Editorial: Friary wrong place for Ahmed Zaoui

Opinion

The Supreme Court has gone a sizeable step too far in releasing Ahmed Zaoui into the care of the Dominican Friars. It may have been reasonable, under the precept of natural justice, to grant bail to a man detained without charge for two years because of a badly deficient piece of legislation. But the Algerian asylum seeker should never have been released into the community, given that the court is not privy to information about him held by the Government.

The Government, in fact, offered a reasonable compromise. It said that it would not oppose Mr Zaoui's transfer to the Mangere Refugee Resettlement Centre. There, it argued, his activities could be monitored better. The Supreme Court, although in no position to know the degree of risk posed by Mr Zaoui to this and other countries, decided otherwise. Effectively, it has made a presumption unsupported by the circumstances, while, at the same time, paying no heed to the case's inherent political sensitivities. Quite simply, it should, in this instance, have allowed itself to be guided by the Government.

The loud applause that greeted the verdict confirmed that Mr Zaoui has now become a cause celebre. The court's snubbing of the Government will only have elevated that status. In fact, however, that was always bound to be his lot. The glaring deficiencies in the Immigration Act's national security provisions decreed as much. When Mr Zaoui became the first recipient of a security risk certificate, he entered a seriously flawed arena. And the longer the act's shortcomings led to his being held without charge, the more support he was bound to attract, no matter the risk he may or may not pose.

In the wake of this latest embarrassment, it becomes even more important for this case to be expedited as quickly as possible. It seems likely that this process - starting with a Supreme Court ruling on whether the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security must take human rights into account when reconsidering the Security Intelligence Service decision to issue a risk certificate - will take six to 12 months. If so, the mocking of the Immigration Act's intent to deal quickly with people detained as suspected security risks will be complete.

The Prime Minister has promised a review of the act as soon as Mr Zaoui's future is resolved. That cannot come soon enough. At the very least, the absence of a review of detention no matter how long a person is held in custody flies in the face of the international refugee convention. There can be little solace in the fact that countries such as Britain have shared New Zealand's discomfort when attempting to deal with asylum seekers.

Obviously, future cases must be handled more swiftly. For starters, a potential avenue of conflict and confusion would be closed if the Refugee Status Appeal Authority received the full story on terrorist suspects from the SIS. And public qualms would lessen if more were disclosed about why a risk certificate had been issued.

As it is, the Zaoui case has bounced off in a direction that Parliament never intended. In so doing, it has placed the Government in an embarrassing position. So embarrassing that it must ensure it never happens again.