HANEEF INQUIRY RECOMMENDS REVIEW OF CT LAWS AND

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 CANBERRA 001324

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PGOV PTER AS
SUBJECT: HANEEF INQUIRY RECOMMENDS REVIEW OF CT LAWS AND
PROCEDURES

REF: 07 CANBERRA 1143


1. (U) SUMMARY: A judicial inquiry into the collapsed
prosecution of former terrorism suspect Dr Mohammed Haneef,
which occurred during the Howard Government in July 2007
(reftel),found no evidence connecting Haneef to terrorist
activities. It recommended an independent review of
counter-terrorism laws, changes to investigation procedures,
and better co-ordination between intelligence and law
enforcement agencies. The Government, which said it would
implement most of the recommendations, maintained it would
not engage in a "witch hunt." END SUMMARY.

WHAT THE INQUIRY FOUND


2. (U) In March this year Attorney General Robert McClelland
announced a judicial inquiry into the detention of Dr
Mohammed Haneef headed by Former NSW Supreme Court Judge John
Clarke. Haneef had been arrested at Brisbane airport July 2,
2007 after British police found evidence linking him to two
cousins who were involved in the June 30, 2007 attempt to
crash a car full of propane canisters into the Glasgow
International Airport Terminal. Haneef was held without
charge until July 26. Kevin Andrews, the Howard Government's
Immigration Minister at the time, had canceled Haneef's visa
during the investigation to ensure that he remained in
custody. On July 26 the prosecution dismissed the charges.
Haneef was released and returned to India. On December 23,
the government released Clarke's report, which concluded that:

- The initial arrest and detention of Haneef was justifiable.

- There was "no evidence that Haneef was associated with or
had foreknowledge of the terrorist events in the UK, or of
the possible involvement of his second cousins Dr Sabeel
Ahmed and Mr Kafeel Ahmed in terrorist activities."

- ASIO (Australian Security Intelligence Organization) had
provided the Department of Immigration with a document
advising there was "no evidence that Dr Haneef had
foreknowledge of or participated in the UK terrorist
incidents."

- Although there was no conspiracy, the Immigration
Minister's decision to cancel Haneef's visa was "mystifying."
Kevin Andrews, the Minister at the time, also did not give
ASIO's advice adequate consideration.

- The Australian Federal Police (AFP) had claimed that, until
it called in the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
officer, it did not believe there was enough evidence to
charge Dr Haneef.

- Director of Public Prosecutions, Clive Porritt, wrongly
advised police to charge Haneef, and AFP Commander Ramzi
Jabour "had lost objectivity."

- "Considering that both organizations (AFP and ASIO) came
within Attorney General Philip Ruddock's portfolio, his lack
of concern for this fundamental difference in opinion could
be viewed as troubling."

- "The 'extension of time' provisions in the Crimes Act,
which fail to provide a cap or limit on the detention period,
removed or diminished the sense of urgency that should have
been brought to the task of determining whether to charge or
release. The deficiencies in the system of judicial
oversight also became obvious".

GOVERNMENT ACCEPTS RECOMMENDATIONS


3. (U) In response to the report, the Attorney General said
the Government would consider an independent review of
Commonwealth counter-terrorism laws. He also stated that the
Government would look at removing uncertainties regarding
QGovernment would look at removing uncertainties regarding
terrorism offenses in the Criminal Code, adding the Minister
for Immigration to the distribution list for security
intelligence reports produced by ASIO, and having the
National Counter-Terrorism Committee develop procedures
outlining operational protocols for counterterrorism
investigations.

REACTION


4. (U) McClelland ruled out a government apology to Haneef,

CANBERRA 00001324 002 OF 002


maintaining this was a matter for members of the Howard
Government. Any disciplinary action against Commonwealth
officials would also be left to agency heads, the Attorney
General said, adding that there would be no "witchhunt."
Former Immigration Minister Andrews defended his decision to
cancel Haneef's visa, claimed he was never provided with ASIO
material, and pointed to the finding that there was no
conspiracy to cancel Haneef's visa. Former Attorney General
Ruddock said he would not apologize and that there was
"nothing in the report which suggests that the conduct that
undertook should have been conducted in any other way."
Haneef's lawyer said it was a "complete vindication and
exoneration of Dr Haneef, " who would be pursuing
"substantial" compensation.


5. (SBU) COMMENT: Despite the report's criticism of Andrews
and Ruddock, the Rudd government will not attempt to make
political mileage out of this issue. When Haneef was
arrested in July 2007, the Labor Party was very careful not
to be seen as "soft" on national security and it offered "in
principle, bi-partisan support" to the Howard government.
Mindful of the fact that his core working-class supporters
approved of the Howard Government's strong stance on national
security, Prime Minister Rudd is also not likely to
significantly water down counter-terrorism laws.

MCCALLUM