hedley thomas - haneef

The Australian 27/11/07

THERE are senior public servants in the Australian Federal Police, the Department of Immigration, and the office of the Commonwealth DPP wishing one of the scandals of 2007, the case of Dr Mohamed Haneef, will be consigned to the dustbin of history. 

Powerful forces would prefer to see the Haneef case quietly go away. But the self interest of those who have responded unsatisfactorily when faced with important responsibilities must surely run a poor second to the national interest.

As Opposition Leader, Mr Rudd infuriated some of his own backers by steadfastly resisting the temptation to engage the then Howard government on the Haneef case.

The future prime minister would not allow himself to be wedged on alleged terrorism, notwithstanding daily revelations of the obvious shortcomings in the evidence against Dr Haneef, the bungled police investigation, the flawed prosecutorial process, and the over-arching political dimension.

Mr Rudd found his voice in the last fortnight of the campaign when he pledged a public inquiry. It needs to be a core promise, and it needs to be announced soon.

Dr Haneef, 27, has been unemployed, and unemployable, since July 2 when he was arrested by the AFP. He remains in Bangalore, India. He needs his visa back to support his wife and child.

The Federal Court has ruled once already that former Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews got it wrong when he cancelled the visa. Mr Andrews appealed, and a decision is pending. Whatever the judgment, Dr Haneef has suffered a great deal already.

AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty, and the then Commonwealth DPP Damian Bugg, QC, would give important evidence in a Royal Commission. So, too, would Mr Andrews, deposed Prime Minister John Howard, and former Attorney-General Philip Ruddock.

Bugg has retired as DPP since expressing regret for his office’s mishandling of the case, while Keelty admits he had warned Bugg from the beginning that the evidence was weak.

For taking risks to ensure the truth about the lack of evidence in the case became public knowledge, Dr Haneef’s lawyers, Stephen Keim, SC, and Peter Russo have been rebuked by powerful politicians.

Keim is still facing a serious threat to his livelihood. He remains under investigation by the powerful legal regulatory-and-disciplinary body in Queensland, due to Mr Keelty’s complaint against Mr Keim for providing me and The Australian newspaper with a copy of Dr Haneef’s first record of interview with the AFP.

It would be a travesty if the only person, apart from Dr Haneef, to be penalised should be Mr Keim for having had the courage to take steps to bring out the truth.