Haneef was arrested on 2 July 2007 attempting to make a one-way trip to India. This led authorities to believe Haneef's attempted exit from Australia on 2 July was directly linked to the arrest of his cousin Kafeel Ahmed, who suffered 90% burns after the Glasgow airport attack on 30 June.
He is the second cousin once removed of Kafeel Ahmed and Sabeel Ahmed, the operatives and confirmed terrorists involved in the 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack.

The shared flat

Our federal police claimed in a court affidavit that Haneef told them in his first interview that he lived in Britain with the two terrorist suspects, his cousins. On 2 July and 3 July 2007 Dr Haneef then participated in a taped record of interview with the AFP and stated that whilst in the UK he resided with suspects 1 and 2 (alleged suicide bomber Kafeel Ahmed and his brother Sabeel Ahmed), at 13 Bentley Road, Liverpool.
However, In subsequent Immigration Department documents used to advise Australian Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews, senior public servant Peter White asserts: "Dr Haneef advised the AFP that he resided with Dr Sabeel Ahmed at a boarding house located at 13 Bentley Road, Liverpool, an 'said' error which conflicted with his own tape recorded interview, that was not corrected by our AFP.

Now, in another interview again, Haneef told police that he lived at 13 Bentley Road, Liverpool, with several doctors, whom he names. None of those named are known to be suspects in the Glasgow or London incidents. Haneef then told police that he had moved out of 13 Bentley Road by the time that Sabeel Ahmed moved there. He also told police that he visited Cambridge on two occasions in 2004 and stayed for up to six days with suicide bomber Kafeel Ahmed.

Mishandling of evidence, perhaps intentional?

There has been confusion with the handling of evidence, with Australian police presenting their own notes to Haneef under the impression that they were diary entries written by Haneef. which they claim led to inaccurate claims that our police had written in the diary itself,  but it has since been confirmed that the police notes were not written in Haneef's diary.

Australian intelligence authorities are reportedly probing a report in the Indian newspaper The Asian Age that alleged Haneef supposedly belonged to the now banned Student Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) when he was at medical school.

Australia has reportedly sought details from India of personal information such as banking transactions related to Haneef. The request came after Indian authorities declined to comply with a request for "friendly sharing of information" made by a representative of the Australian Federal Police.

India don't feel at liberty to disclose this information, then wonder why we remain suspicious and detain their well-connected (to known terrorists) citizens.

There are indications that Kafeel Ahmed and Bilal Abdullah were behind the 2007 London car bombs plot, and investigations are being carried out to unearth a possible involvement with the deadly 2005 Indian Institute of Science shooting, an attack with unknown suspects that are still at large. According to India.

On Sunday, 22 July, some News Limited papers reported unsubstantiated claims from unnamed law enforcement sources that the AFP was investigating Haneef's alleged involvement in a plot to blow up a Gold Coast sky scraper. The reports also alleged that Haneef may have been one of a number of people who had expressed interest in the operations of planes at premises in Queensland. The Australian Federal Police commissioner Mick Keelty was forced to take the extraordinary step of publicly denying any substance to these claims. In other words, our media was silenced.

Haneef's ensuing 12 day detention became the longest without charge in recent Australian history, which caused great controversy in Australia and India.

Following his arrest, Haneef's family claimed that any link between him and the terrorists is only tenuous, and a case of guilt by association, that he was not involved in the plot, and that he was returning to India to see his wife and daughter who he had left behind and had no intentions of visiting until his terrorist cousin was burned in a botched terrorist attack. 2 days after in fact, and 6 days after his daughter was born.

Australian authorities alleged that as Haneef left Britain he recklessly provided assistance to a terrorist organization by leaving his relative, Sabeel Ahmed, a SIM card and the balance of a two year mobile phone contract to use and pay off when he left Britain in July 2006. Relatives have said that he left the SIM card behind to save money by not surrendering the remaining value of the contract to the telephone company

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhamed_Haneef

So, like pirates, should Abbott release and reward Labors prisoners as soon as he wins government next election for political advantage?

Not to be outdone by Rudd the Indigenous apologist, Gillard had to go one better and not only apologise to a confirmed terrorist associate, but compensate him generously for his 22 day inconvenience also.

Lol what happened to Schapelle Corby, has she lost her political edge, is no longer worthy of rescuing on account of Australians not giving a damn.


Jeeze, Abbott will have his work cut out for him topping this wont he,  might have to free Ivan Millat or something, as soon as he gets in.

We are an international joke.i

Look, both Labor and Liberal failed to delve into this case properly, (not that Libs had the luxury of time on their side ) and as far as the presumption of innocence goes.... tell me, if you weren't a terrorist yourself, why on earth would you cavort with them online and live with them under the same roof?



Not all terrorists Haneef stayed with were related to him.

He boarded with a suicide bomber and his friend also in the UK.

Were you aware of this, or have you shifted your focus to ALPS false-presumption of innocence, (they know fine well he's guilty)..of which is only to get back into the Muslim communities good-books.

They have had 3 years to say sorry, this and compensate him for their negligence....why suddenly now?

It's my understanding Haneef communicated via a chat-forum with at least one known terrorist linked to the UK bombings, re- his imminent and necessary departure to India after having received information about him being monitored by our federal police.

Dr Haneef maintains that he was merely returning to India without any funds in his Australian bank account, (His father supposedly purchased his one-way ticket) to visit his 6 day old new-born daughter in hospital.

This led authorities to believe Haneef's attempted exit from Australia on 2 July was directly linked to the arrest of his terrorist cousin Kafeel Ahmed, who suffered 90% burns after the Glasgow airport attack just two days before and later died...given the nature of his conversation with his brother he had been chatting with online via a off-shore hosted chat room.

Part of the material supplied to the Minister protected under a 503A referred to a chat room conversation between Haneef and his brother Shuaib in India on 2 July. Obviously Shuaib was also a cousin of the Ahmed brothers. In the conversation, Shuiab informed Haneef "that nothing has been found out about you" and asked when he would be getting out. Haneef replied "today". Shuaib asked whether he had permission from his hospital to leave and what he told the hospital to take leave. Haneef said that he had told them that his baby was born in an emergency caesarean. Shuaib said "tell them you have to as you have a daughter born, do not tell them anything else". Shuaib then told Haneef not to delay his departure and not to let anyone else use his number in Australia or give it to anyone. He added that "Aunty told that brother Kafeel used it; he is in some sort of project over there" and that "that disturbance (incident) which happened, it happened like this, Kafeel told that he will come and fix everything up". Shauib also said that there was no contact with Kafeel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhamed_Haneef

What do you make of this chat, the same day he hurriedly tried to leave Australia.

Funny, no mention of a congratulations re- the birth of a baby girl...rather his brother more or less coached him, told him what to tell the hospital in order to gain leave without notice.

Tell me, how is it that a Dr cant afford a plane ticket to visit his new born daughter in India, though can make multiple recent trips to the UK shacking up with known terrorists , only deciding to leave Australia upon learning of his cousins devastating injuries due to a botched bombing attack in the UK?

You may have fooled yourself and a number of people with this white-washed matter...but you aren't fooling me.

I thought it interesting that the PM John Howard had become politically involved in the case within 12 hrs of the arrest and that the AFP had been instructed by government to use this as a test case for the new laws.

To me that is saying do not worry about the merits of the case just go for it - we want a test of the legislation, partially explains why it was thrown out by the DPP as an unwinable case.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 24^th, 2010 at 8:46am:


Likewise, and I'm equally disappointed in Howards secrecy over this entire affair...though grant it, unlike Labor, he didn't have time on his side...he was an outgoing government in stalemate.

I feel both sides of politics really let us down on this....(more so labor because they have had 3 years to investigate the matter thoroughly) this and have intentionally withheld crucial facts from the public.i

mellie wrote on Dec 24^th, 2010 at 8:57am:



Howard was in power and looking for a kick in the polls for the upcomming election and history was telling the Liberals that racial vilification was a good bet to work.

The Clarke report:

The report concludes

1) The evidence against Mohamed Haneef was "completely deficient".

2) ASIO reported to the government two days after Haneef's arrest that there was no information that he was guilty of anything.

3) The Manager Counter Terrorism Domestic, Commander Ramzi Jabbour, had lost objectivity and was "unable to see that the evidence he regarded as highly incriminating in fact amounted to very little".

4) Police officers Neil Thompson and Adam Simms who interrogated Haneef refused to charge him, so Jabbour personally charged Haneef.