By Neena Bhandari, IANS
Brisbane : An Australian court Tuesday reinstated Indian doctor Muhammad Haneef’s visa, paving the way for him to return to work here, but the government would have none of it and has decided to appeal the ruling.
Though the Brisbane Federal Court quashed Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews decision to cancel Haneef’s 457 work visa, the saga of the doctor who was charged with supporting terrorism and then cleared after 25 days of incarceration is far from over.
As calls for his resignation came in from the Australian Greens Party, Andrews told reporters in Sydney: “When I made the decision to cancel Dr Haneef’s visa, I made it in the national interest and I stand by that decision. I have instructed the Australian government solicitor to lodge an appeal.”
Acting Chief Justice Jeffery Spender had ruled that the immigration minister made a jurisdictional error when he cancelled Haneef’s visa on character grounds.
The judge said the minister should have cancelled it on the grounds that Haneef was a person of interest to British authorities and that he had been charged with an offence. However, Andrews may not be able to make a decision on those grounds now.
The minister, who has 21 days to respond to the ruling, has also been ordered to pay Haneef’s costs.
A Queensland Health spokesperson Tuesday said Haneef would be accepted back at the Gold Coast Hospital, provided he had a visa and appropriate registration.
Haneef, who was alleged to have supported the foiled bombings in Britain till the charges were dropped, may not get his visa for another 21 days.
His 457 work visa was cancelled July 16 by Andrews hours after he was granted bail by a Brisbane magistrate. The minister, like other members of the John Howard government, cited character grounds and national security as the reason.
Haneef, who has been asserting his innocence all along and has been determined to get his visa reinstated and clear his name, has more battles to fight.
Welcoming the court’s decision in his client’s favour, Haneef’s lawyer Peter Russo said: “Today’s decision may just be just a first step in a legal battle that is not over. He and his family are gratified by the decision, but prepared for further legal battles, if necessary. Until these matters are finally resolved, Haneef and his family feel they are unable to return to a normal life, both in India and abroad.
“I would hope the minister will accept the court’s decision with good grace and clear the way for Haneef to return to Australia to complete his medical work and specialist studies.”
Russo, who spoke to Haneef in India, told ABC Radio: “It’s his wish to return to Australia to continue his studies. The main issue is that he doesn’t have a visa but the other issue is that perhaps his family may not think that it’s the wisest thing for him to do.”
The 27-year-old doctor, who was arrested July 2, was charged with being “reckless” in giving his mobile SIM card to his cousin Sabeel Ahmed while leaving Britain for Australia to work in the Gold Coast Hospital.
Sabeel is facing trial in Britain for not informing the authorities about the plot.
Sabeel’s elder brother Kafeel Ahmed, a mechanical engineer, is believed to be the man who drove a gasoline-filled jeep into Glasgow airport June 30, a day after two explosive-filled Mercedes Benz cars were found in London.
At the appeal hearing Aug 8, lawyers for the former Gold Coast registrar argued that the minister’s decision was based on “a misconstruction of the word association” and it was no more than an “innocent association” and not a valid reason to cancel his visa.
Solicitor-General David Bennett, representing the immigration minister, had argued that the minister had based his decision on a number of factors, including that Haneef had lent his mobile phone SIM card to Sabeel when he left Britain and had borrowed money from Kafeel.
According to media reports here, fresh details emerging about the Glasgow Airport terror attack suggest that the terrorism charges by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) against Haneef and later dropped were even more questionable than previously believed.
According to media reports here, legal sources in Britain have confirmed that Sabeel did not appear to have known in advance about the attack and was warned only 90 minutes after the burning jeep rammed into the Glasgow Airport building that something was being planned.
Lawyers in London told The Australian newspaper that Sabeel had been charged under a provision of the withholding information offence that refers to information that could help police catch the perpetrator of a crime, rather than information that could help to prevent an offence