07-31-2007, 07:39 AM
Thanks for the heads-up on the Madrid bombings Mudy (#178).
In the news (TV) they showed how Australia was letting Haneef return to India but that his Australian visa was cancelled and he could not return to work. It appears they have not found him innocent but have dropped the charges because they can't prosecute him on whatever evidence they have now:
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/natio...5339252767.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Federal Director of Public Prosecutions Damian Bugg QC said <b>the charge was dropped because there was no reasonable prospect of him being convicted on the evidence.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->There's three outcomes to criminal proceedings: innocent, guilty, and insufficient evidence to convict. The above para implies that the third is the case here. It's technically incorrect if newspapers in India were to pronounce him innocent merely because the charges against him have been dropped. Of course he may yet be innocent, but we don't know that.
But apparently the Australian immigration minister still considers him to pose enough of a threat to not bring him back, because they seem to have reasons to not reinstate his visa and don't intend to allow it to be reinstated. (Whatever reasons these are, they think these are insufficient to prosecute him with.) They appear to be more than just suspicions because the Australian government doesn't cancel visas on mere suspicions without insufficient cause:
http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,...from=public_rss
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Mr Andrews, who cancelled Dr Haneef's work visa on July 16 when a Brisbane magistrate granted the doctor bail, said the commonwealth had no objection to Dr Haneef leaving Australia but would not reinstate his visa.
"The solicitor-general has advised me that despite the charge being withdrawn by the Director of Public Prosecutions, it would still be open to me <b>on the material now available</b> - that is with the charge having been withdrawn - <b>to come to the same conclusion to cancel the visa which I did originally</b>,'' Mr Andrews said.
<b>"Accordingly I do not propose to change my decision and the commonwealth will continue to resist this appeal in the Federal Court.''</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->But the premier of Queensland said that if Haneef's visa is brought back into effect, they'll take him back. What amazes me is that they don't read between the lines of <i>why</i> immigration minister Andrews does not want to reinstate the visa...
Yet Haneef and his solicitor plan to fight to get the visa back because Haneef wants to continue living in Australia:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews yesterday gave the go-ahead for Dr Haneef to return to India but refused to reinstate his visa.
Dr Haneef has vowed to continue to fight to have his visa reinstated in the hope he may one day even return to live and work in Australia, his lawyer says.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All I can say is, may the good guy(s) win - whoever they are in this case.
In the news (TV) they showed how Australia was letting Haneef return to India but that his Australian visa was cancelled and he could not return to work. It appears they have not found him innocent but have dropped the charges because they can't prosecute him on whatever evidence they have now:
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/natio...5339252767.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Federal Director of Public Prosecutions Damian Bugg QC said <b>the charge was dropped because there was no reasonable prospect of him being convicted on the evidence.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->There's three outcomes to criminal proceedings: innocent, guilty, and insufficient evidence to convict. The above para implies that the third is the case here. It's technically incorrect if newspapers in India were to pronounce him innocent merely because the charges against him have been dropped. Of course he may yet be innocent, but we don't know that.
But apparently the Australian immigration minister still considers him to pose enough of a threat to not bring him back, because they seem to have reasons to not reinstate his visa and don't intend to allow it to be reinstated. (Whatever reasons these are, they think these are insufficient to prosecute him with.) They appear to be more than just suspicions because the Australian government doesn't cancel visas on mere suspicions without insufficient cause:
http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,...from=public_rss
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Mr Andrews, who cancelled Dr Haneef's work visa on July 16 when a Brisbane magistrate granted the doctor bail, said the commonwealth had no objection to Dr Haneef leaving Australia but would not reinstate his visa.
"The solicitor-general has advised me that despite the charge being withdrawn by the Director of Public Prosecutions, it would still be open to me <b>on the material now available</b> - that is with the charge having been withdrawn - <b>to come to the same conclusion to cancel the visa which I did originally</b>,'' Mr Andrews said.
<b>"Accordingly I do not propose to change my decision and the commonwealth will continue to resist this appeal in the Federal Court.''</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->But the premier of Queensland said that if Haneef's visa is brought back into effect, they'll take him back. What amazes me is that they don't read between the lines of <i>why</i> immigration minister Andrews does not want to reinstate the visa...
Yet Haneef and his solicitor plan to fight to get the visa back because Haneef wants to continue living in Australia:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews yesterday gave the go-ahead for Dr Haneef to return to India but refused to reinstate his visa.
Dr Haneef has vowed to continue to fight to have his visa reinstated in the hope he may one day even return to live and work in Australia, his lawyer says.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All I can say is, may the good guy(s) win - whoever they are in this case.