← Leaked Immigration Department Documents

The Logic of the Situation? →

“Flaws” appearing in Haneef Case

July 20th, 2007 | Austrolabe | News

The Australian is leading today with reports of some apparent flaws and contradictions between claims made in Dr Haneef’s record of interview and in court affidavits.

AUSTRALIAN Federal Police investigating terror suspect Mohamed Haneef made claims in a court affidavit that appear to be inconsistent with an official police record of interview.

Analysis by The Australian yesterday of the police affidavit, which is before the courts, and the 142-page record of Dr Haneef’s first police interview, show there are major discrepancies on two significant issues.

There are other concerning aspects to the case that have appeared in the press recently.

Firstly, it seems, Sabeel Ahmed, the ‘terrorist’ he allegedly recklessly provided support to, has been charged with withholding information from the British authorities because he received an email from his brother advising him of the location of his will. Of course, the contents of the email have not yet been made public but, if this is really all there is to it, then it is cause for some concern and it means that Dr Haneef may be even further removed from the terrorism attacks than we might have first assumed.

Secondly, the British authorities seem to be disputing the Australian government line on Dr Haneef’s SIM card. Rather than having been found in the jeep used in terrorist attack on Glasgow airport, the card was actually found in one of Sabeel Ahmed’s phones when he was arrested eight hours after the attack.

A Brisbane court was told this week a mobile phone SIM card belonging to Haneef, a Gold Coast based doctor, was found in the Jeep that smashed into Glasgow Airport on June 30.

Haneef has been charged with “recklessly” supporting a terrorist organisation, after providing the SIM card to a relative later allegedly involved in plotting the botched car bomb attacks in the UK.

However, sources in the UK and Australia have told ABC Radio the SIM card was actually seized by police eight hours later when Haneef’s cousin Sabeel Ahmed was arrested in Liverpool.

Ahmed allegedly had two phones on him at the time of his arrest, one of which contained Haneef’s SIM card.

Related Posts

5 comments ↓

#1 geoffrey on 07.20.07 at 5:20 pm

If such things are true then I am _really_ eager to see this secret information Mr. Andrews relied on when cancelling Haneef’s visa.

This doesn’t reflect well on either the government or the spineless (albeit politically strangled) opposition.

#2 T cell on 07.20.07 at 6:34 pm

Peter Faris QC who was applauding the “system” a few days ago now says:

“Melbourne barrister Peter Faris QC said today the apparent error in the prosecution’s case put before the court had been “a shocking mess-up”.

“You can’t get something that’s so central so wrong,” he told ABC radio.

“I think this is fast approaching the situation where there is not a reasonable prospect of a conviction, unless there’s some other evidence that we don’t know about.

“I just have trouble seeing a jury convict him on this sort of evidence.”

Mr Faris said the case showed the Australian Federal Police (AFP) were “way out of their depth” when it came to handling terrorism cases.

“If I were the attorney-general, I would have the Director of Public Prosecutions and (AFP commissioner) Mick Keelty on the mat this morning demanding that they get this sorted out,” he said.

“I think it’s an absolute disgrace.

“This is a fairly minor case. This fellow obviously wasn’t going to set off bombs in Australia, but it would be a shocking thing if a series of dangerous terrorists were caught here and their case fell over because the prosecuting authorities were incompetent.

“The situation’s got to be reviewed and I think the government’s got to do something about it.”"

Someone should send a roadmap to the DPP and AFP so as to enable them to find their collective arses with both hands.

#3 T cell on 07.20.07 at 6:52 pm

this may help inspector plod

#4 T Cell on 07.21.07 at 10:34 am

What the Met thinks of the AFP:

A source close to the British investigation into the attempted bombings said the Australian Federal Police were considered a laughing stock by Britain’s Metropolitan Police, for allowing “such a major cock-up” to happen. “This is very embarrassing for them,” he said.

#5 T Cell on 07.21.07 at 10:52 am

The Herald has learnt that the prosecutor at the Brisbane bail hearing, Clive Porritt, of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, even gave the court an explanation when defence lawyers asked why Haneef would have provided his SIM card if he knew it was planned to be used for the purposes of terrorism.

Mr Porritt responded that it had been intended the SIM card would be destroyed in the planned explosion when a Jeep Cherokee was rammed into the doors of at Glasgow Airport.

A spokeswoman for the DPP, asked if Mr Porritt had provided wrong information on the SIM card to the bail hearing, responded: “It is not appropriate for us to comment on matters before the court.”

Leave a Comment