There’s lawyers and there’s lawyers
Terrorism laws - - Posted on July, 18 at 9:30 pm by Ken L
In a country where the federal cabinet consists of little but grey soulless lawyers, it’s ironic that some of the most admirable characters in the struggle to defend personal liberty and democratic principle are also members of the legal profession. Major Michael Mori showed us the best of the US law fraternity and now along comes Stephen Keim SC, with terrific personal courage, to challenge the government’s contemptible attempts to exploit Dr Mohamed Haneef for political advantage.
The squeals of outrage from Howard and Ruddock are wonderful to behold. Stephen Keim has had the audacity to tell the public the truth! How dare he!?! Selective leaking of evidence is a privilege reserved for the executive government, for the purpose of obtaining political benefit, and now this Keim character has gone and disclosed the whole transcript of Dr Haneef’s first interview with the AFP. Without even providing an accompanying interpretation and commentary or giving a press conference to feed journos some snappy talking points!
What does Stephen Keim SC want … that people should make up their own minds after reading the unvarnished evidence? HOW T F CAN YOU RUN A LEGAL SYSTEM LIKE THAT????????
John “Am I the problem?” Howard certainly wasn’t impressed.
“Whoever’s been responsible for leaking this document is not trying to make sure that justice is done.
“Whoever’s responsible for this is trying to frustrate the process and it should be condemned.”
Fuckin’ oath John, you tell ‘em and don’t bother explaining why cos you’re the Leader of our Nation. Releasing factual evidence is clearly an attempt to frustrate the legal process. What next, have juries make up their minds without the benefit of Kevin Andrews’ opinion that Dr Haneef is a person of bad character? How can juries do their job if they don’t know what kind of person stands in the dock anyway? Dressed, I’m now pleased to see, in approved terrorist uniform.
Cos we all know that’s how terrorists dress, right? We’ve seen enough pics of that Hicks dude to know that.
The Attorney General was equally appalled at Stephen Keim’s actions:
“It was inappropriate, highly unethical and the question of whether there are any consequences really depends on the parties to the proceedings,” he said.
“The Director of Public Prosecutions may have a view and I’ll leave it to him to form an independent view as to whether any further action be taken.”
You know to a rank amateur like me, calling a Senior Counsel’s behaviour ‘highly unethical’ sounds remarkably like defamation … unless of course it was unethical, in which case I expect the nation’s first law officer to bring the appropriate proceedings before the Bar Council at an early date.
And if he doesn’t, I hope Stephen Keim sues and we see the Corpse Who Walks making an abject public apology.
But really, if Dr Haneef’s life wasn’t being comprehensively screwed by this fiasco it would have been hugely amusing to watch Howard and Ruddock on tonight’s news. The idea that someone had outflanked their careful campaign of dissembling and misinformation by telling the truth had obviously reduced them both to a state of quivering incoherent fury. Ruddock even made ill-concealed threats to punish Haneef for having the gall to try to defend his own reputation, by suggesting that it will now take longer for the case to come to trial. Why? Well because the jury might be biased from having had time to read Haneef’s statement in advance. Obviously to a man of Ruddock’s mentality, evidence is to be kept secret from the jury until it is given to them by the prosecution in a way that is most prejudicial to the defendant. The last thing you should do is give the jury enough time to consider evidence on its merits without the benefit of someone like him to explain what it means.
Oh and just to reinforce the public’s confidence in our legal system, Ruddock also foreshadowed new legislation that would prevent people charged with terrorism offences from being granted bail at all. Yeah that’s right, he’s seriously contemplating laws under which the police could charge you with a terrorist offence and you would then automatically be locked up until your case had been decided, which might be two years or more, regardless of the strength of the evidence against you.
Such laws would be tantamount to imprisonment at Her Majesty’s pleasure - Guantanamo Bay without the need to go offshore. I await the opposition’s response with interest but without much hope.
Posted in Terrorism laws |
July 18th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
And how long do you think it would take this government to leak any informationthat linked haneef to terrorism?
July 18th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Sometimes the smallest things can restore your faith in the system.
Keim is a hero!!!
July 18th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
This whole situation makes me feel ill. Over the past few years I have come to appreciate some of these basic legal rights and why they exist. The way in which we now seem to have laws that allow governments to bypass makes me wonder if those who write/debate the laws understand these ideas. It is really time for a drastic change of course for Australian politics. Otherwise I see no good in the future. I might take some time to go and find the great inland sea if things don’t turn around.
July 18th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Good post, Ken.
The sooner they call an election so that we can be rid of this right wing loony travesty of a government the better. Which means, I guess, that the election won’t be until January.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:04 am
Ruddock also said something like “we will have to consider giving the courts more instruction about dealing with these cases”.
Gee, I wonder what that means?
Sounds like he needs a reminder course in the separation of powers.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:17 am
“Whoever’s responsible for this is trying to frustrate the process and it should be condemned.”
He could have been talking about Kevin Andrews’ exercise of his immigration detention powers to frustrate and undermine the legal process!
Ken, some of us lawyers aren’t THAT bad - its the ones who forget that they are lawyers and only remember that they are politicians that you’ve got to watch out for
Like Ruddock - whose hypocritical statement about Keim’s conduct being “unethical” makes me want to vomit (or maybe it’s just Ruddock himself). Abusing and subverting the legal process for the purpose of political advantage would seem to be a more unethical act than releasing documents to counter the misinformation deliberately spread by the government.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:59 am
The desire of the Executive to further limit the Judiciaries discretionary powers and the current attack, by the Executive’s fellow travellers in the Government Gazette, on the independence of the Judiciary sends a shiver down my spine.
There is a certain irony that a government composed of anti-communists seems happy to apply the same principles of seemingly unbridled executive power - of course for the ‘common good’ and on ‘behalf of the majority.’
July 19th, 2007 at 1:42 am
Looks like the Government’s determined to go the Full Hicks on Haneef.
Ruddock’s suggestion that his case could take longer to come to trial and that he could therefore spend a considerable time in stir as a result of the publication of his ROI, certainly sounded like a threat to me.
And this nonsense about “giving instruction” to the Courts will go down real well with the Judiciary, I’m sure. My tip is that our esteemed Attorney General is gonna have a pretty torrid time of it if he tries the “I’ll tell you lot what to think and do” caper with some of our less patient Judges on their home turf.
He may even get a working demonstration of what happens to someone held in contempt of Court.
As for amending the already severe Legislation to ensure that no-one, anywhere at any time and under any circumstances charged with a “terrorism offence” will ever get bail, this is simply flabbergasting.
Who are they gonna get to draft the Legislation for them? Pol Pot? Joe Stalin?
I reckon they’ve lost it.
By the way, loved the photo. But shouldn’t Haneef have a bag over his head too?
July 19th, 2007 at 2:18 am
You know, I reckon I’d pay real money to see that in person. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving guy.
July 19th, 2007 at 3:25 am
Yes Lotharson, me too. I wouldn’t waltz into Court and try a stunt like that with someone like Roddy Meagher. Not if I was you Mr Ruddock.
July 19th, 2007 at 4:13 am
Stephen Keim gets the thumbs up from me. Someone who obviously gives a damn about Civil Rights & preserving Democracy in Australia.
The only ‘unethical’ things i think of when Ruddock or any other members of the old Cabinet open their mouths are:
- The horrendous treatment of some Aussies & illegal immigrants/refugees in those dreadful detention centres.
- The lies told regarding “children overboard”.
- The use of the Tampa incident for political purposes.
- The AWB (Australian Wheat Board Scandal)
- Stripping Aborigines of their Land/Civil Rights.
- Screwing over your Treasurer’s budget in order to buy the electorate.
the list goes on…
agree Evan…big stick stuff…disgraceful…everyday we get closer to Totalitarianism as the separation between State & the Judicial system is diminished.
The sooner Haneef gets his day in court the better…I’ve no probs if he’s detained in order to track down relevant evidence or others who might be in a Terrorist Cell…but let’s use the Law appropriately to do it. This Keystone cop stuff based on ‘association’ is outrageous. So far it comes across as a farce, a ’scare tactic’, a political strategy related to the election…& it’s scaring/concerning the public no end.
And is doing bugger all for Australia’s reputation in the wider World going by the Blogs & my family overseas. Great stuff Ken, per usual.
July 19th, 2007 at 8:01 am
Let’s not forget Russo, Keim’s instructing solicitor, the plucky little bugger who has been until now Haneef’s front line protection against the media, the government and the prosecution. He deserves three cheers too.
BTW, when Ruddock said that he would have to see about giving more “instructions” to the court, he meant, in his ridiculously circumspect lawyerly talk, that he would be proposing legislation to bind the courts, which parliament certainly has the right to on the presumption of bail issue, for example.
And yes, as a poster noted above, the Government Gazette, and in particular its legal attack dog Albrechtsen, have been running a long disgraceful campaign to demonise and destabilise the judiciary in this country. Not much different to what the Murdoch empire has been doing in the USA and look at the consequences.
July 19th, 2007 at 8:38 am
if the oz public faced up to the reality that they don’t live in a democracy, maybe they could do something about it. but they don’t, so they can’t.
the government, whether howard’s or rudd’s, is a precise reflection of the character and education of the nation that puts such people in charge of their destiny.
it won’t get better, until, and unless, you get better. on past and present form, the pollies have nothing to worry about.
July 19th, 2007 at 9:30 am
The whole thing is very disturbing. What really is the difference between the trumped up charges against David Hicks and those of Mohammed Haneef. The parallels are eerie.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:20 am
I think Hicks was substantially more connected to terrorists than Haneef. Haneef just knew someone who knew a terrorist. The man in that photo is a doctor, FFS, who has saved Australians lives. It is not even alleged that he knowingly or willingly partook in any criminal action. This is a fucking disgrace. It looks to me like collective punishment.
News has been running its anti-judiciary campaign since its army of top end solicitors and silks lost the Rabbitohs case to a sole practicer from Redfern and his paralegal. They want an elected judiciary, which is then open to the influence of an unprincipled press. Ie, Newscorp. In this country, with its near print monopoly, Rupert would effectively be the First Law Lord.
Since this blogging business began, I have several times asked the question so, are we still free? At the legalisation of indiscriminate searches, at the abolition of habeous corpus. I’ve never received a serious answer. Freedom now appears to be nothing more than an empty word mouthed on Anzac Day. The Government Gazette, with open contempt, speaks of those who love freedom as “the liberty lobby”. Thank the gods for alliteration, or they’d have used “industry”. And who now doubts that the federal government would pull a Haneef on absolutely any one of us, provided that there was some advantage to them, and they thought they’d get away with it electorally? If they can paint you as outside the mainstream - a former communist, a petty criminal, brown - you’re fucked if its convenient to them. As Dr Haneef knows, you don’t even have to cross them deliberately. Just offer some convenient advantage by your sacrifice.
Honestly, how far does it have to go before we’re lying when we sing the national anthem? I’ll tell you that it’s already at the point where I wouldn’t take a prosecutor’s or magistrates job, with Phillip fucking Ruddock “directing” me to lock up the innocent.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:23 am
Thanks again, Ken, for giving voice to my anger. I’m been passing on a lot of recent Surfdom stuff to colleagues who don’t normally read this sort of thing, and I’ll definitely be passing this one around.
I too stand somewhat amazed at the principled outcry from the legal fraternity. Delighted, but amazed.
This might sound strange, but I’d be delighted if the Government bought contempt charges against Keim. Only because I’d like to see them lose. But they won’t do anything but posture, because resorting to legal process at this point would just bring to light more of the material they want to keep hidden.
Failing that, my next hope is that the judge hearing Haneef’s appeal against the cancellation of his visa will overturn the Minister’s decision because the Government fails to make all relevant information available on the grounds of national security.
Meanwhile … the good Mr Andrews has cancelled Haneef’s wife’s visa, too. If she wants to see her husband she’ll now have to apply for a tourist visa or something. I’d love to be in the room when that crosses Andrews’ desk.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Keim made some of the points raised above in his interview on 7:30 Report last night. He demanded to see the legal advice on which Ruddock based his ‘unethical’ claim, noting that the transcript was in fact the property of Haneef who was free to do with it whatever he wanted, including releasing it to the public. Moreover, the transcript would be read into public evidence at any committal proceeding.
On another point, what on earth is the Queensland correctional system doing putting Haneef in solitary and forced to wear the Guantanamo kit? The man even on the most negative interpretation of the charges is not any kind of terrorist. A magistrate has found he’s fine to be mix with the public for chrissakes! Queensland minister for prisons Judy Spence has some questions to answer it seems to me.
July 19th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Agreed Hal9000. The Queensland government deserve an equally big serve for their eager complicity in this. B*stards.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Slightly marginal, perhaps, but Greg Sheridan has decided that Kevin Andrews did the right thing. How’s this:
” There were also reasons Andrews could not disclose, but we know that these involved AFP investigations that showed Haneef was in frequent and elaborate contact with people at the centre of the British terrorism investigations. There is other material that, despite the best efforts of a robust media, we have not yet found out.
On the basis of this evidence, Andrews made the right decision. ”
I have just commented to Sheridan that it seems difficult to determine that Andrews made the right decision based on things we have not yet found out. But then I suppose writers at The Oz have God-given powers that are denied to the rest of we mere mortals.
July 19th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
The only download links to the transcript that seem to exist are ones that appear in news articles. They all point to this:
http://media.theaustralian.news.com.au/haneef.pdf
This link doesn’t work. Is it mirrored anywhere else? Would you consider making it available for download on your website?
July 19th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
News Ltd must have taken it down Greg. I didn’t download it I’m afraid.
BigRuss, Sheridan seems to have been transported to RumsfeldWorld … Haneef’s treatment is justified by the known unknowns.
It opens up glorious new law enforcement possibilities though … let’s lock people up for the things we know they’ve done that we don’t know about yet.
July 19th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
I wouldn’t jump to conclusions. There may be more than meets the eye here. As one who is excited about Beattie’s latest plan for Brissie, including pathways & bikeways, i’m willing to give his Government the benefit of the doubt for now. Spence has copped alot of crap over the years, sometimes undeservedly. The media are highly adept at blame shifting.
July 19th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Hey where IS the transcript? The Oz\’s link is down.
July 19th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Fair enough Nas’. You probably know more about them than I do.
But it’s not a terribly good look over here.
After all, the appropriate authority (the Magistrate) was confident that a free Haneef wasn’t a sufficient threat to justify incarceration. If it wasn’t for the blatantly political visa withdrawal, he’d be walking around free now. Even with said withdrawal, I would have expected him to be held in immigration detention as any other pending deportation.
Instead, the Qld govt. makes (or is portrayed as making) a big song and dance about imprisoning him as a terrorist suspect).
Maybe I’m missing something, but that seems to be what the outside world is seeing.
And yes, good on ‘em on the paths and bikeways. It doesn’t mean they’ve got this one right.
July 19th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
The transcript posted revealed certain information, such as addresses, phone numbers etc that may breach privacy rules. It is possible it has been removed for that reason.
IMO those sorts of details should have been blacked out prior to publication.
It is also possible that it has been removed at the request of certain people who don’t want anyone to read the complete transript.
PS When I first tried to post this I got the message “Worng protection code passed. Try again, please”
July 19th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Regarding Haneef’s loan of his SIM card, my wife reckons from her experience in multi-cultural schools, that you can’t impose an Anglo-Centric perception on the idea of ownership when it comes to certain Asian, Indian, Islander etc. groups. There tends to be a strong familial obligation to lend & share what you have.
Just a thought.
I’m going to be scrutinising the involvement of the QLD Govt quite intensely IB…you can be sure of that…i might add, there is little love lost between sections of the QLD Govt & the Police Union…perhaps even in the Correctional Services area.
Sean, your comment kicked arse! Insightful & passionate comments from all in fact. Good on ya Guido for passing on the RTS stuff. And Grace I totally relate to your views on a certain media outlet.
July 19th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
thank god for Stephen Keim-ordinary people forced to do extraordinary things in an age when the government can’t be trusted. I salute you.
July 19th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Fascinating isn’t it … all this outrage at Dr Haneef’s lawyer for releasing the transcript but I haven’t heard of Howard demanding the prosecution of News Ltd for publishing it.
I wouldn’t place too much weight on the inclusion of phone numbers and so on, they were all hopelessly compromised anyway. As to the file being taken offline in response to pressure from Canberra … that sounds very likely.
July 19th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
kudos to Keim for fighting fire with fire.
this case stinks of rotten fish. The government leaked evidence is so weak its laughable. Obviously the judge thought so, granting bail, after having taken into account the new anti-terror laws.
no doubt when Dr Haneef is found innocent and sues for the destruction of his career and reputation, us taxpayers will have to foot the bill for this fiasco. Perhaps we should address the bill directly to messers Howard, Ruddock and Andrews.
July 19th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Kevin Andrews is a Christian
True/False?
And…
John Hunt is a Coward
True/True?
July 19th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
From the New York Times :
Also this, that I haven’t seen quoted elsewhere, and which might partially explain why the defence lawyers are so pissed off at the way the case has been handled so far:
July 19th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Andrews’ actions are appalling. He can no longer be considered fit to hold a position as Minister (although we’d do well to get rid of the lot of them).
The case is so clearly being politically man-handled by the Government.
I’m keenly interested in the Federal Court’s dealing with Haneef’s application to challenge the cancellation of his visa. The Government will hopefully not get away with attempting to annihilate the seperation of powers.
Thanks for your post, Ken, keep up the noise.
July 19th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
I’ve got a copy of the transcript I downloaded while it was up, Ken. I don’t have my own web page, however I’m happy to send it to anyone so that it can be distributed as widely as possible.
July 19th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Yep, great one Ken! Great posts everyone!
Just when I’ve totally given up on lawyers, some great examples of the profession, restore a bit my faith in society. But only a bit.
And well spotted, Hal9000: state governments and police have been peddling this terror crap as much as the hoWARd mob.
I’m getting more and more nervous about APEC in Syd in September. The terror hype has only just begun…
July 20th, 2007 at 12:06 am
Wonderful comments! Highly encouraging to read these opinions as I initially went on line to ask if the author, whose work I do not know, could have written his headline in acceptable English. Sorry if this seems petty but the elimination of the contraction they’re in favor of there’s where in/appropriate is a pet peeve of mine.
I repeat that I have been greatly encouraged by reading this blog and will certainly return.
July 20th, 2007 at 12:31 am
Hi, Hal9000 I’ve been searching for a copy of this transcript for HOURS!! I’d be ever so greatful
Cheers, Lizi
July 20th, 2007 at 1:44 am
And, note this, Sabeel undertook to transfer the SIM card and contract to his own name.
Furthermore, when the story about the bombing broke, Haneef was phoned by his mother in law to contact a UK police investigator named Graham to clear his name. Haneef made four attempts to call and this is validated by phone records as shown in the police record of interview.
This is also worth noting, the SIM card concerned does not appear to have been used in the bombing attempt; likewise, Sabeel Ahmed was himself not the bomber but the brother of one has been charged with “failing to disclose information that could have prevented an act of terrorism.”
The charge against Haneef then looks very dodgy indeed.
The burlesque of the transfer of Haneef from the Brisbane Watchhouse to the prison via an armoured van, three police cars a motorcade of police motorcycle outriders, and helicopter overhead and streets closed off, with sirens blaring is (a) completely, shrilly and absurdly over the top (b) smells like an attempt to prejudice Haneef’s right to a fair trial.
July 20th, 2007 at 3:10 am
Hi Liz and Hal9000,
I’d like a copy of the transcript as well, but since it’s 22mb maybe someone could put it up on rapidshare.com? That way you’d just have to post the link and anyone interested could get a copy?
July 20th, 2007 at 6:10 am
Those of you still interested in this can find a link here:
http://www.hindu.com/nic/0058/haneef.htm
July 20th, 2007 at 9:27 am
Although I see Jen has posted a link, I’m uploading to Rapidshare (thanks Jen!) Sadly, my ‘up to scratch’ telecommunications here in the Brisbane suburbs means this will take an hour or so. I’ll post the link as soon as it’s up.
July 20th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Well, unless more information to the contrary comes about, this might be awfully close to what happened.
I haven’t seen any evidence showing that at the time the SIM card was given, the recipient had the intention to participate in, plan or assist in a terrorist attack. Did I miss it?
If this is not shown, then we are locking people up for future crimes of other people. In Alberto Gonzales’ language, it makes thought crimes look positively quaint.
July 20th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Great post, Ken. I too was struck immediately by the Keim-Mori resemblance.
July 20th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
I have the transcript up at rapidshare.com
http://rapidshare.com/files/43895231/haneef.pdf
July 20th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
An excellent piece, with new info I didn’t know about. I’ve written a little piece about this on my blog, wondering inter alia how this will affect Keim’s future career. Mori’s career has already been seriously damaged, I hear.