MORE TWISTS AND TURNS FROM THE AFP QUICK ANALYSIS OF NEW DEVELOPMENTS Tony Kevin & Marg Hutton 10 January 2003 Yesterday, the AFP replied to Senator Collins Questions on Notice put to Commissioner Mick Keelty in Senate Legal & Constitutional Estimates on 20 November last year. These answers provide much new information on Abu Quassey and SIEVX, some of which contradicts and calls into question evidence supplied to the CMI Committee. This new information includes:
We have annotated the original document with our comments below. Our comments begin and end with asterisks and are in blue and bold. We have also italicized sections of the original document that we are commenting on. If this proves confusing for readers then the original document is also online and can be viewed at:
QoN 55 AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Senator Collins asked the following question at the hearing of 20 November 2002: Provide an update on the investigation into Abu Quassey, especially in respect of SIEV X. I am advised that the answer to the honourable Senator's question is as follows: Since October 2001, the AFP has been investigating allegations that Abu Quassey is responsible for organising the movement of unlawful non-citizens into Australia.
** Actually, DIMIA knew about Quassey well before October 2001.
In January 2001 it was given a brief of evidence by Pamela Curr,
a refugee issues spokesperson from the Greens Party, on behalf
of a number of persons who reached Australian jurisdiction
territory on a previous Quassey voyage - presumably the
'Donnybrook' which arrived at Christmas Island on 1 February 2000
carrying 281 passengers.
Dr Amir was also on this boat and gave a vivid account to Susan
Owens that appeared in the AFR in February 2002 - see
http://sievx.com/articles/background/20020202AFR_FromIraqToWoomer
a.html
These former passengers on Quassey boat(s) denounced his reckless
practices of organising dangerously overloaded and unsafe voyages
without safety equipment, which they predicted would sooner or
later lead to a major drowning tragedy if Quassey was not
stopped. (They were right)
We would like to know what DIMIA did with that information brief;
whether and when they ever provided it to AFP? If not why not?
We would like to know if AFP liaison officers in the Australian
Embassy in Jakarta were given this information: and if so, when,
and what did they do with it to have Quassey investigated and his
dangerous activities stopped?
We note that Quassey's name never appears in a series of detailed
"expose" articles on people smugglers that appeared in various
Australian newspapers around mid-2001, obviously sourced from
DIMIA and/or AFP People Smuggling Strike Team information. What
are DIMIA's and AFP's explanations for this omission, given that
DIMIA was given extensive briefing by Pamela Curr that he was a
dangerous and life-threatening people smuggler?
See the following articles:
Quassey was under particularly intense
surveillance by the People Smuggling Strike Team for three months
before the SIEVX voyage. According to the SIEVX Chronology
presented
as evidence to CMI Committee in July last year by the Defence Department,
Quassey and his vessel [SIEVX] were referred to 49 times between
17 August and 26 October in DIMIA Intelligence notes.
All these serious contradictions strengthen a hypothesis that
Quassey was being protected by police disruption teams up until
the date of the SIEV X tragedy, in his role either as an
undercover "sting" agent or as the unknowing instrument of a
planned major sting. ** On 3 June 2002, three first instance warrants for the arrest of Abu Quassey were sworn by the AFP with respect to three suspect illegal entrant vessels (SIEVs) known as the Donnybrook, Gelantipy and the Yambuk.
**The identification of the boats used in Quassey's three voyages prior
to SIEVX is new information. By matching this with the details
provided in DIMIA Fact Sheet 74A
we know that the three voyages occurred as follows:
This highlights another important discrepancy in the evidence
presented to the CMI Committee last year. The 'SIEVX Chronology'
presented as evidence by the Defence Department in July states
that DIMIA was observing Quassey from mid July 2001. Given that
the Yambuk arrived at Christmas Island on 4
August 2001, why is there no reference to this in evidence from
DIMIA or Defence? What is the reason for this omission?
Why the continued use of Australian code names - will we ever
know the real names of any of these vessels, or are they being
concealed to impede independent investigation of their ownership
and registration in Indonesia ? (DIMIA Fact Sheet 74A -
http://sievx.com/articles/psdp/DIMIA74a_boatarrivals.pdf)
Why wasn't a warrant sworn for Quassey's Donnybrook voyage
until two and a half years after it arrived?** The warrants allege three offences of organising the bringing of groups of unlawful non-citizens into Australia and seventy-two offences of bringing unlawful non-citizens into Australia, contrary to the provisions of sections 232A and 233(1)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act), respectively. On 6 December 2002, the AFP swore a fourth warrant, alleging one offence of organising the bringing of groups of unlawful non-citizens into Australia and four offences of attempting to bring unlawful non-citizens into Australia, contrary to the provisions of sections 232A and 233(1)(a) of the Act, respectively. This warrant relates to SIEV X.
** This is useful confirmation that the 4th SIEVX-related
warrant has been duly sworn and issued. We note with concern
that the Greenlees 8 January 2003 Australian article on Quassey
makes no mention of this SIEVX-related warrant.
We believe that the AFP needs to be asked questions about its
planned action on this warrant if Quassey is ever brought to
Australia under extradition on people smuggling charges, eg from
Egypt. Especially after the Senate's Quassey motion of 11
December 2002, the AFP must follow through on this sworn warrant
in order to obtain public evidence about the SIEVX voyage.**
A total of four first instance warrants have now been issued for the arrest of Abu Quassey alleging a total of four offences of organising the bringing of groups of unlawful non-citizens into Australia and seventy-six offences of bringing or attempting to bring unlawful non-citizens into Australia contrary to the provisions of sections 232A and 233(1)(a) of the Act, respectively. The swearing of the first instance warrants means an Interpol alert can be raised. Such an alert has been issued. It will ensure that the Commonwealth is in a position to seek the extradition of Abu Quassey should the circumstances allow. QoN 56 AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Senator Collins asked the following question at the hearing of 20 November 2002: a) Can you provide details of the AFP investigations regarding the interviewing of SIEV X survivors in Australia? b) How many survivors did you interview? c) I am also interested in what work the AFP officers in Indonesia may have done to ascertain details of the number of victims in the SIEV X tragedy and details of who they were. d) I would like to know what knowledge the AFP has as to the individuals that may have been victims of this tragedy, and what role the AFP played in collecting that information. e) I would like to know what knowledge you have of any lists of those that were involved, and the status of those lists. I am advised that the answer to the honourable Senator's question is as follows: a) Survivors in Australia were located and those who were willing were spoken to. b) Six survivors in total were spoken to by AFP members: five adult survivors and a child. Four statements were obtained from those willing to provide statements.
** We have been told that survivors waiting for visas in Bogor
after the tragedy were approached by Quassey associates who
warned them never to testify against him in any SIEVX
proceedings, or they would be found and punished no matter where
they were in the world. Quassey is also said to have threatened
their lives - see Five Mysteries of SIEV X Ghassan Nakhoul.
It is likely that some SIEVX witnesses are now afraid to testify
for this reason, and/or for fear they might jeopardise their TPV
residence prospects in Australia. It could then be claimed that
their sworn testimonies to AFP are inconsistent or confused. In
this situation, the videotapes taken of survivor statements to
media in Bogor in the days immediately following the sinking is
of first importance, as an uncorrupted source of multiple source
testimonies about the unsafe conditions at departure of SIEVX .
We have Keysar Trad's survivor accounts translated from one of those
videotapes on sievx.com and
they present a clear picture of what happened. Also, the Five
Mysteries of SIEV X documentary transcript.
In Answers to QoN to the CMI Committee by the AFP, dated 31 July
2002 the AFP said they had interviewed five survivors and
obtained four statements. They said at the time 'These are out of
a possible approximate 45 survivors who have since been relocated
to various countries since the sinking in 2001. Efforts are
however continuing to obtain statements from as many survivors as
possible.' So despite the smoke and mirrors of the last six
weeks, it would appear that only one further survivor was located
and interviewed since July - or did they not count the child
Zeinab in their July answers? If so then their January 2003
answer means they have done nothing more since July 2002.** c) AFP members in Indonesia made initial contact with the Indonesian National Police (INP) in relation to the arrival of survivors. Those members liaised with the INP in relation to the organising an investigative team to enquire into the SIEV X incident, which ultimately led to the arrest of Quassey by Indonesian authorities. d) The AFP's knowledge of the victims of the tragedy is based on enquiries including interviews with survivors, the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) and the Indonesian National Police. ** These two words "enquiries including" skirt the issue of who else AFP might have interviewed. We know they also interviewed the fishermen who rescued the survivors (see below) - could AFP enquiries also have been made to persons who may have been associated with an undercover disruption operation? Remember that the two Australian intelligence reports on 23 October 2001 (DIMIA, PM and C) contained detailed voyage and passenger information that could not possibly all have come from survivors: Senator Faulkner queried this discrepancy in his questions to Jane Halton in the CMI Inquiry on 30 July 2002. (CMI 2131-2) ** e) Following the sinking of SIEV X, the AFP became aware of three lists which detail passengers purported to have boarded the vessel, those that disembarked the vessel shortly after it commenced its journey, and those that survived the tragedy. It is the AFP's understanding that the lists emanated from the IOM, DIMIA and AFP enquiries.
** This is very important - it is the first admission that there
are three lists of those who boarded the vessel, those who
disembarked (ie. the Mandaean group), and survivors. The next step
is to ask the AFP to provide these three lists to the Senate as
proper public information, as was done by governments in the case
of the Sept 11 2001 and the Bali tragedies.
In the front page published on sievx.com of 15 November 2002 we
expressed our gratitude for the efforts that Senator Collins is
making in pursuing public release of these lists, as follows:
"Readers of this site will be aware that we have been trying to
obtain a list of all the victims of SIEVX for several months now.
In the last few weeks Senator Jacinta Collins' office has been of
some help - contacting the Jakarta office of the IOM and DIMIA to
request this information.
According to Senator Collins' office, both the IOM and DIMIA
claim that they do not have the names of those who drowned on
SIEVX. This is in sharp contrast to one of the documents tabled
at the CMI Committee which shows that this information was being
compiled as early as 23 October last year. DIMIA is also said to
have stated that it would not release this information even if it
had it, as it could cause problems for family members of those
who perished who are living in Iraq. The IOM is said to have
stopped compiling a list of the victims at the request of the
survivors who it is claimed did not want this information made
public.
The suggestion that the survivors do not want the names of the
victims released is at odds with our understanding of their
wishes. For example, Keysar Trad, the man who translated the
interviews with the SIEVX survivors that were videotaped in
Jakarta in the week following the sinking, and who has met with
most of the survivors living in Australia has never been told
this. Also, Ghassan Nakhoul and Hadi Mahood who have interviewed
many of the survivors in Finland, Norway and Canada have never
been told that the survivors want anonymity for the victims. On
the contrary, the survivors say they want the SIEVX story told;
they want people to know what happened to them; they want those
who were lost remembered.
We believe that the ones who want the names of the victims
suppressed are DIMIA and the IOM." **
QoN 57 AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Senator Collins asked the following question at the hearing of 20 November 2002: When we previously discussed evidence related to the SIEV X and other SIEVs, one of the difficulties that you took advice on and that constrained your ability to provide information to the Senate was various investigations and cases that may be afoot. Have any of those investigations or cases since been resolved?
I am advised that the answer to the honourable Senator's question is as follows: Yes. Of the 12 vessels departing Indonesia bound for Australia post the Tampa incident in August 2001, four of the SIEVs were intercepted by the Navy and returned to Indonesia, the crews of five SIEVs have been sentenced and three matters are still before the courts. ** Note that though Senator Collins' question refers specifically to SIEVX as one of the investigations and cases that may be afoot, this reply makes no mention of SIEVX. Why? Is this a deliberate attempt to avoid having to respond with information about any AFP investigation of SIEVX? ** QoN 58 AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Senator Collins asked the following question at the hearing of 20 November 2002: Please detail the nature of the investigations to ascertain where precisely the SIEV X did sink. What other factors were relevant to a lack of ability to prove jurisdiction?
I am advised that the answer to the honourable Senator's question is as follows: There is no information available to indicate the exact point where the SIEV X sank, despite all efforts to identify the site. AFP members in Jakarta used information obtained from the Indonesian National Police and other sources, together with knowledge based on experience with previous people smuggling activities, to develop estimates of the characteristics of the SIEV X vessel. The members in Jakarta then sought the assistance of Royal Australian Navy (RAN) personnel at Post to calculate where the vessel may have foundered. Calculations were made based on:
I am advised that information was also obtained by the RAN from the company found to have owned SIEV X.
** This is a new and potentially important disclosure. It
prompts further questions that could be put to AFP and RAN, ,
e.g., What was the name of the Company that owned SIEVX, its
owners or major shareholders, the registered name and number of
the boat, when and where it was registered? All this is relevant
to a potential Indonesian charge against Quassey for organising
and embarking an unsafe and life-threatening voyage, and also to
tracing back to whoever else might have been involved in
preparation of the possible "sting" organisation of this voyage.
Possibly the company that owned SIEVX might have been one of
the phoney shipping companies referred to in the people smuggling
section of the AFP Association's website which said in 2001: All avenues of enquiry have been exhausted.
** Why is there no mention here of the Jakarta Harbormaster's
Official Report of where SIEVX survivors were picked up, or of
the 23 October 2001 PM and C and DIMIA intelligence reports
already tabled in CMI documents, both of which contain specific
reports that SIEVX was likely to have sunk in international
waters, and that it sank 50-65 nautical miles south of Java,
respectively?
Also why is there no mention here of AFP officer Ben McDevitt's
revelation to Kirsten Lawson (Canberra Times, 15 December 2002)
that the AFP had interviewed the Indonesian fishermen who rescued
the survivors?** QoN 59 Senator Collins asked the following question at the hearing of 20 November 2002: Can you apprise the committee of your understanding of where the case is at, in relation to the inquest regarding two deaths on SIEV7? I am advised that the answer to the honourable Senator's question is as follows: SIEV 7 did not land in Australia and was returned to Indonesia. If the question in fact relates to SIEV 10 the Western Australian coroner has handed down his decision and inquiries should be referred to the coroner's office.
QoN 60 AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Senator Collins asked the following question at the hearing of 20 November 2002: What investigations and/or legal cases relate to the milieu of issues around the various SIEVs during the period of our investigations in the Certain Maritime Incident inquiry? I am advised that the answer to the honourable Senator's question is as follows: As advised in the response to Question on Notice number 57: Of the 12 vessels departing Indonesia bound for Australia post the Tampa incident in August 2001, four of the SIEVs were intercepted by the Navy and returned to Indonesia, the crews of five SIEVs have been sentenced and three matters are still before the courts.
|