Dr. Haneef Damages Claim

[chops_a_must]

ABC is saying $50,000. Doesn't sound far off. Lawyers will get most of it.

Agree with you disaaray however if we start treating professionals from overseas badly it will backfire on us eventually and we like to think we give people a fair go.

If that's the case, he would probably be in hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.

Can't see them not paying out his legal fees at least.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

ABC is saying $50,000. Doesn't sound far off. Lawyers will get most of it.

Agree with you disaaray however if we start treating professionals from overseas badly it will backfire on us eventually and we like to think we give people a fair gheringo.

A fair go is very important mate.

It goes to the heart of what makes us Australian.

Unfortunately others do not share this concept.

Tribalism, godbothering, and profiting from decent democracies legal processes takes precedent.

It will be a lawyers picnic but $30000 or thereabouts should be the maximum quantum.

The reasons we have these overseas doctors treating us are many and varied but often lead back to NSW Right Wing political machinations.

gg

 

[Julia]

Haneef says he is owed damages because he is innocent. The problem is everyone is innocent until they commit a crime - so are we really saying we should just sit back and let people commit crimes (esp terrorism) and only arrest them after an atrocity?

If we (and in "we" I'm referring to society) don't think that a great strategy, then we're left with the real possibility that we will arrest someone who really wasn't going to commit an offence. It is all fine and dandy to look back in hindsight and declare that someone was not going to commit a crime, but in reality, given whatever evidence you have at your disposal, and no doubt some conflicting, it is a really difficult decision to make. Is it so terrible to get it wrong for the right reasons?

All I can think, is that if a person was a suspect terrorist, and authorities did nothing until they could get "concrete" proof, but in the meantime said person did commit an atrocity culminating in the terrible loss of life, how many of us would point the finger and say that they should have done "something" to prevent tragedy?

If, in the whole spectrum of terrorist atrocities, a few innocent people go through a "Haneef" episode, but significant lives are saved, is that so bad? And does that mean that the government (i.e. us) have to keep shelling out huge sums of money just for the privilege of trying to protect ourselves?

You're quite right. This is the other side of feeling sorry for what Haneef has gone through.
Had he in fact been engaged in some terrorist plot and the FP failed to act then we would be cursing them to hell and back.
I don't suppose we will ever know whether he had any involvement with the activities of his cousins or not.
However, the charges against him were dropped, so he needs to be compensated accordingly.

I believe Cornelia Rau got $2m, but the admin stuff-ups were not as severe in that case.

Neither did Ms Rau have a professional reputation to protect.

Sometimes,
there is just not enough evidence to place before a Jury to obtain a conviction.

That's true. Dropping of charges doesn't always imply innocence.

And now before people carry on,
how about someone talk to the people at the Gold Coast hospital and get an understanding of the facts.

"Dr.Haneef was anything other than a doctor respected by the local community who actually knew him."

Does this feed your mind, was he ?

ps, I live on the Gold Coast and have friends who work within the hospital.

Insinuation is ugly. If you know something which contradicts the publicised comments of his superiors, i.e. that he was a very competent doctor who enjoyed good relationships with his colleagues, then why not be clear about it?

Reputation, BOTH personal and professional is everything.

I absolutely agree. You can pay compensation and offer apologies but there will always be attached to his name the comment: "wasn't he the doctor who was locked up for something to do with terrorism?"
Hardly conducive to being offered senior positions in the medical profession.

ABC is saying $50,000. Doesn't sound far off. Lawyers will get most of it.

Yes, let's remember the legal bills he will be up for. There seem to be several lawyers working over a long period of time. Imo $50K is way too little.
The legal bills will be more than that on their own.

 

[chops_a_must]

I don't suppose we will ever know whether he had any involvement with the activities of his cousins or not.

Isn't that a part of the problem though?

We really shouldn't know a thing about it. And that stigma is damaging. It was the AFP's choice to play it out through the media as if he was already guilty.

That's the real problem. If it wasn't played out through the media, we wouldn't be handing over compensation. But because due process was not carried out on all levels, the government has absolutely no case.

 

[Knobby22]

Yes, let's remember the legal bills he will be up for. There seem to be several lawyers working over a long period of time. Imo $50K is way too little.
The legal bills will be more than that on their own.

I think the earlier lawyers would have been paid already out of the public purse. Some were doing it to make a name for themselves.

His present lawyers should be trying for a settlement out of court but then they will be paid less. We shall see. Law is arcane, the only thing I am sure of is that the lawyers always win.

 

[Julia]

Isn't that a part of the problem though?

We really shouldn't know a thing about it. And that stigma is damaging. It was the AFP's choice to play it out through the media as if he was already guilty.

That's the real problem. If it wasn't played out through the media, we wouldn't be handing over compensation. But because due process was not carried out on all levels, the government has absolutely no case.

Exactly so. Very irritating that our tax payer dollars should have been so misused in the first place, and then will undoubtedly be further paid out in compensation.

 

[chops_a_must]

I think the earlier lawyers would have been paid already out of the public purse. Some were doing it to make a name for themselves.

His present lawyers should be trying for a settlement out of court but then they will be paid less. We shall see. Law is arcane, the only thing I am sure of is that the lawyers always win.

The lawyers have the government over a barrel though. I don't see why they wouldn't be pushing for an in court settlement.

In that case, any legal fees will be handed to the government, as they have absolutely no case. So that wont even be a debating point. Which would open the way to an outright payment to Haneef, without it tied in to legal bills.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Exactly so. Very irritating that our tax payer dollars should have been so misused in the first place, and then will undoubtedly be further paid out in compensation.

A fair go is very important mate.

It goes to the heart of what makes us Australian.

Unfortunately others do not share this concept.

Tribalism, godbothering, and profiting from decent democracies legal processes takes precedent.

It will be a lawyers picnic but $30000 or thereabouts should be the maximum quantum.

The reasons we have these overseas doctors treating us are many and varied but often lead back to NSW Right Wing political machinations.

gg

Yes we should keep it real.

This fellow should not be awarded more than the diggers at Anzac Cove.

gg

 

[Prospector]

Yes we should keep it real.

This fellow should not be awarded more than the diggers at Anzac Cove.

gg

I always thought that Anzac Cove was the main battlefront of the Australians, although my Grandpa fought in France and then was later involved in the repatriation and war graves. While Gallipoli is obviously important, the battle fields of France were where most Aussies were battling. And dying.

We need to keep things in perspective, that is very true, but comparing what happens today, with how we dealt with things in in 1900's doesnt really work.

 

[awg]

I will venture an answer.

I would offer him an apology, a visa, pay his legals and $2million compensation

the main reason I would do this is a "commercial settlement".

He is a citizen of India, and they will be watching closely.

It seems like the Australian officials in charge of this matter ****#d up several points.

I believe Cornelia Rau got $2m, but the admin stuff-ups were not as severe in that case.

If it goes to trial, it will cost more than that, and on the available facts, he would probably win the case.

I dont know if he is "innocent" or not.

For Kevin Andrews to say he is exonerated is wicked

I've changed my answer, but only a little bit.

I wouldnt offer him $2m straight up, I would start with a lower figure, and haggle..he is from the sub-continent after all

the $2m was probably more what I think he would be aiming to settle for.

they are my tax dollars, and I would prefer to see them spent productively

still the same principal, the matter is a "commercial settlement"

the main issue legally IMO is that this matter was badly stuffed by the people at the top of the tree, the guy was systematically the recipient of legally incorrect treatment by the nations top lawmakers, whatever that means

so he has to be now sorted out at the same level.

if he isnt, he will probably pursue the matter, at more cost, to me and you.

he has no reason why not to.

once again, I dont say I think he neccesarily deserves that amount, but would also take into account he is a citizen of India, who is a big trading partner for Oz, they can get a little bit terse if they think one of their own is treated wrong, but all is forgiven if the matter is compensated.

having said that, it if it happened to you or me in 99% of foreign countries, Im sure we would get told to bugg#r off, and never come back

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

once again, I dont say I think he neccesarily deserves that amount, but would also take into account he is a citizen of India, who is a big trading partner for Oz, they can get a little bit terse if they think one of their own is treated wrong, but all is forgiven if the matter is compensated.

having said that, it if it happened to you or me in 99% of foreign countries, Im sure we would get told to bugg#r off, and never come back

I doubt very much whether the Indian government would be in the slightest bit interested in assisting Dr.Haneef.

gg

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

having said that, it if it happened to you or me in 99% of foreign countries, Im sure we would get told to bugg#r off, and never come back

And this is the point most should be aware of. So why is Australia the handout nation of the planet?

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

And this is the point most should be aware of. So why is Australia the handout nation of the planet?

Agree mate.

Kevin Rudd needs to take control of this "event"

Surely the Parliament can pass a law that people disadvantaged by investigations into offences against the integrity of Australia are forbidden from claiming civil damages in our courts.

gg

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Agree mate.

Kevin Rudd needs to take control of this "event"

Surely the Parliament can pass a law that people disadvantaged by investigations into offences against the integrity of Australia are forbidden from claiming civil damages in our courts.

gg

Exactly.
Would Russia be so kind to say sorry. "Sorry we stuffed up would you like your future secured ?" NO!

 

[lucas]

We live in a world that has gone completely barking mad.

A world in which doctors - doctors, mind you, who are presumably educated enough to comprehend the Hippocratic Oath and its ramifications - launch themselves in Jeep Cherokees at crowded airports with the intention of maiming hundreds of innocent people for a deluded religious conviction.

But this idiocy is compounded by media outlets that make it practically impossible for decent folk to lock a guy up for a few weeks with the intention of learning if he is as dangerous as the rest of his family...without having every single human being in the country having to fork out if he's found to be innocent! Lunacy.

We've each and every one of us already paid around $2.50 on behalf of this suspect for the privilege of finding out he was apparently innocent, and now we are going to be asked to fork out even more. I say stop this nonsense and seriously consider doing as the French do, and that is, presume suspects guilty until they prove their innocence. The French seem to manage OK with this.

By all means congratulate this doctor on having proved himself not guilty, but then tell him to bugger off. Not reward him for wasting our time and money because of his stupid actions. These apparently include phoning the bombers the night before the attack; leaving the country on a one-way ticket without even informing his employers the day after the attack; claiming this was cheaper than a two-way ticket (but what if you intend to return?); phoning the UK police four times but not having the sense to walk into the local plod shop etc.

What a creep. And we have to set him up for life now? Madness.

 

[awg]

You guys are winning me over somewhat.

The more I think about it, the less I like the idea of giving my money to him.

I reckon he knew something was going on.

But Australian judicial proof requirements are very high.

Will be interesting to see what approach is followed.

I still suspect a commercial approach will be taken.

If the govt wants to play hardball, it will make it fairly difficult to mount an effective action, unless his legal team want to work pro bono for as long as it takes.

That approach would make them reluctant to apologise.

I wonder how much information that has not been released.

 

[lucas]

It's not that hard to find evidence online that some British foreign doctors are becoming radicalised - this six months before the attacks: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MuslimdoctorsUK/message/30

This rant is in a forum for student foreign doctors in the UK. What I find disturbing is that not a single subscribed group member saw fit to object to it and similar postings. The author supports violent jihad, but condemns July 2005. Apparently at least one foreign doctor in the UK (Haneef's cousin and since deported) was less inclined to discriminate.

Perhaps when I read that Haneef has strongly condemned terrorist attacks and the actions of his family members I will take him at his word, but so far his outrage is reserved for those whom he accuses of levelling "heinous charges" at him. If members of my family attempted to blow people up for Allah, I would be only too happy to spend time with ASIO and the police - months if necessary - helping them with any details I could possibly give them. I would have visited the police, not run from them.

Is he innocent? We shall never know. But the fact that he was arrested at the airport tells us two things: that the police expected him to flee the country, and that he did. I don't see why taxpayers should reward him for this.

 

[Glen48]

What about his bad name with the Rental Authority he left with out getting his rent up to date and lost all his contents plus the AFP made a mess of his unit looking for SIM cards, Ph records and any thing they could hang on him.
Makes you wonder how an English D. could fix victims one day and want to blow people up the next.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

What about his bad name with the Rental Authority he left with out getting his rent up to date and lost all his contents plus the AFP made a mess of his unit looking for SIM cards, Ph records and any thing they could hang on him.
Makes you wonder how an English D. could fix victims one day and want to blow people up the next.

He could sue the Real Estate agent but he's probably working in Bunnings now.

gg

 

[Sunder]

This is a really tough one, and probably why the judges decide instead of juries.

I agree the man deserves SOMETHING. How much that something is, is beyond my ken. On the one hand you have to balance the needs of a person, against the needs of a community. And then you need to realise that as a part of a community, sometimes you just need to surrender your rights for the good of the society.

As I understand it, ASIO got some dodgy information from a reliable source. I think they may have done what was right in the first place, but fumbled it when it started unravelling.

What's the acceptable rate of false positives, to reduce the rate of false negatives? Would you allow 1 innocent to go to jail, if that meant another 10 genuinely guilty people could get convicted on less than prime quality evidence? What if it were 100 guilty?

To broaden the question, how many innocent men would you allow jailed for just 1 week as a precaution, without compensation (or trivial compensation, such as the week's wages) to save 100 lives, by preventing a terrorist attack? How many, if one of those 100 lives saved was your child? How many, if one of those accused was you?

Not easy questions, are they?