Sunday 28th of April 2024
Home » Blogs » John Richardson's blog

rattus at law .....

 

rattus at law .....

Rattus has loudly & often boasted about his government’s commitment to “the rule of law”.

Today we were treated to yet another demonstration of just how much of a contemptible & filthy lie this foul boast really is.

Rattus & his colleagues are totally corrupt. Moreover, their self-righteous determination to place themselves above & beyond the reach of our judicial system, renders their corruption profound.

Using their wicked fear meme as a justification, these crooks have engineered a raft of so-called “anti-terrorist” laws that have effectively abolished a central tenet of our judicial system: the presumption of innocence. Moreover, they have assumed for themselves judicial powers that make a mockery of our courts when they might occasionally encounter an inconvenient decision.

Mohamed Haneef, the Indian doctor held in solitary confinement, without charge, by the QLD Police at the Brisbane Watchhouse for two weeks, whilst 300 lawyers & police tore his life to pieces in a frantic effort to find proof that he is the greatest terrorist mastermind in history, has now discovered just how far Rattus & his rotten government will go to chalk-up political mileage.

Notwithstanding the failure of this army of zealous investigators to come-up with the evidence to prove their pre-formed assumption of Haneef’s guilt, the Rattus government has once again displayed with breathless arrogance its adherence to the doctrine that “the end always justify the means”.

Haneef has already been found “guilty” of something – anything - by these maniacs: the government’s behaviour over the past 10 days is evidence enough of that.

The nation’s so-called “first law officer” - proud & hypocritical Amnesty International member - Attorney-General, Darth Ruddock, & his lapdog AFP Commissioner, Mick Keelty, have condemned Haneef through their running public commentary on the affair ever since it started; ably assisted by our compliantly hysterical media.

Darth callously revealed his prejudgement when he observed last week that: “Dr Haneef appeared to be leaving Australia in a hurry.” This observation was a clear & totally inappropriate aspersion on Haneef’s character, but is typical of the behaviour that his government will stoop to draw political mileage at every opportunity. They did it with Hicks. They did it with Habib. They’ve done it time & time again. They’ll do it at every opportunity. They are beneath contempt.

And what was Keelty, the Rattus political commissar in charge of our federal flatfoots, doing calling a media conference on Saturday morning to announce that a charge (recklessly lending a SIM card to terrorists) had been made against Dr Haneef? The federal plod charges people with serious offences every day of the week, without calling press conferences.

But Haneef, charged with a paltry & obviously desperately trivial offence, was paraded before the nation’s media as if he had been caught red-handed committing the crime of the century. The fact that no-one associated with Haneef – here or in Great Britain – has been found guilty of being a “terrorist” seems to matter nothing to Keelty & his crew. The charge is an absurdity … a stupid & desperate obscenity of the first order.

And Rattus himself couldn’t resist getting into the act when he aggressively asserted in a weekend news conference that the charging of Dr Haneef means that the anti-terror laws passed by his government, and supported by the ALP, were “completely appropriate”.

Which brings us to today & the decision by the Brisbane magistrate to release Dr Haneef on bail. The decision to grant Dr Haneef bail by Brisbane magistrate, Jacqui Payne, says something about the quality and quantity of the evidence in this case, because there is a presumption against granting bail to suspects charged with terrorist offences.

Notwithstanding this potentially embarrassing decision by a member of the judiciary, the Rattus Minister for false imprisonment immediately decided that he knew better than some lowly magistrate & that he had a superior right over any court of law in determining Dr Haneef’s fate.

The hero of the discredited WorkChoices regime took it upon himself to “cancel” Dr Haneef’s visa because he, Andrews, believed that Haneef had failed the “character test” necessary under our Immigration laws to hold that Visa.

So, Dr Haneef, charged with an offence that tens of thousands of others could unknowingly be guilty of, is released on $10,000 bail, obviously because the magistrate saw no compelling evidence from the Police to treat the matter more seriously whilst, down the road, a politician assumes the right to decide otherwise, rendering our judicial system redundant.

Some system & so much for “the rule of law”.

When quizzed by a querulous media as to the justification for his decision, the hapless Andrews could only obscufate, arguing that his decision was completely unrelated to the decision by the Brisbane magistrate, notwithstanding that he allegedly had based his decision on advice received from the federal footpads … the same bunch who had failed to convince the magistrate that Haneef shouldn’t be released.

So, what chance does Haneef or any of us have under this kind of “rule of law”?

Stephen Estcourt, president of the Australian Bar Association, could not believe the minister's action.

"He can't do that," said Mr Estcourt, who spent four years ruling on immigration detention cases on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

He said the minister was "usurping the role of the court".

"Usually this sort of visa cancellation takes place after charges have been laid against someone and they`ve run their course and they've resulted in a penalty being imposed ... I have not heard of this power being used pre-emptively in this way.

"It has got to be seen as a threat to the rule of law if a ministerial discretion is used to effectively reverse, or to reverse for practical purposes a decision of the court. And it's sophistry to say that one's got nothing to do with the other."

Dr Haneef's barrister also launched an attack on the open-ended nature of Australia's tough anti-terrorism laws.

"When you pass legislation that gives a police service in any part of the world powers, it just becomes part of the toolkit," said Stephen Keim, SC, who was not permitted to discuss the case under Queensland law until today.

"Then those police officers who are required to use it, without being wicked or vindictive in any way, they simply say: 'Well this is a power we have been given. Our job is to catch crooks and we will use this power, we will keep on making applications.' "

And where is Labor Party in all this?

Obviously & disappointingly trying to avoid the slightest risk of being accused of being “soft” on terrorism by the cunning Rattus, Labour has quietly condoned the arbitary, capricious & renegade behaviour of the government.

Tragicly, for the people of Australia, whether Dr Haneef ultimately turns out to be guilty or innocent, Labour refuses to stand-up for the principles that have allegedly underpinned our judicial system for more than a thousand years: the presumption of innocence & the independence of the judiciary.

Courtesy of the mad Rattus & an over-cautious opposition, Australia finds itself back in the days of the Rum Corps, where the fear of corrupt authority ensured a compliant & docile populace.

Meanwhile, whilst Rattus goes crazy trying to figure-out why the electorate no longer wants a bar of him & his utterly corrupt colleagues, it just might be that the “docile populace” have finally seen through the myth of his fear meme; his phoney war on terror; his criminal charade over Iraq & his steady destruction of the “values” that were once the hallmark of this great country & maybe, just maybe, they are quietly planning to render to him & his rotten government a long overdue dose of their own standards of justice?

Like Dr Haneef, we can only live in hope.

lock-up your sim cards .....

from Crikey …..

In all the fuss about the detention of Dr Mohamed Haneef, in the flurry of indignation at breached principle and flouted rule of law, one point seems to have gone unnoticed.

If Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews is to be taken at his word, if evidence exists that was not led in court that links Dr Haneef to terrorism, if there is more to this than some monstrously overwrought piece of political opportunism, then one thing is clear.

It's simple: the government's much vaunted anti-terror laws are not worth the paper they're printed on. They're not up to the job. They couldn't hold their man. They failed at the first test. They are a dead deterrent.

and …..

Terror suspect Dr Mohamed Haneef could be held in administrative detention "forever", says Michael Clothier, former senior member of the Australian Government’s Immigration Review Tribunal and practising immigration lawyer.

"Unlike the court detention under the terrorism act, the High Court has said that a non-citizen can be detained forever," Clothier says. Moreover, Andrews is "abusing his powers under section 501", and the parliament "should never have given an immigration minister such powers."

According to section 501 of the Migration Act:

(1)  The Minister may refuse to grant a visa to a person if the person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test. 

(2)  The Minister may cancel a visa that has been granted to a person (on certain grounds)...

Clothier tells Crikey that, "if the minister thinks you are a bad character he can, without granting you natural justice, cancel or refuse a visa. If your visa is cancelled, any other visa application is deemed to be refused and you must be detained in administrative detention. There is no discretion. This is obviously why they have used 501.

"That administrative power is absolute. 501 is a really nasty section. In fact, ironically, [Haneef] has more rights as a terrorist suspect than as an immigration 457 visa holder who has been detained under section 501.

There are about 35,000 other 457 visa holders currently in Australia who would have to be worried about who they lend their SIM cards to in future!" 

The conduct of Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews yesterday in the Dr Mohamed Haneef case is disgraceful for several reasons.

First, he has used the Migration Act powers to interfere with the criminal justice system. By cancelling a visa, he has trumped the granting of bail.

Second, Dr Haneef is to be sent to Villawood Immigration Detention Centre in suburban Sydney. This has placed Dr Haneef at an enormous disadvantage in preparing for his defence because lawyers who are acting on his behalf without a fee are based in Brisbane.

The Immigration Minister is willing to lend himself out as a branch of the police force and the Attorney-General is willing to take advantage of the minister's impropriety. A person charged with an offence that carries a potential 15 years' jail has now been placed in a position where preparing his defence will be virtually impossible. Is this the democracy we are trying to save?

spot the terrorist .....

Haneef appeal hearing set down for August 8

Dr Haneef will learn in two weeks whether he will be forced to wait in detention for his trial, after his lawyers lodged an appeal in the Federal Court in Brisbane today. 

At a directions hearing this afternoon, Justice Jeffrey Spender set down Haneef's appeal against the cancellation of his visa for hearing on August 8.

The Federal Government on Monday cancelled Haneef's visa on character grounds after a magistrate granted the Indian doctor bail. He remains in custody.

In a surprise move, Justice Spender today questioned Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews's interpretation of the character test used to revoke Haneef's visa.

He questioned what grounds Mr Andrews used to justify his view that he had a reasonable suspicion that Haneef had an association with terrorists, saying that he himself would fail the character test.

"Unfortunately I wouldn't pass the character test on your statement because I've been associated with people suspected of criminal conduct," Justice Spender said to the Immigration Department's counsel.

The Immigration Department's counsel agreed that he wouldn't pass the character test if he were a non-citizen.

Justice Spender also urged Mr Andrews to provide any protected information he used to make his decision, saying it would be difficult for him to make his judgment without it.

Barrister Admits Haneef Leak

the presumption of innocence is a nuisance, isn't it Mr Ruddock?

from Crikey …..

Greg Barns writes:

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock dragged his office to a new low on ABC TV’s Lateline last night.

Australia's first law officer essentially said that no person should get bail when charged with terrorism offences, no matter what the circumstances of their case. Why? Because it doesn’t suit the Howard government’s political purposes.

It is clear that the A-G is outraged by the decision of Queensland magistrate Jacqui Payne to grant Mohamed Haneef bail on Monday, even though Ms Payne was clearly in the right, given the paucity of evidence against Dr Haneef and the fact that there's no suggestion he is linked to any terrorist organisation.

Mr Ruddock told Lateline:

The matter that I will be looking at very seriously is this question of the presumption against bail, there was an expectation as to how it would operate and if appeals suggest that we've got it wrong, well it's a matter that the Parliament might well be asked to put right.

If we find in relation to these measures that the law that we passed that we expected would ensure that people charged with terrorism offences would have a presumption against bail is not being met we may have to look at that matter further.

In other words, "we will make it almost impossible for defendants to get bail, no matter what the circumstances of their particular case."

What a nuisance the criminal law and the presumption of innocence are, Mr Ruddock. I mean why not go the whole hog and just abolish the concept of bail in terrorism cases altogether. You might get away with it because Australia, unfortunately, has no charter or bill of rights to protect individuals from merciless power hungry state officials like you.

Oh, and by the way, one assumes that Mr Ruddock’s protestation last night that his colleague Kevin Andrews didn’t discuss revoking Dr Haneef’s visa with him was a feeble attempt at ironic humor. Philip Ruddock is a control freak who is all over every little twist and turn in terrorism cases -- to suggest that he and Mr Andrews didn’t talk before the decision was announced is to suggest that pigs do fly.

evidence overboard .....

‘Commissioner Mick Keelty has defended the Australian Federal Police (AFP) against allegations of incompetence following apparent flaws in the prosecution case against Mohamed Haneef.

Mr Keelty today urged lawyers and the media to stop commenting on the case against the Indian doctor charged with recklessly providing support to a terrorist organisation.

He singled out Melbourne barrister Peter Faris QC, who earlier today said the AFP and Director of Public Prosecutions appeared to have made a "shocking mess-up" in presenting evidence to court.

This came after reports from Britain today that the mobile phone SIM card Mr Haneeef allegedly provided was not in the Jeep that crashed into Glasgow Airport on June 30.’

Keelty Defends Handling Of Haneef Case

Greg Barns writes in Crikey …..

The handling of Mohammed Haneef’s case by the Howard government and the law enforcement agencies grows more problematic everyday. In fact, one wonders now if Dr Haneef is the victim of some serious injustice.

The Australian’s Hedley Thomas has conducted a thorough analysis, comparing the leaked Haneef record of interview with the affidavit material the AFP and its lawyers put before the courts to justify both the original detention without charge and their opposition to bail for Dr Haneef.

It’s worth recounting what Thomas has found because it raises serious questions about the integrity of this investigation. In two key areas it appears that Dr Haneef has been "verballed" by the authorities.

Firstly, according to Thomas, “The police affidavit states: 'On 2 July and 3 July 2007 Dr Haneef participated in a taped record of interview with the AFP and stated the following: Whilst in the UK he resided with suspects 1 and 2 (alleged suicide bomber Kafeel Ahmed and his brother Dr Sabeel Ahmed), at 13 Bentley Road, Liverpool.'"

But as Thomas says, “However, in the record of interview ... Dr Haneef tells police that he lived at 13 Bentley Road, Liverpool, with several doctors, whom he names. None are the two suspects. Dr Haneef tells police he visited Cambridge on two occasions in 2004 and stayed for up to six days with Kafeel Ahmed. Dr Haneef also states that he had moved out of 13 Bentley Road when Dr Sabeel Ahmed subsequently stayed there."

Yet, Thomas notes, an Immigration Department document used to advise Mr Andrews, states "Dr Haneef advised the AFP that he resided with Dr Sabeel Ahmed at a boarding house located at 13 Bentley Road, Liverpool, UK."

Second, the police affidavit, according to Thomas, “asserts that Dr Haneef, 27, a Gold Coast Hospital registrar since September last year, 'had no explanation as to why he did not have a return ticket' from India to Australia. Dr Haneef, whose wife, Firdous Arshiya, gave birth to their first child by emergency caesarean section on June 26 in Bangalore, India, was trying to leave Australia on July 2 on a one-way ticket bought the same day by his father-in-law in India.''

Thomas then writes, “While the police affidavit stated Dr Haneef 'had no explanation' about his one-way ticket, the record of interview shows that he gave a detailed explanation to police while answering questions. Dr Haneef told police that as he did not have funds in his Australian bank account his father-in-law had booked and paid for the one-way ticket with an understanding that "when I go there we can arrange for the coming back ticket. Because I just got 7 days' leave approved".

If there is no explanation for these discrepancies then legitimate questions can be raised about the AFP and Immigration Department’s conduct in this matter. Verballing a suspect – that is, twisting what they say or putting words in their mouth - is about as serious a breach of fairness as there is. It’s an age old practice which has been mitigated in recent years by the use of taped and video recorded interviews by police with suspects.

Instead of Mr Ruddock and Mr Keelty pointing the finger at the brave and principled actions of Dr Haneef’s barrister Stephen Keim in releasing his client’s record of interview to The Australian this week, they should be looking long and hard at the actions of their own officers and lawyers.

For the sake of the integrity of the justice and migration processes in this country Hedley Thomas’s allegations of verballing of Dr Haneef require urgent investigation and examination. It’s up to you Mr Ruddock, Mr Andrews and Mr Keelty to make sure that happens.’

the first haneef .....

Holes have emerged in the evidence Australian intelligence agencies have relied on to paint former Guantanamo Bay detainee Mamdouh Habib as a national security threat.

Authorities have cited phone calls made by a US terrorist to Mr Habib's Sydney home in 1993 to bolster their case against him.

But The Australian has learned the terrorist could not have made the calls, which phone records reveal were made after he was arrested over the 1993 bomb attack on New York's World Trade Centre.

The two calls - from a New Jersey phone number linked to the convicted terrorist Ibrahim El-Gabrowny - were made nearly three weeks after he had been arrested.

It is understood that the records of the calls form part of the reason Mr Habib is considered a security threat.

The NSW police protective security group, which was the forerunner to the current counter-terrorism group, carried out a security check on Mr Habib a month before he was arrested in Pakistan and cleared him of being a security threat.

The latest revelations about the phone records come after one of the men arrested in Pakistan with Mr Habib in 2001 came forward to corroborate his claims that he was held in the Australian high commission in the capital, Islamabad, and interrogated by an Australian diplomat.

Ibrahim Diab, who was arrested but quickly released, will give a statement to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal supporting Mr Habib's clams.

The first allegation made about Mr Habib by the US Government was that while in Afghanistan he had helped train two of the terrorists behind the September 11 attacks. That was found to be untrue because the hijackers were already in the US long before Customs records show Mr Habib left Australia.

Holes In Case Against Habib