ID :
17699
Mon, 09/01/2008 - 19:44
Auther :
Shortlink :
http://m.oananews.org//node/17699
The shortlink copeid
I won't be speaking to Haneef: Clarke
The man heading up the inquiry into the bungled terrorism case against Mohamed Haneef will not interview the Indian-born doctor.
Former NSW Supreme Court judge John Clarke said on Monday he had been willing to speak with Dr Haneef either in Australia or overseas, but had decided it was not necessary.
"In May, Dr Haneef's representatives, on his behalf, provided me with a comprehensive submission, which has been published on the inquiry's website," he said. "This submission has been very helpful and I consider it is sufficient for me to be able to understand Dr Haneef's experience and position."
Mr Clarke said Dr Haneef had not asked to be interviewed.
Dr Haneef was arrested in Brisbane and detained for 12 days without charge last year over suspected links to botched terror attacks in Britain. He was later charged but the case against him collapsed amid accusations of bungling by the authorities.
The Australian Federal Police late last Friday announced that Dr Haneef was no longer a person of interest in its inquiries.
Mr Clarke said his inquiry had interviewed 16 people and aimed to interview a further 13 over the coming weeks. More than 50 written statements from have also been provided to the inquiry, he said.
Former attorney-general Philip Ruddock gave evidence to the inquiry on Monday. Robyn Curnow from the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions will give evidence on Tuesday.
The inquiry is scheduled to report this month.
Mr Clarke announced Monday his inquiry would hold a public forum in Sydney on September 22 on the effect of terrorism laws relevant to the case of Dr Haneef.
The man heading up the inquiry into the bungled terrorism case against Mohamed Haneef will not interview the Indian-born doctor.
Former NSW Supreme Court judge John Clarke said on Monday he had been willing to speak with Dr Haneef either in Australia or overseas, but had decided it was not necessary. "In May, Dr Haneef's representatives, on his behalf, provided me with a comprehensive submission, which has been published on the inquiry's website," he
said. "This submission has been very helpful and I consider it is sufficient for me to be able to understand Dr Haneef's experience and position."
Former NSW Supreme Court judge John Clarke said on Monday he had been willing to speak with Dr Haneef either in Australia or overseas, but had decided it was not necessary.
"In May, Dr Haneef's representatives, on his behalf, provided me with a comprehensive submission, which has been published on the inquiry's website," he said. "This submission has been very helpful and I consider it is sufficient for me to be able to understand Dr Haneef's experience and position."
Mr Clarke said Dr Haneef had not asked to be interviewed.
Dr Haneef was arrested in Brisbane and detained for 12 days without charge last year over suspected links to botched terror attacks in Britain. He was later charged but the case against him collapsed amid accusations of bungling by the authorities.
The Australian Federal Police late last Friday announced that Dr Haneef was no longer a person of interest in its inquiries.
Mr Clarke said his inquiry had interviewed 16 people and aimed to interview a further 13 over the coming weeks. More than 50 written statements from have also been provided to the inquiry, he said.
Former attorney-general Philip Ruddock gave evidence to the inquiry on Monday. Robyn Curnow from the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions will give evidence on Tuesday.
The inquiry is scheduled to report this month.
Mr Clarke announced Monday his inquiry would hold a public forum in Sydney on September 22 on the effect of terrorism laws relevant to the case of Dr Haneef.
The man heading up the inquiry into the bungled terrorism case against Mohamed Haneef will not interview the Indian-born doctor.
Former NSW Supreme Court judge John Clarke said on Monday he had been willing to speak with Dr Haneef either in Australia or overseas, but had decided it was not necessary. "In May, Dr Haneef's representatives, on his behalf, provided me with a comprehensive submission, which has been published on the inquiry's website," he
said. "This submission has been very helpful and I consider it is sufficient for me to be able to understand Dr Haneef's experience and position."
