Dr Haneef Part V

I've been busy fighting the good fight over at Larvatus Prodeo's latest thread about Dr Haneef, concerning the evidence disclosed yesterday that, to my mind, will convince a lot of people to give the government the benefit of the doubt about the decision to revoke Haneef's visa. (And remember, there is more evidence not disclosed.)

I don't think the fact that Haneef tried to contact the British police is at all conclusive on the issue of removing "reasonable suspicion". It would certainly help in a defence of a criminal charge, where all you have to do is raise a reasonable doubt, but that's not what we are talking of here.

I don't want to repeat the various points I have made over at LP; you can read the "Steve from Brisbane" posts if you like.

But I will repeat a couple of points here. My remaining criticism of Andrews is this: it seems to me that he could have avoided the "overriding the magistrate" criticism if he had been able to show that he made his decision before the Magistrate made her bail decision. As it was indeed a parallel process, I see no reason why he could not have made it beforehand, and put in place some form of proof as to when he made the decision, but then not announced it until after the bail decision. (To announce it beforehand would have invited criticism that he was seeking to prejudice the case before the Magistrate.)

This is still, I think, a relatively minor criticism in the scheme of things, and it is more about appearances than substance. The Australian is completely over the top in its editorial about this today, seemingly deciding that having put the boot into Andrews previously, it would look too embarrassing to now admit that maybe he was on solid grounds after all.

I am also thoroughly sick of the attitude that there must be strong criticism of the government to be found somewhere in all this. Now, some commenters and even papers have suggested "well, why did the government let him go. He could have been released into the community and watched." Surely this is forgetting that we are talking a non citizen here (admittedly one who was doing us a favour by working in our health system.) There are high costs involved in monitoring someone, and inherent risk involved that terrorist action may be attempted and not prevented.

The critics are the same ones who wanted to see him released into the community completely exonerated. Now it's "OK, maybe there was reason to suspect him, but you should have kept him here anyway."

Maybe, various critics, the answer is that you never knew enough about this to be making such confident judgements. And there is considerable hypocrisy in complaining about Andrews not disclosing all information when, in other circumstances, people would be complaining about breach of privacy if the Minister was releasing all "protected information" that led him to not issue (or revoke) a work visa.

UPDATE: the argument moved from LP to Club Troppo, where Ken Parish seems to have surprised most of his mates by siding with the Minister (while, like me, being fairly mildly critical of the timing of his decision.)