Dennis Shanahan, Political editor | December 23, 2008
THE judicial inquiry into the bungled arrest of Mohamed Haneef on terrorism charges has found he should not have been charged and has recommended sweeping changes to the Australian Federal Police, immigration intelligence and the nation's anti-terrorism laws.
The inquiry also found it would have been "prudent" to defer the cancellation of Dr Haneef's visa and his deportation.
The report, which is yet to be released, is critical of the prosecution case against Dr Haneef, identifies failures of criminal intelligence, and recommends a standing review of the anti-terrorism laws and sweeping controls for the AFP and the intelligence services in relation to immigration.
But the report, commissioned by the Rudd Government, has cleared the Howard government of any improper behaviour, conspiracy or political motivation in ordering the detention and later deportation of the Indian doctor from the Gold Coast in July last year.
While finding flaws in the actions of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, the former immigration minister Kevin Andrews, the Department of Immigration and the AFP, the report finds there was no conspiracy nor political motivation in the decision to cancel Dr Haneef's Australian work visa and send him back to India after the terrorism charges against him were dropped.
The report concludes there was insufficient evidence for the CDPP to lay charges against Dr Haneef in the first place.
Former NSW Supreme Court judge John Clarke QC, who chaired the inquiry, has found there should be clearer guidelines for laying terrorism charges, more co-operation between the police and intelligence agencies, direct ASIO advice to the immigration minister on deportation cases and a standing review of the terrorism laws and federal police.
Mr Clarke's report is expected to be released this week, with the departments and agencies involved having already received their copies.
While making a key finding that charges should not have been laid against Dr Haneef on the evidence available, the Clarke inquiry recommends the anti-terrorism laws should be clarified on the issue of how charges should be laid.
In what official sources described yesterday as a "forensic" and exhaustive inquiry, Mr Clarke recommends changes to the "silo" approach by the AFP and ASIO, suggesting a full-time co-ordinating body for intelligence, and effectively making his style of inquiry permanent to oversee the anti-terror laws and their application.
Government spokesmen refused to comment on the Clarke report yesterday.
Mr Clarke finds Mr Andrews did not reflect deeply enough on the Immigation Department's advice about Dr Haneef, but finds he was never given ASIO's report on the case by his department.
Another key recommendation is that ASIO advice on deportation cases should go to the minister for consideration before they exercise ministerial discretion in ordering a deportation.
Mr Andrews was roundly criticised last year for his decision to detain and then deport Dr Haneef, "in the national interest", after the terrorism charges against the doctor were dropped. The Howard government was accused of racism and scaremongering over the case.
ASIO's report on Dr Haneef - who was detained after the SIM card from his mobile phone was linked to his cousin, Kafeel Ahmed, who died after being burnt in a failed terror attack at Glasgow airport - said the intelligence agency did not have any material linking the Gold Coast Hospital doctor to terrorism, but stated the AFP was in charge of the case.
The trials of the other accused over the British terror attacks resulted last week in the conviction of Iraqi doctor Bilal Abdullah and the acquittal of his co-defendant, Mohamed Asha, a Jordanian neurologist.
Mr Clarke recommends that the AFP, ASIO and other agencies have a guiding body to assist in co-ordination of anti-terror information and investigations.
And he recommends, as was reported in The Australian yesterday, that the AFP should face a parliamentary oversight committee.
The Australian understands the Rudd Government will announce the creation of a joint House of Representatives and Senate committee on law enforcement to extend parliamentary oversight of intelligence agencies to include the AFP.
On the role played by Mr Andrews in the Haneef affair, the report is critical, finding that he did not "reflect deeply enough" on what was a "rambling brief" from his department on Dr Haneef and did not ask more questions about the ASIO brief that could have been in conflict with the AFP's report.
But Mr Clarke also finds that Mr Andrews acted out of genuine concern about terrorism.
Although the report alludes to possible conflict between the AFP and ASIO in the Haneef case, it finds that there was no conspiracy or improper purpose between the AFP and the Immigration Department to seek to have Dr Haneef deported.
Decisions were made at a time of heightened public concern following the failed bombings in Britain last June, grave suspicions about terrorism and a community expectation of action.
The report also suggests it would have been prudent to defer the deportation of Dr Haneef after charges against him were dropped, but, again, finds that the circumstances at the time, and the information available to the minister, were the reasons for deporting Dr Haneef.
Dr Haneef's visa was cancelled on July 16, the day he was granted bail by a magistrate. A charge of recklessly supporting a terrorist organisation was later withdrawn for lack of evidence.
THE judicial inquiry into the bungled arrest of Mohamed Haneef on terrorism charges has found he should not have been charged and has recommended sweeping changes to the Australian Federal Police, immigration intelligence and the nation's anti-terrorism laws.
The inquiry also found it would have been "prudent" to defer the cancellation of Dr Haneef's visa and his deportation.
The report, which is yet to be released, is critical of the prosecution case against Dr Haneef, identifies failures of criminal intelligence, and recommends a standing review of the anti-terrorism laws and sweeping controls for the AFP and the intelligence services in relation to immigration.
But the report, commissioned by the Rudd Government, has cleared the Howard government of any improper behaviour, conspiracy or political motivation in ordering the detention and later deportation of the Indian doctor from the Gold Coast in July last year.
While finding flaws in the actions of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, the former immigration minister Kevin Andrews, the Department of Immigration and the AFP, the report finds there was no conspiracy nor political motivation in the decision to cancel Dr Haneef's Australian work visa and send him back to India after the terrorism charges against him were dropped.
The report concludes there was insufficient evidence for the CDPP to lay charges against Dr Haneef in the first place.
Former NSW Supreme Court judge John Clarke QC, who chaired the inquiry, has found there should be clearer guidelines for laying terrorism charges, more co-operation between the police and intelligence agencies, direct ASIO advice to the immigration minister on deportation cases and a standing review of the terrorism laws and federal police.
Mr Clarke's report is expected to be released this week, with the departments and agencies involved having already received their copies.
While making a key finding that charges should not have been laid against Dr Haneef on the evidence available, the Clarke inquiry recommends the anti-terrorism laws should be clarified on the issue of how charges should be laid.
In what official sources described yesterday as a "forensic" and exhaustive inquiry, Mr Clarke recommends changes to the "silo" approach by the AFP and ASIO, suggesting a full-time co-ordinating body for intelligence, and effectively making his style of inquiry permanent to oversee the anti-terror laws and their application.
Government spokesmen refused to comment on the Clarke report yesterday.
Mr Clarke finds Mr Andrews did not reflect deeply enough on the Immigation Department's advice about Dr Haneef, but finds he was never given ASIO's report on the case by his department.
Another key recommendation is that ASIO advice on deportation cases should go to the minister for consideration before they exercise ministerial discretion in ordering a deportation.
Mr Andrews was roundly criticised last year for his decision to detain and then deport Dr Haneef, "in the national interest", after the terrorism charges against the doctor were dropped. The Howard government was accused of racism and scaremongering over the case.
ASIO's report on Dr Haneef - who was detained after the SIM card from his mobile phone was linked to his cousin, Kafeel Ahmed, who died after being burnt in a failed terror attack at Glasgow airport - said the intelligence agency did not have any material linking the Gold Coast Hospital doctor to terrorism, but stated the AFP was in charge of the case.
The trials of the other accused over the British terror attacks resulted last week in the conviction of Iraqi doctor Bilal Abdullah and the acquittal of his co-defendant, Mohamed Asha, a Jordanian neurologist.
Mr Clarke recommends that the AFP, ASIO and other agencies have a guiding body to assist in co-ordination of anti-terror information and investigations.
And he recommends, as was reported in The Australian yesterday, that the AFP should face a parliamentary oversight committee.
The Australian understands the Rudd Government will announce the creation of a joint House of Representatives and Senate committee on law enforcement to extend parliamentary oversight of intelligence agencies to include the AFP.
On the role played by Mr Andrews in the Haneef affair, the report is critical, finding that he did not "reflect deeply enough" on what was a "rambling brief" from his department on Dr Haneef and did not ask more questions about the ASIO brief that could have been in conflict with the AFP's report.
But Mr Clarke also finds that Mr Andrews acted out of genuine concern about terrorism.
Although the report alludes to possible conflict between the AFP and ASIO in the Haneef case, it finds that there was no conspiracy or improper purpose between the AFP and the Immigration Department to seek to have Dr Haneef deported.
Decisions were made at a time of heightened public concern following the failed bombings in Britain last June, grave suspicions about terrorism and a community expectation of action.
The report also suggests it would have been prudent to defer the deportation of Dr Haneef after charges against him were dropped, but, again, finds that the circumstances at the time, and the information available to the minister, were the reasons for deporting Dr Haneef.
Dr Haneef's visa was cancelled on July 16, the day he was granted bail by a magistrate. A charge of recklessly supporting a terrorist organisation was later withdrawn for lack of evidence.
Source: The Australian
 |
Posts
