Mohammed Haneef on Wednesday launched his court battle to get back his work visa revoked by the Australian government after he was charged with terrorism offence with the lawyers for the Indian doctor saying the decision was “legally flawed”.

The lawyers told the Federal Court in Brisbane that the doctor should not have failed a “character test” simply because he was related to men allegedly involved in the foiled terror plot in London and Glasgow.

Justice Jeffery Spender adjourned till Thursday further hearing on the appeal by Haneef against Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews’s decision to cancel Haneef’s work visa on character grounds, citing his association with second cousins Sabeel and Kafeel Ahmed, who were allegedly involved in the plots.

The lawyers said the decision was based on “a misconstruction of the word association”. Haneef has said he wants to return to Australia and his job at the Gold Coast Hospital in Queensland state.

Appearing for Haneef, Barrister Darryl Rangiah argued in the court on Wednesday that Haneef’s relationship with the two men could not be a sufficient basis to cancel his visa.

Haneef was arrested in Brisbane on July 2 and charged with supporting the failed bomb attacks in June.
Police later dropped the charge because of a lack of evidence.

Haneef proclaimed his innocence after he was freed to return home to Bangalore on July 28.
Haneef’s legal team described the federal government’s “character test” as too broad and allowing too much leeway for guilt by association.

Innocent associations
Rangiah opened his appeal by suggesting the character test should also be open to interpretations of an “innocent” nature.

He suggested “innocent” associations included mothers and wives of people involved in criminal acts.

Rangiah also said in his submission that the removal of the words “is not of good character” from federal legislation in 1999, and the effective substitution with the phrase “this person does not pass the character test” was inappropriate.

The case has became a political issue after Andrews revoked Haneef’s visa, even though he was granted bail by a court, and refused to restore it after the charges were finally dropped.

During the hearing, Justice Spender asked if the mobile phone SIM card allegedly used by Haneef’s second cousins in terrorist activities had actually expired in August 2006.

He asked how a SIM card would expire, according to media reports here. Haneef is alleged to have left his SIM card with his second cousins.

Barrister Stephen Keim questioned the wisdom of Andrews’ decision to revoke the medic’s visa and have him detained for a trial, to which Justice Spender said he was not interested in the “wisdom” of the decision, only in the legality of it.

Justice Spender asked Rangiah whether Haneef’s association with his two second cousins, Sabeel and Kafeel, might mean he should fail the character test.

“He had an ongoing association with them,” Rangiah said.

The judge said it could be argued that Haneef was an associate of criminals, who were involved in criminal acts.
“You might think that was a risk to Australia, his remaining in Australia,” the judge said.

Haneef’s lawyer Peter Russo, who travelled with his client to India after he was cleared of terrorism-related charge, did not attend the hearing, as he was suffering from a stomach bug. Haneef was represented by a team of barristers headed by Stephen Keim.