Saturday 27th of April 2024
Home » Blogs » John Richardson's blog

the cricket tragic .....

the cricket tragic .....

‘The second cricket Test match of the recently concluded test series between India and England played at Trent Bridge was important as it went on to underline the success that the Indian cricket team has been enjoying on foreign trips in the recent past.

However, the Trent Bridge test had another noteworthy feature – Australian umpire Simon Taufel’s apology for handing out Sachin Tendulkar a faulty decision leaving the batsman nine short of what would have been his 38th Test hundred. Taufel, who has won the ICC Best Umpire of the Year award for three successive years, was forthright and honest in admitting that he had made a mistake in giving Sachin out and ‘denying fans a chance’ of watching the great batsman in action.

This whole episode went on to prove that even the best can err. And Simon Taufel only enhanced his standing as an umpire by owning up to his mistake.

On the same day that Simon Taufel expressed disappointment with his decision, we had another Australian, the continent’s Prime Minister John Howard, ruling out an apology to the Indian doctor Mohammad Haneef who was detained on charges of “recklessness” and “providing support to a terrorist organisation.” These charges were subsequently dropped as they were found to be false.

This case, which turned out to be a huge embarrassment for the Howard government’s new counter-terrorism laws, resulted in Dr.Haneef being held captive for three weeks by the Australian authorities. Interestingly, the “recklessness” that Dr. Haneef indulged in by giving his SIM card to his cousin and friend, Dr. Sabeel Ahmed, is something most mobile users involve themselves in frequently, not just in India but right across the world.

No wonder we had the Aussie protestors demanding the release of Dr.Haneef carrying placards which said “I have lent my SIM ... arrest me too!”’

Of Taufel, Howard & An Apology

And today, Federal Court Justice, Jeffrey Spender, quashed the Federal Government's decision to cancel the former Gold Coast-based doctor's work visa on character grounds.

Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews says the Federal Government will appeal against today's Federal Court ruling overturning his decision to cancel Mohamed Haneef's visa.

Of course, Mr Andrews said he had no reason to apologise to Dr Haneef, had not considered resigning his portfolio and would pursue the matter all the way to the High Court if necessary.

So, there’s no chance the phoney cricket tragic will ever offer an apology for his “sorry” role in this disgraceful affair.

so much for national security .....

Information has been at a premium over the many weeks of the Mohamed Haneef case, a case that saw the Indian doctor arrested without charge, detained, charged, released on bail, placed in custody on the decision of the Immigration Minister, then released by the courts before finally having his action in the Federal Court against the actions of Minister Kevin Andrews succeed yesterday.

Early in the saga Dr Haneef's lawyers controversially released the full record of their client's first interview with Australian Federal Police. Later, Minister Andrews would selectively quote from Dr Haneef's second interview to build a case that the doctor was of unsavoury character and unft to remain in this country. Andrews and the AFP resisted the release of a transcript of this second interview, on the grounds that it would compromise national security.

Today Dr Haneef's lawyers have made the second interview transcript available. Does it hold the missing links that point to Dr Haneef's guilt? Does it carry information so sensitive that Minister Andrews might fear its release in the national interest?

Read Greg Barns' take on the second Haneef interview and download the full transcript here.

feral flatfoot fluff .....

Greg Barnes writes 

Haneef case: Bully boy stuff from the AFP

‘At first I thought it was someone taking the Mickey out of the Australian Federal Police. But no it’s for real, believe it or not. The AFP actually issued a media release yesterday (you can read it in full below) in which they claimed that there has been no leaking by them in the Haneef case. And for good measure, the AFP thinks what Dr Haneef’s legal team did yesterday in releasing the second record of interview was unethical.

The AFP claims, in all seriousness, that its own – note there’s been no independent external investigation – inquiries have led it to the view that there has been “no unlawful disclosure of information by AFP members.” Oh really? So who has been leaking information about the Haneef investigation with a clear view to smearing Dr Haneef over the past month? If not the investigators then who?

It’s certainly not Dr Haneef’s lawyers.

And speaking of Dr Haneef’s lawyers how’s this for bully boy stuff from the AFP:

The continuing attempts by Dr Haneef’s defence team to use the media to run their case is both unprofessional and inappropriate and the AFP has raised this aspect with the Queensland Legal Services Commission.

Dr Haneef’s lawyers have acted ethically and responsibly throughout this matter, unlike the political masters of the AFP like Mr Ruddock and Mr Andrews. And since when has it been unethical or unprofessional or inappropriate to give the media a copy of your client’s record of interview?

In fact, if the AFP was serious about ethics and professionalism why doesn’t it pick on Mr Ruddock and Mr Andrews who have done nothing except to smear Dr Haneef ever since he was arrested?

It’s interesting to note that no senior AFP officer put his or her name to yesterday’s media release and there is no media contact name at the end of the release. Just as well given its bizarre and inaccurate content.’

feral fit-ups .....

Powerful evidence of Mohamed Haneef's innocence has emerged at the Old Bailey in London, evidence the Australian Federal Police and the Commonwealth Director of Prosecutions appear to have ignored in holding the Gold Coast doctor for questioning last year and then charging him with a terrorism offence. 

The case against Dr Haneef always centred on allegations that his second cousin Sabeel Ahmed, a doctor practising in England, was part of a terrorist organisation. But in the Old Bailey on Friday Mr Justice Calvert-Smith accepted there was "no sign" of Ahmed "being an extremist or party to extremist views". 

Evidence for this has been in the hands of British police from the early days of their investigation into failed car bombings carried out by Ahmed's brother Kafeel last year. But it only saw the light of day in the Old Bailey last Friday. 

Its publication raises difficult questions for Australian police and the Commonwealth DPP. 

Police Ignored Strong Evidence Showing Haneef's Innocence