in the case, and Andrews and Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty drew flak for their handling of the case.

Clarke told the media, “Obviously, it would be preferable to talk with him (Andrews), but I have no coercive powers.”

Andrews has agreed to cooperate with a judicial inquiry even though his coalition colleague has called the probe a political stunt.

Andrews told reporters, “I will be available to meet with Clarke and to assist him in his inquiry.” The former immigration minister said he had revoked Haneef’s visa on character test grounds as they stood at the time based on a brief of evidence provided by the AFP.

“I make no apology for having acted in the national interest and having acted in a way that put the safety and security of Australians first,” he told reporters.

Liberal Party Senator George Brandis, the coalition’s legal affairs spokesman, told reporters: “The genesis of this inquiry is a political inquiry. It is a shocking thing for an attorney-general in executing a political stunt to raise the question and so cast doubt upon public confidence in Australia’s counter-terrorism laws.”

While Keelty has defended the AFP and other agencies’ role in the Haneef investigation, he has also pledged to help the inquiry.

Haneef’s lawyer Peter Russo has told the media, “He was fairly happy to hear about (the inquiry) and he is looking forward to speaking to myself and the rest of the legal team over the weekend.”

Russo indicated that his client had told him he was happy to meet with Clarke, whether in India or Australia.

Haneef probe will boost national security: Australian government (February 24, 2008): Indian doctor Muhammad Haneef’s saga is continuing to divide Australian politics with the new Labour government keen on a full judicial inquiry into the embarrassing faux pas committed in the medic’s failed terror case and the now opposition coalition arguing against it.

Keeping to his pre-election promise, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has assured a judicial inquiry to probe the handling of the failed terrorism case against the former Gold Coast registrar by the Australian Federal Police (AFP), the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and the previous John Howard-led coalition government.

The government says a full judicial inquiry into the Haneef affair will help improve Australia’s national security.

But Opposition Justice Spokesperson Christopher Pyne Sunday told Channel Ten that such an inquiry would expose sensitive information into public domain.

Pyne told Channel Ten, “In the Haneef case, obviously, it didn’t go nearly as well as the Australian Federal Police and others would have wanted. But a judicial inquiry into the Haneef case, I think, would be a tremendous overreaction by the new Labour government.”

“If there is to be an inquiry it should be conducted by the Australian Law Enforcement Integrity Commission. That was set up for this express purpose,” he said.

A spokesman for Attorney-General Robert McClelland told the Australian Associated Press, “The impact on ongoing national security operations is a factor being taken into account in arrangements for the inquiry. Australia’s national security will be boosted by learning the lessons of the Haneef case.”

Pyne insists the opposition had nothing to fear. Former Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews drew flak after his controversial cancellation of Haneef’s work visa last July only hours after a magistrate had granted him bail, keeping him behind bars.

Last December, the full bench of the Federal Court upheld a judge’s earlier decision to reinstate Haneef’s 457 work visa.

AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty last week told a Senate Estimates Committee hearing that the AFP didn’t think there was any need to change its handling of terrorism investigations. AFP has been criticised for its role in the bungled 28-year-old doctor’ case.

$183,000 spent to monitor media, mostly on Haneef case (February 19, 2008): Australia’s former immigration minister Kevin Andrews spent more than A$200,000 (US$183,000) on monitoring the media, much of it on the bungled investigation of Indian doctor Muhammad Haneef, a Senate Estimates Committee was told Tuesday.

For a failed case that earned Australia and the former John Howard government bad press across the world, it was a heavy price borne by the taxpayers.

The whopping A$7.5 million spent on the police does not seem to have been enough for a single charge against the former Gold Coast registrar, which was dropped within a fortnight.

Immigration department secretary Andrew Metcalfe told the Senate committee that media services provided to Andrews’ office included press clippings, radio and TV monitoring, transcripts, press release distribution and access to the Australian Associated Press news wire.

Andrews’ monthly media-monitoring costs provided by Metcalfe showed the former minister’s bill coming to over A$211,000 during his tenure as the immigration minister from Jan 30 to Nov 24, 2007.

The media monitoring expense soared once international interest grew after Haneef’s arrest, incarceration and subsequent cancellation of his work visa by Andrews, soon after the terror charges against the 28-year-old were dropped last July.

Metcalfe told the committee: “I would note that there was quite a significant level of expenditure across the months August, September, October and November. Dr Haneef’s case was considered by the minister in July and it remained a significant issue for a period thereafter.

“So without having checked the individual invoices, I think it is a fair assumption that some of that media-monitoring activity would have related to the significant level of media interest in Dr Haneef’s case,” he added.

Bungled Haneef probe cost Australian taxpayers $6.5 million (February 18, 2008): The bungled investigation of Indian doctor Muhammad Haneef has cost Australian taxpayers a whopping Australian $7.5 million (US $6.5 million), according to official estimates that were made public Monday.

The revelation comes as the government plans to conduct a judicial inquiry into why Haneef was wrongly charged with supporting a terrorist organisation involved in the failed 2007 British bombings.

Australian Federal Police (AFP) Commissioner Mick Keelty, who has come under fire throughout the failed probe into the former Gold Coast registrar’s case, Monday told a Senate Estimates Committee: “As at the end of December 2007, expenses for the investigation are in excess of $7.5 million. That is made up of approximately $5.5 million of employee expenses of which $1.6 accounts for overtime and approximately $1 million in supply expenses.”

Keelty said the AFP investigation of Haneef and the related foiled bomb attacks in Glasgow and London involved 249 AFP officers, 225 Queensland state police, 54 West Australia police, 40 New South Wales police, 12 officers from the Federal Attorney-General’s department, six customs officers, two Northern Territory police, one Tasmanian police officer, six translators, four officers from other law-enforcement agencies and two British policemen posted to Australia.

They took more than 300 witness statements and dealt with 16 telephone intercepts, six surveillance devices and 22 search warrants. The police seized 623 gigabytes of computer data and examined 349 forensic samples.

Attorney-General Robert McClelland is expected to announce the details of a judicial inquiry into the Haneef case soon.

Soon after taking over as prime minister last December, Kevin Rudd had said the Labour Party-led government would institute an inquiry into the failed case of Haneef, in a major policy shift from his predecessor John Howard-led coalition government’s stand on the Haneef case.

Keelty told the committee: “The AFP welcomes any inquiry into our role in the Haneef inquiry. We have absolutely nothing to hide.”

“We have reviewed the Haneef matter as a matter of course and there’s nothing that’s arisen out of those reviews that have required us to alter our policies, or approaches to those investigations,” the AFP Commissioner said, adding that the 28-year-old doctor did not have a case for compensation.

“Every step we have taken has had some form of judicial oversight,” Keelty said.

Meanwhile, Liberal Party of Australia Senator George Brandis questioned the move by the federal government to conduct a judicial inquiry into the police handling of the Haneef case while the AFP was continuing its investigation.

Brandis told the media: “It’s a little more difficult to understand how a new attorney-general in an incoming government would commit to that course, if he had been briefed by the AFP that the investigation was current.”

The AFP, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and former immigration minister Kevin Andrews have all drawn flak for embarrassing faux pas in the failed case of Haneef, who was incarcerated for three weeks after being charged with supporting a terrorist organisation by “recklessly” giving his mobile phone SIM card to people planning the London and Glasgow bombings.

The charges were later dropped and Haneef returned to his family in Bangalore in July last year after Andrews cancelled his work visa.

Haneef probe will go ahead: Rudd (December 6, 2007): Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says the government will institute an inquiry into the failed case of Indian doctor Muhammad Haneef, back home in Bangalore after charges of terrorism against him were dropped and his visa cancelled.

The Australian Labour Party had committed to a judicial inquiry into Haneef’s case prior to the federal election.

“What we’re on about is establishing the facts. We want to make sure that with these tough anti-terrorism laws that we’ve got in Australia that we’ve got the proper institutional arrangements necessary for their enforcement and the proper checks and balances as well,” Rudd told reporters in Brisbane,

According to the Australian Associated Press, Rudd denied the government was “raking over the coals” and said the inquiry was necessary to ensure anti-terrorism legislation was kept accountable.

The government is seeking advice on how to conduct an official investigation.

On Dec 1, incoming attorney general Robert McClelland had said there would be a broader investigation into the doctor’s case.

The Australian Federal Police, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and former immigration minister Kevin Andrews have all drawn flak for the embarrassing faux pas in the failed case of the former Gold Coast registrar who was incarcerated for three weeks after being charged with supporting a terrorist organisation by “recklessly” giving his mobile phone SIM card to people planning the London and Glasgow bomb.

The charges were later dropped and Haneef returned to his family in Bangalore after Andrews cancelled his 457 work visa.

Haneef’s legal team is continuing the legal battle to have his visa reinstated. His lawyer Peter Russo is keen for a proper conclusion to the Federal Court appeal lodged by the former government against the decision to return Haneef’s visa.

New attorney general may expand probe in Haneef case (December 1, 2007): Robert McClelland, who is set to take over as Australia’s attorney general, has indicated that there will be a broader investigation into the case of Indian doctor Muhammad Haneef who was charged with supporting terrorism before being released.

As the blame game continues between the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the prosecutors, McClelland was quoted in The Weekend Australian as saying: “On any measure it looked untidy”.

The Director of Public Prosecutions has admitted it had bungled the case and there was insufficient evidence to sustain a prosecution.

McClelland told the newspaper he would wait for reports from the AFP, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the Director of Public Prosecutions before deciding whether further scrutiny was necessary.

He said: “We want to get briefings from the agencies first on how they may have modified their practices in light of criticism they have had.”

“The Haneef case in some ways is an example of a breakdown in effective functioning. From afar, on any measure it looked untidy,” he told The Weekend Australian.

Prime Minister-elect Kevin Rudd has flagged a judicial inquiry into the failed prosecution case against the former Gold Coast registrar, who was incarcerated for three weeks after being charged with supporting a terrorist organisation by “recklessly” giving his mobile phone SIM card to people planning the failed London and Glasgow bombings.

The charges were later dropped and Haneef returned to his family in Bangalore after former immigration minister Kevin Andrews cancelled his 457 work visa.

Haneef’s lawyers have been fighting a legal battle to have his 457 work visa reinstated. His lawyer Peter Russo is keen for a proper conclusion to the Federal Court appeal lodged by the former government against the decision to return Haneef’s visa.

Haneef’s lawyer suggests review of migration and terror laws (November 30, 2007): To dig deep into what went wrong with Indian doctor Muhammad Haneef’s case, his lawyers say the new Australian Labor government may need to consider inquiries into both the Migration Act and the controversial counter-terrorism laws.

According to Australian Associated Press, Prime Minister-elect Kevin Rudd has flagged a judicial inquiry into the failed prosecution case against the former Gold Coast registrar, who was incarcerated for three weeks after being charged with supporting a terrorist organisation by “recklessly” giving his mobile phone SIM card to people planning the foiled London and Glasgow bomb attacks.

Haneef’s lawyer, Peter Russo, told the National Press Club, “It’s been suggested that a lot of the legislation that was introduced in relation to the government’s reaction to terrorism, really came about by stealth.”

“My understanding is the inquiry, when it was first mooted… was an inquiry about the previous immigration minister (Kevin Andrews). That would be very limited,” Russo said.

“If there’s going to be an inquiry into how all this unfolded. I think you could set up two inquiries, an inquiry into the Migration Act on its own, and then you could have an inquiry into the terrorism legislation and the Commonwealth criminal code,” he added.

The Australian Labor Party had until recently basically towed the Howard government’s line in the Haneef case, which has exposed the draconian nature of the anti-terrorism law, the Migration Act and the Crimes Act.

But with more embarrassing emails published before the election, under the Freedom of Information laws, which showed there was a “secret plan” to keep Haneef behind bars, the ALP had renewed its call for a judicial inquiry into the Indian doctor’s case.

Rudd had told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, “… I think there is a mounting case in terms of ministerial mismanagement of this matter, we must get to the bottom of it, and therefore a judicial inquiry is appropriate. I’ve said again, if we form the next government of Australia, there will be one. We need to get to the bottom of this.”

The emails had said, “Contingencies for containing Mr Haneef and detaining him under the Migration Act, if it was the case he was granted bail on Monday, were in place as per arrangements today.”

The charges were later dropped and Haneef returned to his family in Bangalore after Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews cancelled his 457 work visa.

Haneef’s legal team is continuing the legal battle to have his 457 work visa reinstated. Russo is keen for a proper conclusion to the Federal Court appeal lodged by the former government against the decision to return Haneef’s visa.

According to media reports here, Haneef’s solicitor Stephen Keim says he could be struck off the Bar because of two complaints made to the Queensland Legal Services Commission (QLSC). A Queensland solicitor and Australian Federal Police Commissioner (AFP) Mick Keelty have complained about information being leaked to the media.

Meanwhile, The Australian newspaper’s journalist Hedley Thomas has won the country’s top journalism prize, the Gold Walkley Award, for a series of news stories exposing the faux pas in the Haneef case.

Thomas has criticised the AFP for pursuing the lawyers, who leaked the information that allowed him to write his award-winning articles.

Law Council demands answers from Australian police on Haneef (November 19, 2007): The Law Council of Australia, the country’s peak legal group, has asked the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to publicly answer questions on the handling of the Indian doctor Muhammed Haneef’s failed case.

On Monday, the Law Council sought answers to whether or not the AFP officers lawfully discharged their functions under the Commonwealth Crimes Act in relation to the Haneef case.

The Law Council, on Nov 2, had written to AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty asking nine questions about the conduct of the AFP in the Haneef case. The questions have not been answered yet.

Law Council President Ross Ray said: “Although the AFP has indicated an intention to reply, thus far the only responses the Law Council has received from the AFP have been directed at delaying the publication of the Law Council’s letter. Australians deserve answers to the questions posed by the Law Council, and many more beyond.

“It has become clear that our anti-terror laws, while draconian in certain respects, are only part of the problem. The source of the danger is not only what those laws say but what people, including AFP officers, think they say — we need to learn from the Haneef and (Izhar) ul-Haque cases,” Ray added.

In a statement, the Law Council said it feels that law enforcement agencies, like the AFP, have been encouraged by sweeping anti-terror laws and the enthusiastic and uncritical support of the federal government to use their authority and resources inappropriately in a ‘win at all costs’ way.

“The actual details of the law are ignored and calamitous results for ordinary people are only too apparent. It has become increasingly important to hold an independent, transparent and broad ranging inquiry into these matters and law enforcement culture,” Ray concluded.

Haneef was held in custody for 12 days following his arrest on July 2 before he was finally charged with supporting a terrorist organisation by “recklessly” giving his mobile phone SIM card to people planning the failed London and Glasgow bomb attacks.

After 25 days in detention, the Australian government absolved him of charges of supporting terrorism, amid demands that those behind the tragedy of errors must quit and that the Indian doctor be sent home honourably.

The AFP has admitted that there were irregularities in evidence and there was no prospect of conviction and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions has acknowledged making “mistakes”, but no one has taken responsibility for the blunders.

An AFP spokesperson told the Australian Associated Press that it had replied to the Council. “The Australian Federal Police has twice written to the Law Council of Australia in response to the council’s letter about the conduct of the AFP during the Haneef case,” AFP spokesman Scott Kelleher told AAP.

Kelleher said because the Haneef case was still before the Federal Court it was not possible to fully answer the Council’s questions.

Australia court reserves ruling on Haneef’s visa (November 15, 2007): A full bench of the Federal Court of Australia Thursday reserved its decision on a visa appeal of Indian doctor Muhammad Haneef, who had been incarcerated here before terrorism charges against him were dropped.

The court heard the appeal by Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews against Justice Jeffery Spender’s decision in August to reinstate Haneef’s ‘457 work visa’.

Justice Spender had ruled that Andrews made a jurisdictional error when he cancelled Haneef’s visa on character grounds. However, Solicitor-General David Bennett QC argued that Andrews had wide-ranging discretionary power to take such action.

According to the Australian Associated Press, Haneef’s lawyers will attempt to counter a federal government appeal against the return of his visa with evidence of emails between the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and immigration officials.

The Australian newspaper on Nov 2 had revealed an email, obtained by Haneef’s lawyer Peter Russo under Freedom of Information laws, on a contingency plan between the immigration department officials and the AFP to keep Haneef, a former Gold Coast registrar, behind bars after Brisbane Magistrate Jacqui Payne granted him bail on July 16.

The email said, “Contingencies for containing Mr Haneef and detaining him under the Migration Act, if it was the case he was granted bail on Monday, were in place as per arrangements today.”

The 27-year-old doctor from Bangalore was incarcerated for three weeks after being charged with supporting a terrorist organisation by “recklessly” giving his mobile phone SIM card to people planning the London and Glasgow bomb.

While Andrews has denied he had any knowledge of the email, the AFP has said it was part of “normal operational contingency planning”.

Outside the Federal Court in Brisbane, a small group of Australians Thursday protested against the way Haneef was being treated, demanding justice for the doctor who has since returned home to Bangalore after terrorism charges against him were dropped and Andrews cancelled his work visa. The hearing continues.

Bungled Haneef case spells disaster for Australian health system (November 4, 2007): There has been a 90 per cent decline in overseas doctors seeking employment in Australia since the bungled case of Indian doctor Muhammad Haneef, according to the Overseas and Australian Medical Graduates Association (OAMGA) and the United Indian Association (UIA).

In a joint statement released Sunday, OAMGA and UIA said the massive drop in the number of doctors seeking temporary work visas to Australia was further compounding the existing health crisis.

OAMGA president Dr V Nagamma, who migrated to Australia in 1979 from Bangalore said, “This spells disaster for an already over stretched and under-resourced medical work force, particularly for rural and regional areas where many of these doctors are posted.”

Medical practitioners are much in demand in Australia, especially in remote towns. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the proportion of doctors who were born overseas was highest in Remote areas (56 percent) and Very Remote areas (51 percent).

Forty percent of all doctors in Australia were overseas trained and a large proportion of these doctors hail from the Indian subcontinent. Almost 15 percent of overseas trained doctors in Australia are Indians.

In the various interviews given by the presidents of UIA and OAMGA to both national and international media, they predicted that overseas doctors planning to arrive in Australia would reconsider their decision since the Haneef saga and they have been proven correct.

Nagamma said there was “growing anger amongst Australians of Indian origin over the John Howard Government’s handling of the Haneef’s case as it had brought discredit to the Indian Community here in Australia.”

With fresh emails between Australian Federal Police (AFP) and an adviser to Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews revealing that there was a “secret plan” in place to keep Haneef behind bars, UIA president Raj Natarajan, an electronics engineer who migrated with his family from Bangalore in 1988, said, “There is a growing body of evidence that Dr Haneef was used as a political pawn.”

The 27-year-old former Gold Coast registrar was incarcerated for three weeks after being charged with supporting a terrorist organisation by “recklessly” giving his mobile phone SIM card to people planning the London and Glasgow bombings.

The charges were later dropped and he returned to his family in Bangalore after Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews cancelled his 457 work visa. Haneef’s legal team has appealed against the decision and the case will come up for hearing in the coming weeks.

“UIA and OAMGA strongly urge the federal government, and the immigration minister, to restore credibility to recruitment process of overseas trained doctors, in order to avoid the looming crisis in the health delivery system,” the statement said.

There are estimated to be 5000 overseas trained doctors working under supervision and under the 457 temporary visa scheme. In the past 12 months, 1200 doctors have been given visas under the scheme and Queensland province is understood to be its biggest user.

Call to sack police chief for bungling in Haneef case (October 26, 2007): A prominent legal expert Friday called for the sacking of Police Commissioner Mick Keelty for his bungling in the case of Muhammad Haneef, clearly indicating that the saga of the Indian doctor charged with terrorism and then freed was not going to fade anytime soon — more so with polls less than a month away.

Former legal adviser to Prime Minister John Howard’s Liberal Party, Tony Morris, told The Australian newspaper that the Australian Federal Police (AFP) chief had been castigating Haneef’s lawyers in the media for disclosing the weaknesses in the prosecution case against the former Gold Coast hospital registrar.

Morris said: “Now he admits that he was conscious of those weaknesses all along, and stood by and did nothing when an inaccurate version of the facts was inadvertently presented to the court.

“On his own admission, as the chief law enforcement officer for the Commonwealth he was willing to allow a miscarriage of justice to proceed without taking any step to interfere — and then attacked Haneef’s lawyers for their efforts to prevent that miscarriage.”

Keelty had declined requests to explain his position and “should be sacked”, Morris added.

In a comment in the Bulletin magazine, Keelty said he believed the AFP made errors and was surprised when Haneef was charged with providing support to a terrorist organisation.

The 27-year-old doctor was imprisoned for three weeks in July after being charged with supporting a terror plot in Britain. The charges were later dropped and he returned to his family in Bangalore after Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews cancelled his visa. His legal team has appealed against the decision.

As the Haneef case dominated headlines during July and August, calls to the national security hotline soared to 2,611 in July, up from 1,399 in June. August saw an all time high of 3,430 calls to the hotline in the past two years.

Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said, “We know historically that calls to the hotline increase after a terrorist incident. It is as likely, as for any other reason, that the increase in calls reflects increased community vigilance following the failed car bombs in London and the attack on the Glasgow airport.”

Meanwhile, the Australian Labor Party (ALP), which has all along demanded a full judicial enquiry into the failed Haneef case, has done a volte-face. Shadow Attorney General Joe Ludwig told the Sydney Morning Herald that if ALP was elected, it may not proceed with an inquiry.

Ludwig told the newspaper: “It is not about an inquiry for an inquiry’s sake. If we are elected, we would work through it with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the Australian Federal Police and the Department of Immigration.

“At the moment, we don’t have access to information held by those agencies. We don’t have the full report from the DPP. We would need to assess it and work through it.”

Ludwig told newspaper that the Haneef affair had damaged public trust in anti-terrorism laws.

Police take responsibility for errors: Haneef’s lawyer (October 24, 2007): The saga of Indian doctor Muhammad Haneef is continuing to haunt the Australian authorities with his lawyer asking the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to take full responsibility of the errors in the investigation of his case.

Close on the heels of AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty commenting in the Bulletin magazine that he believed his force made errors and he was surprised when Haneef was charged with providing support to a terrorist organisation, The Australian newspaper reported that Prosecutor Clive Porritt has been demoted from his senior position in the Brisbane office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Haneef’s lawyer Peter Russo is demanding the AFP take responsibility for the errors which have ruined his client’s future and that Porritt was relying on information from the AFP and the mistakes were not his fault.

Keelty told the Bulletin: “I was as surprised as anybody when the DPP advised that Haneef could be charged. Because I didn’t think the evidence was strong enough.”

Asked if he had told the DPP of his concerns, Keelty replied: “Oh, yes…. Mine was an opinion that I expressed to the DPP, but I understood all the time that the prosecutor was independent of me and independent of the investigation and needed to come up with a view for himself.”

Porritt had incorrectly told the Brisbane Magistrates Court in July that Haneef had lived in Britain with his second cousins Kafeel and Sabeel Ahmed, who were accused of terrorist offences.

He had also said that Haneef’s SIM card was found in the burning jeep that crashed in Glasgow airport in a failed terror plot whereas it was found in Liverpool.

The 27-year-old Gold Coast registrar was incarcerated for three weeks after being charged. The charges were later dropped and he returned to his family in Bangalore after Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews cancelled his 457 world visa. His legal team has appealed against the decision.

Andrews is resisting Haneef’s attempts to get his visa back, and has appealed against a Federal Court ruling that he made a jurisdictional error in cancelling Haneef’s work visa.

Haneef’s case is continuing to embarrass the government, with elections only weeks away.

“Keelty’s relationship with the DPP, that’s entirely a matter for them. That’s not really something for us to intervene in. …The government doesn’t have anything to do with that,” Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said Wednesday.

“I think the best thing is to allow the court processes to play out in the normal way. I think that is the thing to do at this stage,” he said.

Political parties have been demanding a judicial enquiry and Haneef’s solicitor has asked for immigration legislation governing his client to be reviewed after the federal election.

Russo told ABC, “We’ve got a situation now where a person has had his visa cancelled, lost his job, had his reputation suffered based on information that the AFP provided to the director’s office. Now he’s come out and said that he told them that the case was weak. It doesn’t make any sense at all.”

Haneef’s visa appeal will come up for hearing next month. Will it cost the Federal Government votes on Nov 24 polling day? Russo told ABC, “That’s a really hard call for me to make, but I mean I think there are people out there who are concerned about the behaviour of Minister Andrews and they may very well take their process to the ballot box.”

Decline in Indian doctors coming to Australia (September 22, 2007): There has been a sharp decline in the number of doctors, especially Indian, applying for jobs in Australia since the much publicised Muhammad Haneef saga. The number of overseas-trained doctors applying to work in Australia has plummeted by up to 80 percent since mid-July, according to a new report.

A registrar at the Gold Coast hospital, Indian doctor Haneef was charged for suspected involvement in the botched British bomb attacks. The charges were later dropped, but Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews immediately cancelled his 457 work visa. Haneef voluntarily decided to return home to his family in Bangalore on July 27.

“The way the Haneef case was handled, we expected a backlash. We made representations to the government that it will have repercussions. Unfortunately, it has happened. It is very disappointing for the medical profession,” past president of the Overseas and Australian Medical Graduates Association (OAMGA) and United India Association (UIA), Dr Siddlingeswara Orekondy told IANS.

“When we go on holiday or conference, even in Sydney metropolitan area, it is very difficult to get a replacement. I can forsee an impending crises if overseas doctors stop coming. The impact will be acute in cities and worse in country towns”, added Orekondy, who migrated to Australia 31 years ago from Mysore.

According to a report in the Medical Observer published here, applications have fallen from around 200 a week to as low as 20 It reports that Medical Recruitment agencies are citing bad international publicity surrounding Haneef’s case as one of the major contributors in dissuading doctors from seeking work in Australia.

Chairman of the Association of Medical Recruitment Agents Ron Krause told ABC, “Dr Haneef was considered to be really mistreated. We probably lost three or four doctors that were all ready to go – they had their visas, they were coming…. These are Indian doctors, [they] have just said, ‘look, there’s no way you can go to a country like that if that’s the way they treat an Indian doctor’.”

About 30 percent of Australia’s doctors are trained overseas. The alarming drop in overseas doctors will further aggravate the acute shortage of doctors in remote and rural areas. Tighter visa restrictions are also compounding the problem.

The Health Minister of the state of Queensland, where Haneef was employed and is one of the largest recruiters of overseas doctors, has also blamed the Federal Government’s handling of the Haneef case for this crunch.

Health Minister Stephen Robertson told ABC’s World Today programme, “….I mean, there is no other issue to explain why we would see such a dramatic downturn than the headlines that were splashed around the world into places like the UK when our own Immigration Minister made quite irresponsible and offensive comments.”

He said: “Since August we’ve seen a 20 percent downturn in expressions of interest coming from overseas.”

The Australian Association of Medical Recruitment Agencies spokesman, Nick Hays, who also works for the recruitment agency, Latitudes told the ABC programme that even though this time of the year is usually the peak period of interest, number of applications has plummeted in recent months.

He told ABC: “On top of the 80 percent decline, what we have also experienced is approximately a 40 percent dropout rate, and that is that people who have accepted positions in Australia have now notified us that they’re not going to be continuing with the position. This is mainly due to the fact that they believe that they’re going to be offered a training position in the United Kingdom.”

Another agency, Recruit-A-Doc’s Director, Dr Brian Symon, said, “It is a simple reality that if we wish to recruit a doctor from the Indian subcontinent that, for our company, we’ve found that particularly difficult.”

Australian Doctors Trained Overseas Association’s Andrew Schwartz said applications from India have virtually disappeared since Haneef’s work visa was revoked.

Indians in Australia seek apology from government (July 29, 2007): The 230,000-strong Indian Australian community has been relieved that justice has finally prevailed as Muhammad Haneef was on his way home, though it has demanded an apology from the government for the Indian doctor’s 25-day incarceration before terror charges against him were dropped.

The United Indian Association (UIA) and the Overseas and Australian Medical Graduates Association (OAMGA) have asked the government to apologise to the Indian community in print and electronic media without any further delay to ensure that there will be no snowballing effect of the backlash on the community.

UIA president Raj Natarajan said, “I think the recent developments involving the dropping of charges against Dr. Haneef has to a large extent vindicated the views of UIA and OAMGA and their call for the rule of law to prevail and Dr. Haneef is given a fair go.”

Referring to the demand, he added: “This is not too much to ask of the government which boasts that they are the custodians of the great traditions of democracy. Many political pundits around the world are questioning the intentions of the government and rightly so.”

So what effect will this case have on the standing of the Indian doctors in the mainstream Australian society?

Natarajan said: “I think the healing process would now be faster and the Australian people are intelligent enough to sort the good from the bad.

“Having said that, the government should not only apologise to the Indian community in general but to the Indian doctors in particular for the effect this bungled episode has had on the community.”

OAMGA president V.R. Nagamma said: “With respect to recent developments on the Haneef case, we as the Indian community along with the doctor fraternity believe that justice has prevailed.

“Both the AFP (Australian Federal Police) and DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions) have done their job in an appropriate manner and the outcome has been positive.”

Meanwhile, civil libertarians say any inquiry into the bungled prosecution of Haneef should focus squarely on the actions of Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock and Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews.

Queensland Premier Peter Beattie has been a strong critic of the way Haneef’s case was handled from the beginning and is again calling for a senate inquiry into the matter.

Beattie told the media: “I got my share of criticism, being attacked by the prime minister, two other federal ministers, including Alexander Downer. I had Mick Keelty, the federal police commissioner, give me a swipe on the way through.

“But in the end, I didn’t do it for any reason other than I feel a personal responsibility to look after Queensland’s interests.”

The Labour party has called for a judicial review of the DPP, while the Greens say there should be a royal commission.

The 27-year-old doctor from Bangalore was held on July 2 at Brisbane airport, just as he was about to fly to India, on the charge of passing his mobile phone SIM card to a cousin in Britain who has been held for the failed terror plots in London and Glasgow last month.

Following contradictions in the case against him, Australian authorities cleared him of any involvement in the terror plots and he took a flight home Saturday evening.

Indian doctors ask Australian government to stop Haneef backlash (July 26, 2007): Disturbed with the government’s ‘couldn’t care less’ attitude, Indian doctors in Australia have said efforts must be stepped up to stop stereotyping of overseas trained medical professionals in the wake of their colleague Muhammad Haneef being charged with supporting terrorism.

The widely publicised case of Indian doctor Haneef, who is in solitary confinement in a Brisbane detention centre after being charged with ‘recklessly’ supporting a terror group by giving his mobile phone SIM card to people planning the foiled bombings in Britain, has led to a backlash against the Indian community.

Australian-Indians and Indians on work, tourist and student visas have been taunted, facing a barrage of questions in local trains and buses, offices and doctors’ surgeries.

One patient told an Indian doctor, ‘I don’t feel confident entrusting my body to you’. Another professional was asked by his colleagues, ‘You people need to be properly screened before being allowed to come here and work.’

A delegation of United India Association (UIA) and Overseas and Australian Medical Graduates Association (OAMGA) members will be meeting Federal Attorney General Phillip Ruddock on Monday to raise their concerns.

‘We have written to the Australian government that we are very concerned by its `couldn’t care less’ attitude and apathy, which is affecting the Indian community. The government has not been able to appreciate and understand the backlash we are facing in the real society due to this highly publicised case,’ said UIA president Raj Natarajan.

‘The government must immediately step up to remove the broader anxiety so that Indians at large are not blamed,’ added Natarajan, who last week met Immigration and Citizenship Minister Kevin Andrews.

Andrews told him the decision in Haneef’s case would have been the same irrespective of nationality or religion.

OAMGA president V.R. Nagamma said foreign trained doctors would be reluctant to practice in Australia if they were treated with suspicion.

‘The media should project a positive image proactively by stating the contribution made by overseas and Indian doctors, avoid stereotype reporting and be more sensitive in reporting so as not create a negative image,’ Nagamma told IANS.

She said the negative publicity following Haneef’s arrest would make Indian medical graduates think twice about coming to Australia to work.

Prabhat Sinha, who has been a principal of a Medical Centre in Sydney for over 30 years, added: ‘The case has not made any one happy, not the over 230,000 strong Indian community, not the dedicated doctors from the Indian subcontinent, not the civil libertarians, not the legal fraternity and nor the media.’

People in Australia want the series of highly damaging and embarrassing bungles by the police and prosecutors explained in the interests of natural justice and to restore public confidence in counter-terrorism laws.

‘These inaccuracies have resulted in undermining the integrity of the criminal justice system and public confidence in handling of the test case under anti-terror laws. When I consider the actions of the immigration minister in this case, the only thought that comes to my mind is that he has used an atom bomb to kill a fly,’ Sinha said.

The Australian health system relies heavily on foreign doctors, particularly in regional and remote areas where Australians don’t want to work. About 6,500 foreign doctors come to work in Australia each year, most of them from the Indian subcontinent, Britain and South Africa.

‘The health system will collapse without them. After the arrest of Dr. Haneef, a wave of fear swept through the Gold Coast hospital where he worked. Overseas trained doctors from India and the Middle East braced themselves for the rejection and abuse from patients and peers,’ said Sinha.

Also Read:

Was Haneef a victim of conspiracy for political gains?

Haneef v/s Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] – Federal Court of Australia

© Copyright Neena Bhandari. All rights reserved. Republication, copying or using information from neenabhandari.com content is expressly prohibited without the permission of the writer and the media outlet syndicating or publishing the article.

Leave A Comment Cancel reply

You May Also Like