Dr. Haneef’s Case Administrative and Public Law

Question: Discuss about theDr. Haneefs Case for Administrative and Public Law. Answer: Introduction Dr. Haneef has been arrested on the grounds that he provided support to a terrorist in relation to a terrorist attack which took place in the United Kingdom. He had been detained without any substantial task for a period of 12 days under the provisions of Section 23 DA and 23 CB of the Crimes Act. He had been charged on 14th July under the provisions of Section 102.7(2) of the Commonwealth criminal Code. His visa had latter been canceled on the ground that he failed the character test. This case is a perfect example of the abuse of ministerial powers against that of natural justice. Such cases have become common in the modern world and the ministers seem to turn a deaf ear towards such issues (Gale 2014). Can a person be prosecuted just because there is a very little if any chance that he might have been involved in an illegal activity? Is the law of the land so unfair that only perceptions are enough to make a person suffer unfair treatment? Considering the present case of Dr. Haneef it can be evidently stated that the answer of both the previous questions would be positive (Qureshi, Gulraiz and Shahzad 2016). With respect to the powers vested in minister for cancelling a visa there are restrictions provided by Section 501(3) of The Migration Act 1958. The section expressly deals with situations where natural justice does not apply contrary to that of Section 501(1) and (2) of the Act. According to the provisions of Section 501(1) and (2) a minister has the power to cancel or refuse visa if they reasonable believe that the person does not poses qualification in relation to the character test and such person fails to establish before the minister of the delegates that he can pass the test. Section 503(3) of the acts makes the minister cancel or refuse visa with respect to the person but only if such sanction is related to national interest. The big question is that was there any national interest in this case or was it only the will to exercise discretionary powered by the ministers. Section 501(1) and (2) of the Act provided that a person whose visa is subjected to be canceled or refused has to be informed in advance about such decision and has the right to be heard before any further step is taken against his visa. Although this is not necessary or compulsory, is it not evident enough that excluding such provisions would bring unfair disadvantage to the aggrieved person as it has happed with Dr. Haneef. Therefore where is natural justice in this case? Or is it just a term which is superseded by ministerial power. It is evident in this case that the presence of provisions relating to section 503A of the act which have been made to address the shortcomings of power abuse is a mere model as this section also can be overridden by the ministers as it has been in this case (Hopkins 2015). Even after being advised that there was lack of evidence in supporting the move, the Australian federal police had placed Dr. Haneef in preventive detention only after three days from when he was arrested. Isnt it evident that the main motive of the police in this case was to detain him rather than reach a justified point in this case? Furthermore Documents which have been obtained by Dr. Haneefs legal team it has been evident that the police were busy in finding new ways to detain Dr. Haneef rather than finding ways which could have solved the issue. It was also clear that the police and the immigration officers in collaboration were planning to cancel the doctors visa much earlier than it had been previously known (Fellows 2016). In one of the documents which had been marked as highly protected the police included the possibility of imposing a further detention order on the doctor under which he could have been detained for an indefinite period. This imposition was planned even when there was no or insufficient information which could satisfy the fact that detaining the doctor would not have affected any terrorist activity (Austlii.edu.au 2017). The provisions in relation to preventive detention orders clearly state that they can only be used when the police have reasons to believe that if such orders are not imposed it would lead to another terrorist attack or evidence tampering. However the police has confirmed evidence in this case as provided by the the United kingdom police department that Dr. haneef had no involvement in the terrorist attack and still it opted for a preventive detention order which makes it clear that its main intention was to make the the doctor suffer. The doctors visa was canceled immediately after he had been granted bail and the documents obtained by the doctors legal team clearly showed collaboration between the immigration department and the police as of what would have happed if the court freed him. Therefore the reason behind the cancellation of visa is clear in this case and it is evident that there was malice involved in the cancellation (Larking 2016). This ascertaining can be made even stronger based on the letter which was sent by the national manager of Australian Federal police to the immigration department dated 11 July which expressly asked the department to revoke the visa issued to the doctor. Evidence which can be referred to in this case is the letter dated 15 July which was sent by the AFP to the Foreign Affairs department which stated clearly that there was no threat to national interest but still the police opted for a preventive detention order (Hosen 2015). It is clearly evident from the above stated facts and evidence that Dr. Haneef is also one of the many targets of ministerial abuse and malicious intention of the police (Theaustralian.com.au 2017). In order to establish its supremacy the police do whatever even if it is illegal and unethical. Dr. haneef has also been one of the victims of such abuse by the police and ministers and in order to restore faith of the general public in the judicial and executive system of the country he must be immediately released and apologized with. References Austlii.edu.au. (2017). 2009 Alternative Law Journal. [online] Available at: https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AltLawJl/2009 [Accessed 27 Jan. 2017]. Fellows, J., 2016. Dr Haneef and a miscarriage of justice!.Res Judicata: contemporary issues in administrative and public law,1. Gale, P., 2014. Beyond Fear and Towards Hope. InMigration, Diaspora and Identity(pp. 123-137). Springer Netherlands. Hopkins, A., 2015. The national crisis of indigenous incarceration: Is taking indigenous experience into account in sentencing part of the solution?.Legaldate,27(2), p.4. Hosen, N., 2015. Law, religion and security.Routledge Handbook of Law and Religion, p.337. Larking, E., 2016. Mohamed Haneef-A Terrorist by Association? Review of Haneef: A Question of Character.Browser Download This Paper. Qureshi, R., Gulraiz, A. and Shahzad, Z., 2016. An Analysis of Medias Role: Case Study of Army Public School (APS) Peshawar Attack.Social Communication,2(2), pp.20-30. Theaustralian.com.au. (2017). Weakness of Haneef case exposed. [online] Available at: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/weakness-of-haneef-case-exposed/news-story/f43806fb9d95efda591adc4ad9ec8ddf [Accessed 27 Jan. 2017].