Terrorism and Immigration Legal Report

As the world’s population grew, so did political and economic instability, as well as major international conflicts. Tensions between countries and cultures tightened, and eventually and inevitably, one of them attacked. This terrorist act brought with it the panic and chaos fuelled haze that was post-911 Australia, and similar to many situations in the past, the fear and vulnerability associated with the community allowed the government quite a substantial amount of political power.

This atmosphere of fear and ignorance lead to several incomplete and somewhat extreme pieces of Anti terrorist legislation to be passed by the Howard government, in order to ensure the safety of all Australians, or so they said. Dr Mohammed Haneef a doctor working in Queensland on a skilled migrant visa, soon found himself a victim of these laws. When two Indian men attempted to bomb an airport in Glasgow, UK, Mohammed Haneef became a suspect in the eyes of the Australian Federal Police, and was arrested shortly.

Several blunders and misinterpretations by the AFP lead to the wrongful detention and charging of Dr Haneef, a man who spent a total of 12 days in detention without being charged and had his visa unfairly revoked during his trial. Haneef was eventually released and all charges were dropped against him, when the Public Prosecutor determined that there was no legitimate trial against him.

However, the course of events that Dr Haneef experienced brought to light the glaring dilemmas associated with Australia’s radical Anti Terrorist laws and corresponding government agencies. The Clarke inquiry and concurrent recommendations As a result of the badly handled Mohammed Haneef case, the labour party ordered a full inquiry be conducted into the legal case, in order to identify the key faults and inefficiencies in government agencies and legislation that related to the Haneef Case.

This Inquiry was called the Clarke inquiry, conducted by John Clarke, a Supreme Court judge. Despite the inquiry lacking several crucial powers, it worked well to suggest a number of key findings and recommendations. Some very key recommendations that worked toward rectifying mistakes made in the Haneef case were as follows: That the government consider establishing legislation or necessary arrangements that would consequently apply to other inquiries and reviews that involve national security.

That parliament review part 1c of the Crimes act 1914, the part that relates to terrorism offences. That the Australian government appoint an independent reviewer of the Australian counter terrorism laws. That the Minister for immigration and citizenship be included in the list for security intelligence notifications and reports produced by ASIO, in order to in the future. All of these recommendations and more were implemented and thoroughly elaborated on by the Australian government. Anti-Terrorism laws reformed due to the Haneef case.

Following the Haneef case and the Clarke inquiry, the government decided that necessary reforms were in order and announced its intentions to amend and alter several Anti-terrorism laws in order for them to correlate with conventional, sophisticated standards, standards that find a fair balance between national security and civil liberties. The Labour government took a major step in deciding to abolish the sedition terms within anti terror legislation while focusing more on rebellious acts that insight violence. The previous laws were deemed restricting of academic liberty and free speech.

Some of the other significant changes listed in a newspaper article include the advancement of individual review of the Australian federal police, the government’s decision to broaden powers assigned to the Inspector general of intelligence and security which allows inquiries to extend across all National security agencies, and the in-statement of an independent reviewer of Australia’s counter terrorism laws, to be named the National security Legislation Monitor. These reforms are a strong representation in the government’s effectiveness in update obsolete or otherwise procedurally dangerous Anti-Terror laws.

These changes are the first of many steps in order to find the balance between human rights and National security. Claims for compensation by Mohammed Haneef After the ill handled arrest and charge against Mohammed Haneef and the distasteful cancellation of his Visa, Haneef has finally returned to Australia to claim compensation against the federal government on the basis on his trauma, loss of wages and career, defamation. Despite having an almost iron hard case against the federal government, Haneef opted to first try his best to resolve the manner through a mediation process.

A News article reported that Mohammed Haneef’s lawyers were able to reach an agreement with the federal government and rested his claims for compensation, a substantial claim, though the actual amount is undisclosed. It can be seen as a victory for the Mohammed Haneef and the Australian government, whose reputation will be partially restored over the matter. The government chose to make a good decision and provide Haneef with legitimate compensation through very discreet and uncontroversial means, casting little to no negative association to the government. Formal apology from the Federal government

Almost immediately following Dr Haneef’s success in claiming compensation, as reported in a relevant media article, the federal government released a document in the form of a formal apology on behalf of the AFP’s several blunders and misinterpretations, which lead to the prolonged detention and charge of Mohammed Haneef. Haneef’s lawyer congratulated the Government for recognising the need for such measures in a formal declaration of innocence, that would help clear Haneef’s name of any wrong doing . The AFP also participated in the assist of Dr Haneef’s claim for compensation, and were eager to rectify its previous hastily made mistakes.

The Federal government’s formal apology not only allowed Haneef’s professional reputation be cleansed, but also publicly rid them of any negative association with the controversial court case. Conclusion The politically fueled implementation of Anti-terrorism legislation by the Howard government was a rushed and ineffective endeavor, and despite Mohammed Haneef becoming the victim of such broad laws, his Case, as well as the efforts of the labour government, allowed these radical laws to be reformed to concur with Australia’s legal and utilitarian standards.