Dangerous intersection: Migration and counter-terrorism laws in the case of Dr Mohamed Haneef

And now, what’s going to happen to us without barbarians? They were, those people, a kind of solution. Constantine Cavafy Waiting for the Barbarians (1904) Introduction: character, terrorism and guilt by association This chapter reviews the principal case study of the treatment of Dr Mohamed Haneef by Australian authorities in July 2007. In this case the inter-relationship between the character test in migration law and the wide reach of the counter-terrorism laws is clear because both investigations rested on Dr Haneef’s relationship with a relative in the UK. There is overlap between the subjective elements of the character tests in migration law and new counter-terrorism offences and unfettered executive power involved in both areas of law. This overlap led to a failure of natural justice in Dr Haneef’s case and a violation of his right to a fair hearing contained in Article 14 of the United Nations (‘UN’) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Australia is a signatory. The Haneef case illustrates how these changes to the law can be considered a trend towards ‘status crimes’, where people are criminalised for who they are rather than what they actually do. The question is whether the provisions criminalise ‘bad character’: in other words, do they expose people to other forms of executive intrusion based on assessments of their character? As many commentators have argued, these laws are problematic because the new provisions.