Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, Headlines, Human Rights

RIGHTS-AUSTRALIA: Minister&#39s Evidence in Haneef Case Flawed – Activists

Stephen de Tarczynski

MELBOURNE, Aug 3 2007 (IPS) - Human rights activists are unwilling to accept information released during the week by Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews that he said was an important reason behind his decision to revoke Indian doctor Mohammed Haneef&#39s Australian visa.

"I think if you&#39re going to start picking out evidence selectively, it can be made to say a lot of different things," says Waleed Kadous from the Australian Muslim Civil Rights Advocacy Network (AMCRAN).

Andrews used his discretionary powers under the Migration Act to cancel Haneef&#39s visa on Jul. 16, the same day that the Indian doctor was granted bail in a Brisbane court. The doctor was arrested Jul. 2 in connection with the failed Glasgow and London bombings of late June.

The immigration minister, faced with strong criticism following his decision, on Tuesday released bits of an Internet chat conversation between Haneef and his brother, Shuaib, in India.

Terry O&#39Gorman, president of the Australian Council for Civil Liberties (ACCL), who has accused Australia of treating Haneef badly, says that the information released by Andrews does not change his opinion.

"His lawyer said that Haneef, in the interview done with police, had that exchange with his brother put to him and he gave an explanation. The prosecution sought not to use it in the criminal case," says O&#39Gorman.

O&#39Gorman has been an outspoken critic of the prosecution of the Indian doctor. The ACCL has submitted a complaint to the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity regarding the handling of the case by the Australian Federal Police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Immigration Department.

"What Andrews has now put out is an issue for cross-examination in the federal court proceedings as to whether his evidence is as strong as he purports it to be and whether it does, in fact, justify the revocation of his visa," O&#39Gorman told IPS.

He expects that the other information, still being withheld by Andrews, will be revealed during Haneef&#39s lawyer&#39s federal court challenge to the cancelling of his visa.

The chatroom conversation between the two brothers took place on the day Haneef was arrested while trying to leave Australia.

Shuaib allegedly told Haneef that "nothing has been found out about you". According to Andrews, Shuaib also urges Haneef not to delay his departure from Australia and to tell the Gold Coast Hospital where he worked "that you have to (leave) as you have a daughter born. Do not tell them anything else."

There were also references during the conversation to the brothers&#39 second cousin, Kafeel Ahmed, believed to be the driver of the jeep which crashed into Glasgow airport in the attempted terrorist attack, and who has since died from injuries sustained in that attack.

Shuaib tells Haneef not to let anyone use his phone in Australia or to give it to anybody. Andrews says that Shuaib adds: "Aunty told him that brother Kafeel used it; he is in some sort of trouble over there."

Andrews also indicates that prior to making his decision to cancel the visa, the federal police told him that the brothers&#39 chatroom conversation and Haneef&#39s attempted hasty departure on a one-way ticket led them to suspect that he may have been aware of "the conspiracy to plan and prepare the acts of terrorism in London and Glasgow."

The immigration minister has cited the need to not interfere with ongoing investigations in Australia and elsewhere as the reason why only small grabs of information have been released for public consumption.

AMCRAN&#39s Kadous acknowledges that information should necessarily be withheld from the public at times. "Unfortunately, that&#39s the type of world that we live in," he says.

But he is critical of Andrews for releasing information which was not exhaustive. "You can&#39t be selective about the evidence that&#39s presented in the way that Kevin Andrews has done. You (should) either present all of the relevant evidence or none of it," says Kadous.

He argues that the information presented by Andrews is taken out of context. "We don&#39t know what language it was presented in. We don&#39t know what the context was. We also know that there was a second police interview that they haven&#39t released."

The transcript of the other interview was leaked to the media by Haneef&#39s lawyer, Stephen Keim.

Kadous opposes Andrews&#39 decision to revoke Haneef&#39s visa. "Already, the rules for granting bail are extremely tough in any allegation of terrorism. The way the minister intervened, many, not just Muslims, but people across the whole spectrum of the legal community, feel that that is totally inappropriate and shows a disregard for the court," he says.

"It also shows a principle of guilt until proven innocence, rather than what we would all like, which is innocent until proven guilty," Kadous adds.

He says that regardless of Haneef&#39s guilt or innocence, major civil liberties issues have arisen during the course of the Haneef affair. Kadous argues that Haneef&#39s detention is an issue for the Australian community to be concerned about. "He was only supposed to be questioned for about 24 hours," he told IPS.

Under Australian law, a suspect can only be held for questioning by police for 24 hours. However, the time can be extended by a magistrate if police need more time to carry out investigations, as occurred on a number of occasions in Haneef&#39s case.

"The way that they were stretched out to 12 days (before Haneef was charged with recklessly providing support to a terrorist organisation) is quite worrying in ways that not even civil libertarians had even thought of before," says Kadous.