Terrorism and Immigration Legal Report

As the worlds population grew, so did political and economic instability, as well as major international conflicts. Tensions between countries and cultures tightened, and eventually and inevitably, one of them attacked. This affrightist act brought with it the panic and pandemonium fuelled haze that was post-911 Australia, and similar to some situations in the past, the fear and vulnerability associated with the community allowed the presidential term quite a substantial amount of political power.This atmosphere of fear and ignorance target to several incomplete and somewhat perfect pieces of anti terrorist legislating to be passed by the Howard government, in order to ensure the safety of all Australians, or so they said. Dr Mohammed Haneef a doctor working in Queensland on a skilled migrant visa, curtly found himself a victim of these laws. When two Indian men attempted to bomb an airport in Glasgow, UK, Mohammed Haneef became a suspect in the eyes of the Australian Federal Police, and was arrested shortly.Several blunders and misinterpretations by the AFP lead to the wrongful clutch and charging of Dr Haneef, a man who spent a total of 12 days in detention without being charged and had his visa unfairly revoked during his trial. Haneef was eventually released and all charges were dropped against him, when the Public Prosecutor persistent that there was no legitimate trial against him.However, the course of events that Dr Haneef experienced brought to light the glaring dilemmas associated with Australias radical Anti Terrorist laws and corresponding government agencies. The Clarke inquiry and concurrent recommendations As a result of the badly handled Mohammed Haneef slip-up, the fight ships company ordered a full inquiry be conducted into the legal case, in order to identify the learn faults and inefficiencies in government agencies and legislation that related to the Haneef Case.This Inquiry was called the Clarke inquiry, conducted by John Clark e, a Supreme appeal judge. Despite the inquiry lacking several crucial powers, it worked well to suggest a number of notice rallyings and recommendations. Some very key recommendations that worked toward rectifying mistakes made in the Haneef case were as follows That the government consider establishing legislation or necessary arrangements that would consequently apply to other inquiries and reviews that involve national security.That parliament review situation 1c of the Crimes act 1914, the part that relates to terrorism offences. That the Australian government appoint an independent reviewer of the Australian foresee terrorism laws. That the Minister for immigration and citizenship be implicated in the list for security intelligence notifications and reports produced by ASIO, in order to prevent miscommunication in the future. All of these recommendations and more were implemented and thoroughly elaborated on by the Australian government. Anti-Terrorism laws reformed due to the Haneef case.Following the Haneef case and the Clarke inquiry, the government decided that necessary reforms were in order and announced its intentions to amend and alter several Anti-terrorism laws in order for them to correlate with conventional, sophisticated standards, standards that find a fair balance between national security and civil liberties. The Labour government took a major step in deciding to abolish the sedition terms within anti terror legislation while focusing more on rebellious acts that insight violence. The previous laws were deemed restricting of pedantic liberty and free speech.Some of the other significant changes listed in a newspaper article include the advancement of individual review of the Australian federal police, the governments closing to broaden powers assigned to the Inspector habitual of intelligence and security which allows inquiries to extend across all National security agencies, and the in-statement of an independent reviewer of Aus tralias prognosticate terrorism laws, to be named the National security Legislation Monitor. These reforms are a strong representation in the governments effectiveness in update obsolete or otherwise procedurally dangerous Anti-Terror laws.These changes are the first of many steps in order to find the balance between human rights and National security. Claims for compensation by Mohammed Haneef After the ill handled arrest and charge against Mohammed Haneef and the distasteful cancellation of his Visa, Haneef has finally returned to Australia to claim compensation against the federal government on the basis on his trauma, loss of wages and career, defamation. Despite having an almost iron hard case against the federal government, Haneef opted to first try his best to resolve the manner through a mediation process.A News article reported that Mohammed Haneefs lawyers were able to reach an agreement with the federal government and rested his claims for compensation, a substantial cla im, though the actual amount is undisclosed. It can be seen as a victory for the Mohammed Haneef and the Australian government, whose reputation will be partially restored over the matter. The government chose to make a good decision and provide Haneef with legitimate compensation through very discreet and un disputed means, casting little to no negative association to the government. Formal apology from the Federal governmentAlmost immediately following Dr Haneefs conquest in claiming compensation, as reported in a relevant media article, the federal government released a document in the form of a formal apology on behalf of the AFPs several blunders and misinterpretations, which lead to the prolonged detention and charge of Mohammed Haneef. Haneefs lawyer congratulated the Government for recognising the need for such measures in a formal declaration of innocence, that would servicing clear Haneefs name of any wrong doing . The AFP also participated in the assist of Dr Haneefs c laim for compensation, and were hot to rectify its previous hastily made mistakes.The Federal governments formal apology not only allowed Haneefs passe-partout reputation be cleansed, but also publicly rid them of any negative association with the controversial court case. Conclusion The politically fueled implementation of Anti-terrorism legislation by the Howard government was a move and ineffective endeavor, and despite Mohammed Haneef becoming the victim of such broad laws, his Case, as well as the efforts of the labour government, allowed these radical laws to be reformed to concur with Australias legal and utilitarian standards.