Dr. Haneef Damages Claim

[lucas]

It was Haneef's second cousin who was the doctor who was deported - for withholding information from the UK police. I assume about the impending attack. Nice doctors in Haneef's family.

But I was incorrect - he did go to the hospital and ask for leave. Sorry Haneef. But why not go to the police? You made three phone calls to the UK police - out of their business hours - (should I be happy to know these cops get sleep hours after major terrorist attempts?) but you couldn't walk around the corner to the cop shop Monday morning? What? You couldn't help them with their enquiries once you saw what these monster relatives of yours had tried to do?

This is a transcript from the 60 Minutes interview:

TARA BROWN: So, did you ever send funds to your cousins, did you ever send money there?

DR MOHAMED HANEEF: No, I have sent money to the UK to pay my loans, what I had, but not to my cousins, no.

...and this from the ABC Four Corners interview:

LIZ JACKSON: You did give money at one point to your Cousin Kafeel Ahmed?

MOHAMED HANEEF: No I haven’t given... ah, yeah that was that was actually to transfer money to back to back home to my India…

I transferred some money to him so that he could lend lend the same money back to India.

LIZ JACKSON: Do you think that might raise concerns about the connections that you had with Kafeel Ahmed the fact that 800-900 pounds went from your account to his account?

MOHAMED HANEEF: Well I don’t think so I I’ve clarified that with the Australian Police at the time.

Why are we being asked to compensate this chap, who clearly contradicts himself in public? Is he just stupid? Too much just doesn't add up. I'd like to see that chat room tapescript one day too...

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

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?

Excellent points.

Ask the poor bastards in the Twin Towers, Kota Beach and Paddy's bar.

Nobody asks the dead for their opinion.

I reckon he should get about $15000 and be told to po and enjoy his fame in the Middle East where he now resides and works.

It is up to Kevin Rudd to pass legislation forbidding suspects in terrorist activities from claiming damages for detention or investigation while facts are being collated, whether those investigations with hindsight are flawed or not.

gg

 

[Julia]

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, too, have to admit I'm becoming ambivalent about this.

If I put myself in the position of being accused of something I haven't done, being questioned vigorously, locked up, charged, then I feel the outrage is huge and demands significant compensation plus an apology.

But if I consider that he may indeed have been implicated in some sort of similar terrorist plan for Australia as his cousins executed in the UK, then my outrage goes in a different direction and I fully support his arrest and subsequent detention. Given his relationship to the UK terrorists, I guess ASIO and the FP would have been negligent in not taking the action they did.

I think the person most at fault here is Kevin Andrews. The charges were dropped and that should have been the end of it. But Mr Andrews, for reasons known only to himself it seems, then cancelled his visa.

I guess we have to primarily consider what is "for the greater good" and in that case Dr Haneef was (if innocent) the sacrificial lamb.

 

[lucas]

Downloaded the two police interviews (3/7/07 & 13/7/07) with Haneef last night:

http://www.hindu.com/nic/0058/haneef.htm

Haneef wanted them published so he could clear his name. I don't blame him. It surprises me that no competent journalist has yet bothered to piece together a timeline of the events as they unfolded since the birth of his daughter by C section on the 26th June.

The first thing that becomes apparent is that he earns very good money. Good luck to him. He funnels almost all of it back to his family in India. He is the breadwinner. No laws broken there. But he couldn't get someone to cover for him to enable him to go home to be with his wife. This entire episode would have been a non-Aussie event had he been able to get leave. It is unclear (at least to me), whether he ever actually asked for leave or if it was just his belief that no-one could cover for him. Either way, it is a pretty sad indictment of any public system that he had to work for a week while his wife was being cut open in a hospital during a premature birth in India. He learned of his poor daughter's jaundice on the Sunday - his daughter was readmitted to hospital. He then decided to try to obtain leave on the Monday.

The airport attack in Glasgow occurred Saturday 30 June 2007, at 15:11 BST. Haneef showed up for work at 8.00 a.m. Monday. Busy all morning. At around two-thirty some doctor gets a call from his brother in India and this doctor tells Haneef to ring his brother - some problem with a sim card. Haneef goes home. He rings his brother who has been telephoned by the mother of Haneef's second cousin (the now deported doctor who was being held in custody in the UK). This mother is going to ring Haneef because she wants Haneef to help clear her son's name - he's been arrested.

The most surprising thing is that no-one mentions terror attacks. Just a problem with the sim card and an arrest. No-one says "Oh my God! Have you seen the news? Our cousin's implicated in that terror attack!" We are expected to believe that all this sim card talk and the arrest is revealed and spoken about on the phone without any knowledge of the events in London and Glasgow over the weekend. In fact, that is the most suspicious thing - no-one ever mentions the attacks.

He goes back to the hospital after talking with his brother and manages to arrange leave for 7 days. Someone can cover for him. He then calls his cousin's mum (although in the later transcript 13 July he contradicts this and says she called him and he added her number to his mobile) and he's told to ring the UK police. (He does so three times - on his mobile, but can't get through. He tries again when he is at home but to no avail at 4.32 p.m. after a Yahoo chat session with his brother.) He then rings his father-in-law in India and asks him to buy a ticket because he has no money (on $62,000 a year?). He informs his father-in-law about the "incident in the UK", but this is taken to mean the sim card problem, because Haneef still hasn't heard about the attack(s). Around four o'clock the father-in-law rings back to say the travel agent will send the e-ticket by email. Haneef checks out of the hospital, goes home. Has an chat session with his brother at 4.13 p.m. But this is where it all gets confusing. He talks about waiting for the airport van to come and pick him up at 8.00 p.m. and speaking to his brother in the evening(?) about the attack. But he's then shown the transcript of the chat session. So we know he is aware of the attacks at around 4.15 p.m. He doesn't read through the entire article on the Glasgow attack. This I find to be incredible. What? Four hours to wait for the bus and he doesn't read all he can about what has transpired - given that he is implicated in it? The transcript of the chat session at the very bottom of the second interview is inconclusive, but it is mostly eerie for what it doesn't say. A family member has tried to blow up an airport for God's sake!

Does it prove his complicity? I don't know. A smarter guy than me should deal with it. Have I got the timeline right? I can't say for sure - but the police say they didn't have enough evidence for anything to stand up in court. He's been cleared anyway, so it's all over bar the compo.

But I think it says plenty about how polite the police were, how correct Andrews was to be very very wary, and how misled we all are by those who who have done all they could to saddle the sorry saga with political ballast.

 

[rederob]

Does it prove his complicity? I don't know. A smarter guy than me should deal with it. Have I got the timeline right? I can't say for sure - but the police say they didn't have enough evidence for anything to stand up in court. He's been cleared anyway, so it's all over bar the compo.

That "smarter" person was Justice Clarke:

Some observations need to be made about this decision to charge:
• The advice given by Mr Porritt was obviously wrong and should never have
been given. Apart from anything else, there was no evidence that in July 2006
there existed a terrorist organisation involving Sabeel Ahmed or Kafeel
Ahmed. Even if there had been, there was no evidence that Dr Haneef knew
he was giving his SIM card to a terrorist organisation or knew facts that
would have demonstrated that he was reckless in giving his SIM card to
Sabeel. In short, the material was completely deficient in the most important
respect.

 

[lucas]

Clarke is the problem not the solution. Anyone is wise after the fact (though not this Justice in my view), and he is happy to pander to public sentiment. If we had a truly fearless report we wouldn't be contemplating paying millions to a man whose lies are there for all to see on the public record. It doesn't mean he is a terrorist; it does mean he plays up and down with the truth.

People are charged with crimes dozens of times a week; sometimes the charges are dropped. So what? Clarke said he was "surprised" that no one involved in the police investigation “stood back at any time prior to the decision to charge (Haneef) and reflected on what Dr Haneef was known to have done.”

Really? He obviously had more problems than I had reading the police interviews. Anyway, how does Clarke know what was said in the initial chats with Haneef at the airport?

I mean a few tads smarter than Clarke - someone able to pick apart the inconsistencies in Haneef's story. I suppose there will be a book. The usual hogwash revealing how bad everyone else is - everyone else except, of course, the chap who didn't know about the attack until 4.15 p.m. Monday despite dozens of phone calls about the sim card, a day at work, and a previous entire day at home with the TV and the Internet...the chap who said he didn't bother to read up about his own cousins being named in the Glasglow attack even though he had hours to wait for the bus... the chap who told the public that he had never ever sent money to his cousins, but evidently and admittedly had done so...the chap whose bizarre reaction to the so-called first time knowledge of the attacks is there for all to read in that chat session...the chap who says he bears no grudges towards anyone in Australia but wants us all to buy him a round of drinks.

I have no drum to bang for Andrews or the government he represented but I would have cancelled his visa too. Good grief! It wasn't that long ago we were denying foreigners visas because they didn't know who Bradman was! Now THAT'S a crime.

As I say, the world is barking mad.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

The fact is there will be a damages claim.

Lawyers are a greedy lot.

They will want a cut so there will be a claim.

I am ambivalent too about the quantum of damages.

I would be comfortable with him getting $18567 as long as he signed a letter saying he wouldn't go for compo e.g. workers compo or ptsd or some other s**t that folk go for in legal cases.

gg

 

[lucas]

Whatever he gets he should donate to the poor of India or some worthwhile charity. After all, the terrorist doctor who died of his burns wanted to do as much for Haneef with Haneef's loan repayment to him.

But I'm with you gg - that should be the last ever payout in these circumstances - and I still figure if ever meet him, he'll owe me around a fiver.

 

[rederob]

Really? He obviously had more problems than I had reading the police interviews. Anyway, how does Clarke know what was said in the initial chats with Haneef at the airport?

I mean a few tads smarter than Clarke - someone able to pick apart the inconsistencies in Haneef's story. I suppose there will be a book. The usual hogwash revealing how bad everyone else is - everyone else except, of course, the chap who didn't know about the attack until 4.15 p.m. Monday despite dozens of phone calls about the sim card, a day at work, and a previous entire day at home with the TV and the Internet...the chap who said he didn't bother to read up about his own cousins being named in the Glasglow attack even though he had hours to wait for the bus... the chap who told the public that he had never ever sent money to his cousins, but evidently and admittedly had done so...the chap whose bizarre reaction to the so-called first time knowledge of the attacks is there for all to read in that chat session...the chap who says he bears no grudges towards anyone in Australia but wants us all to buy him a round of drinks.

Your distortions are typical of the beat up tried by the former government.
Minister Andrews' actions were ill considered, and despite having access to a lot of information, he chose to use only those aspects which suited his purposes (and the then Government's).
Andrews, for example, was asked repeatedly about Haneef's attempts to call British police before attempting to fly to India. "We don't know the full details about that contact and how that occurred or whether it occurred," he told the ABC. Most would say Andrews lied. At best it showed his incompetence in handling a matter where the facts would ultimately come to light.
By the way, the AFP officers who actually interviewed Haneef would never have laid charges. Their superior, who Clarke accuses of losing objectivity, was the culprit.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Whatever he gets he should donate to the poor of India or some worthwhile charity. After all, the terrorist doctor who died of his burns wanted to do as much for Haneef with Haneef's loan repayment to him.

But I'm with you gg - that should be the last ever payout in these circumstances - and I still figure if ever meet him, he'll owe me around a fiver.

Agree mate, these godbotherers can go and pray five or six times a day and get quite a buzz out of it all.

This free buzz should be discounted in any quantum he gets.

You and I have to volunteer, give money to charity or trade options to feel as close to the creator as these jokers can.

I think I'll decrease his payout accordingly to $17462.

gg

 

[lucas]

You are entitled to your viewpoint - but you are adding political baggage - something I have been at pains to avoid.

Distortions? No. Questions. As yet unanswered.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

You are entitled to your viewpoint - but you are adding political baggage - something I have been at pains to avoid.

Distortions? No. Questions. As yet unanswered.

I accept your criticism Lucas, but a person's wider life and agenda needs to be taken in to account when assessing "damages".

I must apologise.

gg

 

[lucas]

Oops! Mea culpa mate, my reply was to rederob who claimed I was distorting things. I don't think so. I've corrected errors I made before I did a bit of research. I've tried to be fair to Haneef. Someone should have asked these questions long ago.

Too late now.

I'm outa here - Happy New Year to all!

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Oops! Mea culpa mate, my reply was to rederob who claimed I was distorting things. I don't think so. I've corrected errors I made before I did a bit of research. I've tried to be fair to Haneef. Someone should have asked these questions long ago.

Too late now.

I'm outa here - Happy New Year to all!

You'll be missed mate.

Very insightful.

Reconsider a permanent exit

gg

 

[lucas]

Well, OK - I'm away on holiday for a few days but I'll keep in touch.

It's a curious case. It fascinates me. Haneef was charged, by the way, on the 14th July - a day after that second police interview. Although I don't mean this to be a politically charged observation, Kevin Rudd in Opposition immediately announced he was pleased with the the way Australian Federal Police have handled the case.

"My message to the Australian people is this: that when it comes to terrorism, terrorists and those who support terrorist organisations, this country must continue to adopt a hardline uncompromising stance - there are no alternatives," Mr Rudd said.

I remember agreeing at the time with the substance of what Rudd said - and, of course, I still do.

I mention this only to remind, well, myself really, how poisonous politics is.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/14/1978526.htm

It should be about finding out what really happened and who knew what, not pushing a political wheelbarrow with Haneef in it. It's a form of exploitation.

He doesn't deserve bucketloads of cash, but he doesn't deserve that either.

 

[slim pickins]

as a staunch conservative i believe the govt should leave us all alone as much as possible. a police investigation should not result in a cancellation of a visa.

freedom of association is a right under the constitution. having a nut of a cousin does not mean you are one as well. if he is not charged he should be compensated.

his damages.... well i would not go to him after this. so hes lost me as a patient. and i'm pretty open minded guy. his reputation is toast for a decade. btu he probably would not have opened a private practice for a decade anyway. so not a huge loss of income.

so actual loss (damages) maybe $200,000 excluding legal bills. punative damages (punishing the government for stuffling up your life) and preventing future governments from doign the same. $1.5 mil.

$1.7 mil all up. and lets face it with that payout you are set for life. especially if you live in india.

mind you, if it was me.... id would not be happy with less then $5 mil.

 

[Macquack]

.... well i would not go to him after this. so hes lost me as a patient. and i'm pretty open minded guy.

You go on about how the guy has been hard done by and should be compensated, yet you would not go to him as a patient.
I would not call that "open minded".

$1.7 mil all up. and lets face it with that payout you are set for life. especially if you live in india.

mind you, if it was me.... id would not be happy with less then $5 mil.

Kind of a double standard there.
"One for you and two for me".

 

[cuttlefish]

Gee, another inspiring thread started by GG ... what a blast.:

I haven't read the thread but my view is the treatment of Haneef highlighted serious flaws in our legal system and punitive damages need to be awarded against the govt to deter them from making the same sorts of mistakes again.

So how about $100 million punitive damages against the govt, with only $10 million going to Haneef, $89 million to a charity to support people maimed, orphaned or widowed by the US led bombings of Iraq, and $1 million to a charity to for cheering up miserable old wowsers.

One day I will simply learn not to open these threads.

 

[lucas]

Well, cuttlefish, you could always start your own thread:

Gee, another inspiring thread started by GG ... what a blast.

But it might pay you to read it in full - if only to suspend your belief awhile in your preconceptions.

If you are willing to throw that sort of money around - money that belongs to the entire community - then you need to ask yourself under what conditions such money should be awarded. Does Haneef need to be squeaky clean? Or is a little bit dirty still OK?

I have pointed out plenty of evidence for him lying - evidence that may not convict him in court of being a terrorist - but which lend credence to the argument that he should at least accept some responsibility for what happened to him. (Of course, it's laughable that this should be seen as distortion simply because it doesn't fit someone's preconceived ideas of who should be in government - political viewpoints are fine, naturally, but they don't argue for facts being distortions.)

It seems that every time Haneef opens his mouth he convicts himself of disingenuousness. This week he claimed that he left the country because he was "frightened". At least, that is the way it was reported. Sloppy reporting? Was he merely referring to being arrested? Or was he referring to the purchase of the ticket? You choose...

Dr Haneef, who lives in Dubai, said he regretted buying a one-way ticket to India after the attacks but "it wasn't anything wrong as such, it wasn't anything out of guilt".

"Mr Clarke has indicated what was going on, I had my baby," he said. "I mean, I was frightened, he's mentioned it in this report, and there's nothing else." Jonathan Pearlman SMH December 30, 2008

If he was referring to the purchase of the ticket, then he lied consistently to the police and in the TV interviews when quizzed about his reasons for his departure.

There is a good deal more evidence to support the theory that he knew something was afoot than that he didn't. Why mention you are frightened in the context of purchasing the ticket but you tell the police you did not know the attacks had taken place two days earlier - news that was all over the media everywhere in the world? Yet neither he, nor any of his friends, colleagues or family knew or spoke of this to him? You either knew of it when purchasing the ticket or you didn't. And you were either frightened for a reason or you weren't. Big BS.

It doesn't provide guilt of him having been involved in the plot, true, but this - together with the documented total (and you can read total) lack of surprise at the acts of his cousin - strongly suggests he was aware of his cousin's (cousins'?) convictions and the possibility of such attacks occurring.

Not dobbing your cousin in for this is a crime and his cousin was found guilty of it and deported from the UK. While it is perfectly correct that one should not try a man for his brother's (or cousin's) crimes, it is reasonable to suspect that a man is guilty of a crime if he consistently steers his accusers away from the truth.

You can believe in his innocence as much as you want but it doesn't fit his testimony, which is why cancelling his visa seems to my cautious mind an appropriate action. But no, an Aussie's concept of a "fair go" will always trump common sense. Two concepts which do not necessarily share a similar meaning but ought not to be mutually exclusive if they lead in different directions.

 

[cuttlefish]

But it might pay you to read it in full - if only to suspend your belief awhile in your preconceptions.

My issue with this case is that Haneef was detained for a long period of time without charge under the anti-terrorism legislation. This sort of legislation is always prone to being the subject of either negligence or deliberate abuse.

Detention, particularly an open ended one without any apparent or obvious process surrounding it, is an extremely damaging psychological experience.

The government spent a lot more than $100 million assisting the US in Iraq based on 'evidence' of WMD.