Coming clean later doesn't wash claims Zaoui's lawyer

By CATHERINE MASTERS


Lawyers for Ahmed Zaoui reject Crown suggestions that the Algerian could be given a summary of all information held against him at a later stage of his application to stay in New Zealand.

On the final day of Mr Zaoui's judicial review hearing in the High Court at Auckland yesterday, his counsel accused the Crown of making far-fetched, absurd and dangerous claims, and of misunderstanding the law.

The claim that Mr Zaoui would probably receive a summary of the secret SIS information against him was contrary to rulings by the Inspector-General of the Security Intelligence Service, Justice Laurie Greig and the head of the SIS, Richard Woods, said Rodney Harrison, QC, for Mr Zaoui.

"This [claim], with respect, completely misinterprets the Inspector-General's reasoning."

It was also contrary to the affidavit supplied to the court by Mr Woods, which made it clear he would not disclose anything else.

The Crown had said in its submissions that the judicial review was premature because Justice Greig had reached only step four of a proposed 13-step process when it was halted by the court challenge.

Karen Clark, for the Crown Law Office, had told the court that at step 11 Mr Zaoui would probably be given a summary of all the information gleaned, the very summary he wanted.

But Mr Harrison said the 13 steps had been his recommendation to Justice Greig, who had gone on to rule comprehensively that the material would not be disclosed.

Justice Greig's interim decision, issued in October, says: "The nature of the information cannot and will not be disclosed to his advisers. Nor is it appropriate to divulge any other information about that classified material."

Mrs Clark had created "a still more confused picture when she spoke in oral submissions of the 'willingness of the director [Mr Woods] to provide a summary' if required, at some unspecified later stage, if the Inspector-General ruled," said Mr Harrison.

"As just submitted, the Inspector-General has already ruled on that point."

As for Mr Woods' supposed willingness to provide more information, it did not square with the history of the matter and with the SIS chief's affidavit.

"Surely if one thing is plain, it is that Mr Woods is resolutely against the provision of any information 'beyond that which has already been provided'.

"In any event, the Crown/director can't have it both ways," said Mr Harrison.

"They cannot argue as they now do that Mr Zaoui has no natural justice entitlement to the particulars which he seeks and at the same time contend that Mr Zaoui may ultimately be given the very information the provision of which they resolutely oppose, at step 11."

Mr Harrison also noted the Crown submission implied that the underlying concern about Mr Zaoui was "not an immediate or direct risk or intended harm to New Zealand," but rather "actions taken beyond our national borders that may still have long-term impacts".

That suggested a lesser perceived threat, which "can surely be disclosed to the plaintiff without jeopardising security interests".

He said the Crown had remained silent on key issues such as natural justice and had failed to mention the Bill of Rights, despite having on their legal team one of the country's foremost experts on the legislation.

The Human Rights Commission also made strong submissions for Mr Zaoui's human rights to be taken into account, citing numerous conventions and legislation.

The exemption from disclosure also raised the possibility of a serious abuse of power if the SIS exceeded its mandate, and shielded it from incompetence and error, said commission lawyer Robert Hesketh.

For the Crown, Mrs Clark repeated her submission that the review was incomplete, and said as far as human rights went, the Minister of Immigration would consider them if the certificate was upheld.

Justice Hugh Williams reserved his decision.

What happens next

* After the judge's decision, the review of the security risk certificate can continue.

* Zaoui's lawyers say they will call for Laurie Greig to stand down.

* If the certificate is not upheld, Zaoui is free.

* If it is upheld, the Minister of Immigration has three days to decide whether to deport him.