This is the entire AFP statement about its closure of the Haneef investigation, issued late on Friday afternoon:
The Australian Federal Police (AFP) can confirm that today it advised Mr Rod Hodgson, Solicitor acting on behalf of Dr Mohamed Haneef, that the AFP has recently informed the Attorney-General and the Minister for Home Affairs that Dr Haneef is no longer a person of interest.
The AFP has concluded its active inquiries, although some long standing overseas inquiries are yet to be fully resolved. At the present time, there is insufficient evidence to institute proceedings against Dr Haneef for any criminal offence.
So there. Dr Haneef is off the hook – although, of course, you never know what those “long-standing overseas inquiries” might yet turn up.
Chris Merritt in The Australian rightly ripped into the AFP on Saturday, accusing them of trying to bury the announcement late on a Friday with Fairfax journalists on strike. Dead right.
And it’s only the last in a long series of embarrassments for the AFP in relation to the Haneef case. They’ve been catalogued innumerable times. They’d be hilarious if they didn’t amount to a nightmare for the innocent victim of the AFP’s bungling. And throughout, there has been a consistent theme — Mick Keelty’s unwillingness to accept a shred of responsibility. He has blamed everyone else but his own officers for the disaster — the Commonwealth DPP, the Poms, Kevin Andrews, Haneef’s lawyers for leaking material, Haneef himself for not cooperating, and most of all the media. Back in January, Keelty called for the media to be muzzled in terrorism cases so that they couldn’t expose the sort of f-ck-ups inflicted by the AFP on Haneef.
And Keelty’s refusal to accept responsibility is the real reason why the “investigation” of Haneef allegedly continued up until last week. Everyone else thought Haneef was innocent. Even the right-wing paranoiacs at ASIO thought so. Keelty himself admitted that he shouldn’t have been charged. But on the AFP went, pretending that there was still some serious possibility that they could ping a terrorist.
The cost of this extended exercise in a-se-covering steadily grew. By December last year, the cost had reached $7.5m, including a $1.6m overtime bill. By May, the cost had reached $8.2m. Keelty justified the burgeoning cost of an investigation into an innocent man by declaring that it related to matters arising from last year’s terrorist plots in the UK other than Haneef. He has never elaborated on what exactly they are. Only $3.2m of the $8.2m, Keelty claimed, had been spent directly on investigating Haneef. No breakdown for these figures has ever been provided.
Crikey asked the AFP for information on the total cost of the investigation now that it had been concluded, but it did not respond by deadline. Our own pro-rata calculations suggest that, based on Keelty’s Estimates evidence, the AFP was blowing about $37,000 a week on the investigation, and would have racked up more than $500,000 since May in additional costs. This brings the total cost of the investigation close to $8.8m.
There was many reasons why Mick Keelty should resign — should have resigned last year, in fact. But the most fundamental is his persistent refusal to accept responsibility for what the AFP did in the Haneef case, and his attempts to lay the blame elsewhere. His determination to continue wasting taxpayers’ money on an effort to cover his own backside shows just how obsessive Keelty is about ducking responsibility for what is one of the worst stains on Federal law enforcement in its history.
Oh to be a fly on the wall at Scotland Yard when the name “AFP’ or “Mick Keelty” comes up !. The chortling into tea-cups and suppressed laughter would be deafening. The one UK detective ,sent to investigate Haneef, departed Oz after a few days declaring nil interest in the man yet the AFP continued this charade until just the other day. Heads should roll ,beginning at the top.
The AFP responded just now. They say:
“This investigation was not limited to Dr Haneef. It included all lines of inquiry in relation to the terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow on 29 and 30 June 2007, and any possible threats to Australia’s national security. Operation Rain was a very complex investigation of which Dr Haneef was only one part. Of the total amount expended $8.5 (sic – I presume $8.5m) at 31 July 2008, $3,463,938 was attributed to the investigation of Dr Haneef.”
The AFP also comments about the timing of the press release:
On Thursday afternoon (28/8) the office of the Attorney-General requested the AFP to advise Maurice Blackburn Lawyers of the status of the investigation into Dr Haneef.
“This request was made to enable the Attorney-General’s office to respond to correspondence received from Maurice Blackburn Lawyers and, as the Haneef investigation is an operational matter, the AFP complied and advised Dr Haneef’s lawyer of the status of the investigation on Friday afternoon (29/8).
Simultaneously, the AFP advised the Clarke Inquiry, and also issued a media statement in anticipation of media interest stemming from the advice to Mr Hodgson.”
For as long as I can remember the Federal Police have always been known disparigingly by heir State counterparts as the plastics – as in imitation plastic policemen- for obvious reasons.
A question comes to mind. After the AFP were embarrassed and their mistakes published for all to see as a result of Dr. Haneef’s lawyers releasing to the press the transcript of what was described as his interrogation Mr. Keelty personally (I think) lodged a complaint about unprofessional behaviour in relation to those lawyers.. What, I ask, is the difference betwen that behaviour and the routine production for TV cameras of the alleged great volumes of alleged drugs allegedly siezed in raids? – Multiple uses of alleged very deliberate. Combined with the claims that the defendant was a bikie, and loaded weapons were found, and street value of the drugs was a given vast amount, is this no more than putting to the public what should be given in Court, and actually proven beyond reasonable doubt,and is it no different to the showing up of false evidence as done by Haneef’s lawyers, but which was apparently un-professional?
Did I read that right? That Haneef was only part of the 8.5 mill, but his part was about 35-40%? ( I haven’t done hte sums, but that’s about right).
Goodbye Mick. Maybe you and Costa can form hte ‘incompetents so incompetent they don’t understand incompetence’ group. Somewhere overseas, I think.
Keelty should have been sacked over SIEVX, over the Bali 9, Dr Al Haque, and now Dr Haneef.
As for those “overseas” investigations – they were stopped last year without finding even a parking ticket across the whole of the globe.