The Australian Federal Police have been accused of secretly hiding transcripts of interviews with Mohamed Haneef for more than a year. 

Dr Haneef's legal team Maurice Blackburn lawyers also claimed in a statement released today the AFP repeatedly ignored Dr Haneef's request for a lawyer in the moments after his arrest. 

Maurice Blackburn partner Rod Hodgson said the AFP could have broken the law by failing to provide five records of interviews taken as police were arresting Dr Haneef on July 2, 2007 and in the first few days of his 25-day detention. 

Mr Hodgson said they became aware of the additional five interviews two weeks ago only after counsel for the Clarke inquiry asked the AFP to provide them with copies. 

He said the disclosure contradicted an assurance given in writing by the AFP's head of counter terrorism, Ramzi Jabbour, in September last year that records of interview that Dr Haneef participated in had been supplied to his lawyers. 

AFP Hid Haneef Transcripts: Lawyers

from Crikey ….. 

Barrister and commentator Greg Barns writes: 

Haneef inquiry blinded by secrecy 

John Clarke, the man conducting an independent inquiry into the Mohammed Haneef affair, is being snowed by federal agencies keen to escape accountability for their actions in the wrongful detention and charging of former Gold Coast doctor on terrorism charges. That is the only conclusion one can draw from the statement issued by Mr Clarke yesterday, announcing that much of the documentation submitted to his inquiry would have to remain confidential. 

"Since I was appointed to conduct this Inquiry in March 2008 I have endeavoured to meet the desire of the Attorney-General and my own assurances to make public as much of the proceedings and material before the Inquiry as was possible without jeopardising matters of national security or pending trials in Australia or overseas. 

Reluctantly I have today advised the Attorney-General that it will not be feasible to make public as much information as was initially envisaged, Mr Clarke said in his Statement. 

It seems the Australian Federal Police, ASIO, the Department of Immigration and other federal agencies are playing hardball with Mr Clarke. 

"A very high proportion, however, of the material from departments and agencies carries a security classification which limits the extent to which it can be shown to other people or disclosed generally … While the documents have, in the main, been delivered to the Inquiry, gaining access to the documents has involved a protracted period of negotiation. The delivery of the documents has, however, been on a confidential basis and the Inquiry has not been given authority to publish those which are classified," Clarke notes. 

The AFP is blaming its counterparts in the UK for it not being able to remove the Confidential or Highly Classified badge from some of its documentation. The UK Police and prosecuting authorities have come up with the utterly specious argument that to do so would be to jeopardise forthcoming criminal trials in that country!  

That there is definitely a desire on the part of federal government agencies to keep the public from knowing just who was responsible for the Haneef debacle is borne out by a decision handed down by the Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal on July 8.  

The Immigration Department originally claimed that handing over 282 documents sought by Dr Haneef’s lawyers was not in the public interest. After changing its mind and weeding out duplicate documents, the Department refused to hand over six documents. The AAT found however that the claim for secrecy was valid only in relation to one of those six documents - in other words one of an original 282! 

And the AAT was unimpressed with the Immigration Department’s claims of public interest. 

"We find that no convincing evidence has been presented to the Tribunal by the Department establishing any direct, significant or specific disadvantage that would be likely to flow from disclosure of the documents," the AAT said. 

If the Rudd government is serious about holding government officials and law enforcement agencies to account for the appalling treatment meted out to Dr Haneef, then it should give John Clarke full Royal Commission powers so he can fight the culture of secrecy without having his hands tied behind his back. 

followed by ….. 

Keelty's pursuit of Haneef is beyond the pale 

While ministers of the Howard government are rightly in the frame over the disgraceful treatment of former Gold Coast doctor Mohammed Haneef last year, the conduct of the Rudd government in this affair also demands some answers. 

ASIO’s public submission to the Clarke Inquiry, released yesterday, notes that in December last year the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS), the organisation that oversees ASIO, wrote to Rudd government Attorney-General Robert McClelland. The IGIS, according to the ASIO submission advised Mr McClelland: 

... that ASIO appeared to have approached its investigation of Dr Haneef with an open mind, and that following its initial investigations it had reached a preliminary assessment that Dr Haneef was unlikely to have engaged in activities prejudicial to security. Those views strengthened over time and its assessments were regularly provided to relevant agencies within government.  

So there you have it - by December last year the Rudd government had no reason to allow the Haneef investigation to continue.  

Why then, did Justice Minister Bob Debus, who is responsible for the Australian Federal Police, allow AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty to tell a Senate Estimates Committee on February 18 this year that the Haneef matter "is an ongoing investigation," and that there "are outstanding inquiries beyond the control of the AFP yet to be completed."? 

And what about as recently as May 21 this year, at a media conference held to announce the opening of the new AFP headquarters in Canberra, Keelty, with Debus standing right next to him, had this exchange with the media: 

QUESTION: And can I just check the Haneef inquiry is ongoing, is that correct at this stage? 

MICK KEELTY: The investigation is, yes. It hasn't been completed yet. 

Given that it is over six months now since they were officially told by ASIO that Dr Haneef has never presented a threat to national security – which is code for he did not commit terrorist offences - it is disturbing that Mr McClelland and Mr Debus continue to sit on their hands and allow Mr Keelty to spend taxpayers dollars on the AFP Haneef investigation. It is right that politicians do not interfere with police investigations but when ministers like Robert McClelland and Bob Debus have been briefed by official sources on a matter they have a responsibility to ensure that limited resources are utilised in the most efficient manner.  Allowing Mick Keelty to continue to pursue Haneef, after being told in December last year that Dr Haneef was not a threat to Australia, would not seem to be consistent with that responsibility.