Police tied in terrorism red tape

as posted here

The chairman of the Haneef inquiry, John Clarke, QC, told a Canberra conference this week that the case of the Indian doctor on the Gold Coast charged with a terrorism offence in 2007 was "not a debacle", as it had been portrayed.

Despite the popular conception that the Australian Federal Police behaved like Keystone cops, Clarke told ABC radio they did "quite well" in an emergency situation, applying new and complex terrorism legislation, with most of the evidence overseas, constant leaks and undoubted political pressure.

Clarke complained this week about lacking the power in his inquiry to investigate any political pressure that may have been applied. But he exonerated the police of wrongdoing. There were "significant and very bad mistakes" in the affair but the police were "very impressive, working hard and doing a good job".

The new terrorism legislation under which Mohamed Haneef was charged was "complex and difficult, even for a lawyer, and was being applied by police officers".

This was the "root of the early problems. [It's] not surprising there were mistakes … Neither the police nor the magistrates had any experience with it." It was an "extraordinary" emergency. "I think they did quite well in terms of that."

So there you have it.

Will anyone apologise to Mick Keelty, the recently retired AFP commissioner who bore the brunt of the criticism in the Haneef matter? Or to the chief investigator, Commander Ramzi Jabbour, then AFP's manager of domestic counter terrorism, who worked thankless hours from the moment he received a 4.50am phone call on July 2, 2007, from British authorities investigating terrorist incidents in London on June 29 - where two undetonated car bombs were found - and Glasgow airport on June 30, where there was a suicide car bomb attack?

The British police told him they had issued an arrest warrant for Haneef, a cousin of the Glasgow bomber, and wanted the AFP to find him urgently.

By 7.40am on July 2, Haneef's house was under surveillance.

But at 8.10pm Haneef was on his way to Brisbane airport with a one-way ticket to India - bought that day - where he later said he wanted to visit his wife and one-week-old daughter.

Jabbour and his superiors made the decision to detain Haneef before he boarded the plane to protect passengers. As it happened, no evidence was found against Haneef and all charges and investigations were dropped.

The Haneef affair cast a shadow over Keelty's successful reign at the AFP from April 2001 until his retirement three weeks ago.

While he is doing his best to slip quietly into obscurity, he told me last week: "I'm happy enough to cop the cuts over Haneef. But people forget we were at the beck and call of the Brits. It was their evidence …

"The advice I gave to the [Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions] at the time was I didn't think that there was enough evidence [to charge Haneef]. But I accepted the DPP decision …

"The expectations for not having a terrorist attack in this country are enormous … You have to do everything right."

And even then, it's not enough for some people. For instance, the "be alert but not alarmed" campaign to advertise the terrorism hotline was a subject of much mirth and derision among the chattering classes. Yet Keelty, 55, says it has been invaluable.

"Despite all the cynicism, I can confidently tell you there hasn't been a terrorism investigation that hasn't been reported to us on the hotline."

The hotline featured in the successful conviction last year of the Melbourne cleric Abdul Benbrika and six followers on terrorism charges.

"We have been successful with the ASIO and the state police in investigating the things we know," says Keelty. "I know people find it hard to understand but it is the things we don't know which are the ones to really worry about."

In Haneef's case there were a lot of unknowns, but in an era of terrorism, that is the area in which police are forced to work and it inevitably leads to mistakes.

Australian police suspected Haneef for various reasons, such as the fact his trip had been so hastily arranged, that he said he planned to return to Australia in a week when he had only a one-way ticket - which is almost twice as expensive as half-a-return ticket to India. His luggage contained original documents police felt were not necessary for a short visit to India.

An online conversation found on his laptop, discussing the British terrorist incidents with his brother, appeared suspicious. There was misinformation coming from the fluid British investigation.

Despite their suspicions, Jabbour and his team felt they did not have enough to charge Haneef. It was the DPP, reviewing the police brief under great time pressure, who decided they did.

"The AFP has … asserted that the [DPP] advice was 'the catalyst' for the decision to charge Haneef, and I accept that," wrote Clarke in his report.

Clarke described Jabbour as "an impressive, dedicated and capable police officer". Yet he was critical because Jabbour had "formed a strong opinion that Dr Haneef was implicated" and so was more "receptive" to the advice of the DPP that there was sufficient evidence to charge him over the provision of his SIM card to his cousin.

"It is my view that Jabbour had become suspicious about Dr Haneef and had lost objectivity."

The police can't win. When it comes to weighing the safety of the public versus the perhaps mistaken detention of a terrorism suspect it seems we don't want a seasoned police commander trusting his instincts, and erring on the side of caution.

It will be our own fault when we eventually get a police force of automatons, blocking every hunch with the dead hand of objectivity.

as posted here