Australian government's "terrorist" case against Dr Haneef unravels
By Mike Head
20 July 2007
In a serious blow to the Howard government's scare-mongering campaign,
Stephen Keim QC, the barrister for detained Indian Muslim doctor
Mohamed Haneef, has leaked a revealing transcript of his client's
initial police interview and called on the government to release any
undisclosed information it has on the case.
Keim's action is another sign that the Howard government's efforts to
whip up new fears of terrorism by connecting the young man to the
recent failed bombings in London and Glasgow have begun to unravel in
the face of growing public disquiet over the indefinite detention of
the 27-year-old doctor.
The released transcript directly contradicts several key police and
government allegations that were broadcast throughout the media over
the past three weeks in a bid to link Haneef to those arrested in
Britain. It exposes police claims that Haneef had lived with two of
the arrested men, who are his second cousins, and had no explanation
for seeking to fly to India on a one-way ticket.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio's "AM" program this morning
reported the collapse of the centrepiece of the police-government
campaign, that Haneef's former mobile phone SIM card was found in the
jeep that was rammed into the Glasgow Airport terminal. British and
Australian sources told an "AM" reporter that the card was found,
eight hours after the Glasgow incident, hundreds of kilometres away in
Liverpool. The card was in one of two mobile phones seized in the
apartment of one of Haneef's cousins, Sabeel Ahmed, who has not been
accused of any direct involvement in the bombings.
Reflecting the mounting opposition, leading lawyers have strongly
defended Keim's courageous stand in declaring that he was the source
of the leaked transcript, potentially risking his career. The
barrister, a widely respected figure in the legal profession,
challenged the government to arrest him after Prime Minister John
Howard, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock and Australian Federal Police
(AFP) Commissioner Mick Keelty made threats of legal action to punish
whoever leaked the document.
Keim said his handing of the 142-page transcript to a journalist was
completely legal and ethical, and necessary to counter the
government's own systematic leaking of prejudicial material calculated
to skew public opinion against Haneef. His statement exposed the
methods of deceptive media leaks that the government and its security
agencies have employed, not just against Haneef but every individual
charged with terrorist offences over the past five years.
"My client has been subject to a barrage of leaks," Keim told
reporters. In a media statement, he said "an aggressive campaign of
leaking, selectively and misleadingly, from the same document and
other allegedly secret documentation held by law-enforcement agencies
had been perpetrated in recent weeks. These leaks could only have been
motivated by a desire by those perpetrating them to suggest to the
Australian public that the case against Dr Haneef was stronger than
the Australian Federal Police, through their counsel, the commonwealth
DPP, had been able to put before the court."
Ruddock has threatened to pursue charges of contempt of court or
breaches of professional ethics against Keim, and declared that the
transcript's release could delay Haneef's trial, extending his
detention. Keim responded: "I challenge the Prime Minister, his
ministers, Mr Keelty and the police to produce the legal basis which
would make anything I've done illegal. They know where I am. If they
think I've done anything wrong, they can come and take me away."
What the transcript shows
The released transcript of the July 3 AFP interview reveals at least
three crucial false statements in the subsequent police court
affidavit. According to the affidavit, Haneef "had no explanation as
to why he did not have a return ticket" from India to Australia.
In reality, Haneef told the police his father-in-law had booked and
paid for a one-way ticket to India scheduled for July 2 "because I
didn't have any money". He explained that the sole purpose of his trip
was to see his wife, Firtous Arshiya, and new-born daughter, after
they were re-admitted to hospital following an urgent Caesarean birth
on June 26. The doctor said his employer, the Gold Coast Hospital,
could confirm that he had wanted to leave earlier but could not
organise another doctor to cover his absence.
The affidavit also states that Haneef told police he lived in Britain
with his two cousins, and that in an on-line conversation with his
cousin Sabeel just before the bombing bids he had not mentioned the
recent birth of his daughter. Haneef actually told police he had not
lived with his cousins, and that his conversation with Sabeel had been
solely about the birth of his child.
The full transcript shows that despite a marathon six-hour questioning
of Haneef—who willingly answered all questions and did not request
legal advice—two senior AFP agents came up with nothing. Most of the
interview consisted of Haneef giving the police every conceivable
piece of information about his life and his personal affairs,
including the names of all his relatives, details of his email
addresses, Internet account, computer, car, bank accounts, finances
and places of worship.
Throughout the interview, Haneef repeatedly denied any knowledge of
the London and Glasgow attacks, or any involvement in terrorism. He
told AFP agent Adam Simms he had never had firearms, explosives or
terrorist training and denied he had ever been asked "to take part in
jihad or anything that could be considered similar to jihad".
Haneef volunteered the information that he had left his SIM card
behind in Britain with Sabeel. He explained that after being told that
British police wished to ask him about the card, far from absconding
he had tried four times to phone a British police officer, Tony
Webster. Haneef said he feared he was being "framed". When he gave the
card to his cousin, more than a year earlier, it had only one month's
worth of use left, on a pre-paid plan.
Lawyers and judges speak out
Last Monday, a magistrate granted bail to Haneef after he had been
detained for police questioning without trial for nearly two weeks,
then charged with "recklessly" providing support to a terrorist
organisation. The only police evidence cited was that, before he left
Britain more than a year ago, the young doctor gave his nearly-used
SIM card to Sabeel Ahmed, who has not even been charged with
membership of a terrorist group.
Before Haneef could be released, the government effectively overturned
the court ruling by ordering that he be kept indefinitely in
immigration detention. Without any notice or hearing, Immigration
Minister Kevin Andrews revoked his visa on "bad character" grounds,
declaring that he was "reasonably suspected" of "association" with a
terrorist organisation. Haneef's lawyers have filed an appeal against
that decision in the Federal Court, but in the meantime the Queensland
state Labor government has declared that the young doctor will be
treated "as a terrorist" in jail, subjected to solitary confinement
for 23 hours a day.
The Howard government's actions, followed by its threats against Keim,
have clearly generated public suspicion, as well as outrage in the
legal profession and sections of the judiciary. Lawyers' groups have
sprung to the barrister's defence. Sean Reidy, chairman of the
criminal law section of the Queensland Law Society, said Keim acted
lawfully. He added that the legal fraternity was "monitoring the case
closely," Keim was a lawyer of the "highest integrity" and the
government attack appeared to be "vicious and personal".
"You have to have a great deal of concern for the administration of
justice when in high-profile cases lawyers are being personally
attacked. This is exactly what happened in the Tampa case," Reidy
said, referring to 2001, when the government denounced lawyers for
attempting to help refugees legally challenge their forced removal to
the remote Pacific island of Nauru.
Australian Bar Association president Stephen Estcourt SC said
thousands of lawyers were deeply concerned at the government's
handling of the case. "The disquiet is pretty universal," he said.
"The cancellation of Dr Haneef's visa following so closely on the
granting of bail is a cynical exercise and constitutes an assault on
the rule of law." Estcourt said he was also concerned by Ruddock's
comments about a possible tightening of the laws to make it harder for
judges and magistrates to use their discretion in bail cases. He said
this indicated that Ruddock believed he could simply frame new laws to
overcome independent-minded judicial officers.
The Australian Lawyers Alliance (ALA), representing 1,500 lawyers,
said the government's treatment of Haneef was "deplorable". ALA
national director and Perth barrister, Tom Percy, said: "When the
government is able to usurp the decision of a magistrate, the rule of
law no longer applies". Prominent Melbourne barrister, Robert Richter
QC, accused the government of "terrorising" the legal system.
Concern among judges became apparent on Wednesday during an urgent
directions hearing in Brisbane of Haneef's appeal against the visa
cancellation. Federal Court judge Jeffrey Spender described as
"absolutely astounding" the government's argument that an association
of any kind with criminals—even "a cup of coffee, a picnic with the
kids"—was enough for a non-citizen to fail the Migration Act's
"I have been associated with persons involved in criminal activity. I
have defended them, charged with murder. Unfortunately I wouldn't pass
the character test on your statement," the judge said to Roger
Derrington, SC, representing the immigration minister.
Justice Spender also said that the visa cancellation's timing was
"curious". "There is room for the view that this was an act of
circumventing the inconvenience of having him on bail," he said. One
of the grounds for the appeal is that the minister's purpose in
cancelling the visa was to allow Haneef to be detained when he had
been granted bail, and that that was an "improper purpose".
The previous day, Victorian Supreme Court justice Bernard Bongiorno
warned about the dangers of sacrificing the presumption of innocence
for "political expediency". He declared that "the whole foundation of
our criminal justice system" could be at risk.
Bongiorno granted bail to two accused members of the separatist
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). He expressed doubt that they
would be convicted under the anti-terrorism laws for fund-raising for
the LTTE, given that the organisation was not listed in Australia or
Sri Lanka as a terrorist organisation. The two leading members of the
Tamil community in Melbourne had been denied bail since their arrests
on May 1. Following Justice Bongiorno's ruling, a magistrate granted
bail to another Tamil man who was extradited from Sydney on similar
charges last month.
Widespread public concern in India about Haneef's treatment has forced
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to intervene, making a statement
expressing the hope that Australia would extend "all the facilities"
to Haneef. The Indian government had earlier summoned Australia's
envoy to the foreign ministry in New Delhi to demand that Haneef be
treated "fairly and justly under Australian law".
In Brisbane, where Haneef is detained, Muslim leaders said Muslims
were being targetted in the wake of his arrest. Dr Mohamad Abdalla
told the Murdoch-owned Courier-Mail many believed that if Haneef were
not a Muslim, the anti-terrorism laws would not have applied to him.
"Muslims are feeling now, many of them, particularly the vulnerable
ones, who is going to be next?" he said. "Since the issue of Haneef
started, people have been meeting every night until 10, 11 o'clock,
discussing what they can do. How they can respond?"
Murdoch's outlets, which have vociferously fuelled all the allegations
made by the government and its police agencies in the "war on terror"
since 2001, have intervened prominently in the Haneef case, including
by obtaining and publishing the police interview transcript. Behind
these actions are concerns, spelt out in an Australian editorial on
July 18, that the handling of the case is seriously discrediting the
entire framework of the anti-terrorist laws.
While defending the visa cancellation, the editorial said the
government's problem was that growing numbers of people no longer
trusted it. "Without a speedy explanation by the government of exactly
why he must remain in custody, Dr Haneef will continue to be martyred
by the same anti-Howard forces who managed to turn David Hicks from a
confessed terror trainee into the focus of widespread, and politically
costly, public sympathy".
In other words, Haneef's persecution is now compounding the damage to
the government's credibility caused by its complicity in the five-year
detention of Hicks in Guantánamo Bay, before he pled guilty to a
dubious minor charge in order to get back to Australia. Far from being
concerned about legal rights and civil liberties, the Murdoch stable
is alarmed that the government's ability to trample over these basic
rights has become compromised.
The Australian's legal affairs writer, Chris Merritt, elaborated these
concerns, writing: "The great lesson from the fiasco in Guantánamo Bay
was that the legal response to terrorism will fail utterly unless it
wins public acceptance. The only reason David Hicks is serving a
trifling sentence in Adelaide—instead of rotting in Cuba—is because
the Australian public lost faith in the US military commission
process... Instead of speculating about what sort of punishment could
be meted out to this lawyer [Stephen Keim], those responsible for the
war on terror should remember the great lesson from the Hicks case:
the court of public opinion can sometimes be far more powerful than a
court of law."
Letters to newspapers indicate that broad layers of people are now
disgusted not only with the Howard government, but the Labor Party as
well for its "in-principle" endorsement of every action taken against
Haneef. Labor leader Kevin Rudd's support for the government's conduct
is entirely in line with Labor's six-year record of backing the
so-called "war on terror" and voting for every piece of anti-terrorism
Occupying office in every state and territory, Labor's partnership has
been crucial in handing constitutional powers to the federal
government to impose its laws, and in passing legislation that has
either matched or exceeded the federal measures. The state Labor
government in Queensland has had no qualms in consigning Haneef to
solitary confinement "as a terrorist".
Since 2001, there has been complete bipartisan agreement between the
Howard government and the Labor "opposition" on boosting the powers of
the police, intelligence and military apparatus as public opposition
deepens to militarism, worsening social inequality and the assault on
basic legal and democratic rights.
WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE
To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email email@example.com for instructions.
To leave this list, send an email to:
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: