Paul Maley; 1/5/08
Witnesses who give evidence at the inquiry into the botched prosecution of Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef risk being sued for defamation because the inquiry has not been given the powers of a royal commission. As the Clarke inquiry into the Haneef affair held its first - and potentially only - public hearing yesterday, Queensland Law Council president Megan Mahon told The Australian two of the protections commonly given to royal commissions - indemnity against defamation and self-incrimination - had not been given to Mr Clarke, exposing witnesses to civil action. Ms Mahon said that in the absence of those protections, many lawyers would advise their clients not to co-operate.
See: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23626027-2702,00.html
Real terror can be found in the legislation
Mike Steketee; 1/5/08
The first public hearing yesterday into the debacle of the Mohamed Haneef investigation is a reminder that Australia’s anti-terrorism laws have gone too far. The common view is that when it comes to terrorism, no measure can go too far. This view was reflected by former attorney-general Philip Ruddock when he wrote last year: “If an attack should occur in Australia, I want to be able to look into the eyes of those affected and know I did everything I could to prevent theatrocity.” That is understandable, but it also makes the point that everything will never be enough while the risk of terrorism remains.
See: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23624850-7583,00.html
Wider powers needed
Editorial; 1/5/08
Anti-terror laws leave no room for errors IN the war on terror, a curbing of some civil liberties is sometimes unavoidable in the application of tough anti-terror laws. The public recognises the need for such measures - provided they are administered competently and not abused. If the process is bungled, as in the case of former Gold Coast doctor Mohamed Haneef, public confidence in anti-terror laws is more likely to be eroded. For this reason, it is important that the Rudd Government’s inquiry into the handling of the Haneef case, headed by retired NSW Supreme Court judge John Clarke QC, should be as wide-ranging and open as possible.
See: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23624751-16382,00.html
Tags: Australia, Human Rights, Terrorism