Is the court system becoming obsolete in Australia?

July 30, 2007

I’m reading an article in the Australian… Haneef: minister cast adrift…,25197,22155705-601,00.html

There is a very interesting phrase in the article…

“By Saturday, Mr Andrews had legal advice affirming his right to hold Dr Haneef to a higher level of accountability than the court system.”
Read the rest of this entry »


Death of the Fair Go

July 29, 2007

This whole case boils now down to the fact that Dr Haneef has been denied the justice afforded to him by the Australian Legal System simply because of the opinion of a minister, who continues to slander and insult the honour of this man with impunity. For all our sakes I hope that Dr Haneef is able to sue Kevin Andrews for defamation.
Read the rest of this entry »

Andrews. Put up, or Shut up!

July 29, 2007

I’m posting this after having read statements from Kevin Andrews in the media saying, and I quote..

“The basis upon which Dr Haneef’s visa was cancelled remains vaild…”

“His lawyers indicated to my department … that he wanted to get out of Australia as soon as possible. If anything that rather heightens, rather than lessens, my suspicions.” 

Really Mr Andrews? So you say you have suspicions. Upon what evidence do you base your suspicions? Why does so much of the global community not share your opinion?

If you are not in possession of concrete facts about Dr Haneef that indicate knowing involvement in criminal activity, what right do you have to use your status as a Governement Minister to continue to sully a mans character by insinuating that every act they commit is surrounded in intriegue and suspicion.
Read the rest of this entry »

Dr Haneef on the way back to Bangalore

July 28, 2007

Dr Haneef left Australia earlier this evening for Bangalore with his lawyer Peter Russo. Immigration officials gave him the all-clear to leave earlier today. They did not, however, restore his visa. Kevin Andrews is still stubbornly hanging on to the same old line. Dr Haneef has not, however, been deported.
Read the rest of this entry »

Charges against Dr Haneef dropped, but deportation still a real possibility.

July 27, 2007

The charges against Dr Haneef have been dropped. Mick Keelty and Mr Bugg of the DPP have indicated that they will not be proceeding with the prosecution case against Dr Haneef. They did say, however, that the standard of proof that is needed for a satisfactory prosecution is quite different to that required by the Minister of Immigration in determining visa status under section 501 of the Migration Act.

 This means that deportation is still quite a significant possibility in the very short term.

Supporters and Friends of Dr Haneef – please do what you can to lobby Government to support Dr Haneef and ensure that his visa is restored. The temptation for the Government to wash their hands of him and simply deport him out of the way will be massive and the future implications for Dr Haneef’s freedom immeasureable.

 Dr Haneef and his family have clearly stated that they want to clear his name totally. Please help stop the deportation!

Melbourne Rally to support Dr Haneef – 4th August

July 25, 2007




Rally Saturday 4th August

1pm Victorian State Library

Corner Swanston and LaTrobe Sts



Civil Rights Defence 0407.856.628

Is Dr Haneef elegible for a bridging visa?

July 23, 2007

I read with interest the article outlining the Australian Law Council’s call for Dr Haneef to be issued with a bridging visa. I note from the recently released ‘decision’ document that Dr Haneef’s visa was cancelled under section 501.3 of the 1958 Migration Act.

The following document: is a government document outlining the different types of bridging visa available. (see the section regarding Bridging Visa E at the top of page two).

Unless I am very much mistaken the only visa available to Dr Haneef is the Bridging Visa E (BVE), however the fact that his prior visa was cancelled under section 501 of the 1958 Migration Act does not allow him to be considered for a Bridging Visa E.

Anyone else have a different take on this?