Zaoui lawyers attack SIS evidence

By CATHERINE MASTERS


An affidavit by the country's spy chief came under attack by Ahmed Zaoui's lawyers yesterday, who accused him in court of selectively releasing information to bolster his position.

Mr Zaoui's lawyers had earlier tried to cross-examine Richard Woods on the witness stand in the High Court at Auckland, but the SIS director revealed little and left quickly.

It was the first day of the judicial review of the Algerian's security risk certificate, issued by Mr Woods in March on the basis of secret intelligence he says is reliable.

Mr Zaoui's lawyers are challenging the refusal of the SIS to provide a reasonable summary of why Mr Woods believes Mr Zaoui is a threat to New Zealand's national security. They had wanted to ask him 12 questions in court, but were allowed to ask only three.

Rodney Harrison, QC, for Mr Zaoui, began by asking if the foreign liaison partners referred to in Mr Woods' affidavit included Britain, the United States, Canada or Australia, and if so, which of these.

Mr Woods said all four countries were foreign liaison partners.

Dr Harrison next asked if the chronological summary of information on Mr Zaoui, drawn from publicly available sources, was compiled by the SIS.

This was the information severely criticised in the Refugee Status Appeals Authority decision which cleared Mr Zaoui in August and granted him refugee status.

Mr Woods agreed the information was compiled by the SIS but said it had only ever been a compilation of publicly sourced material. The information had not been used by him in the making of the risk certificate and had no status in that respect.

Dr Harrison then asked if the originator or originators of the classified information expressly stipulated that Mr Zaoui should not be provided with a summary of the information.

Mr Woods said the originators had always stipulated it was not to be released outside the service but said there had been discussions with them whether it would be possible to make available an unclassified summary.

Only the Belgians and the Swiss had agreed and had provided a statement which had been conveyed to Mr Zaoui's lawyers in May.

Dr Harrison asked again if the issue had been discussed with each and every originator and Mr Woods replied "yes".

The Crown objected to a further question asking hypothetically that if the classified information was about Mr Zaoui being involved in a terrorist group, would it be revealed to him only with the permission of the source of the allegation.

Justice Hugh Williams disallowed the question and Mr Woods left.

But his sworn affidavit for the hearing came in for further attack.

Dr Harrison told the court Mr Woods had selectively released in his affidavit what he had previously contended was classified information.

"This has been done quite calculatedly, in order to bolster up his position, being that of the decision-maker whose decision has been impugned."

He had done so by ruling out Algeria as a direct source of the classified information and asserting it came from unidentified reliable overseas liaison partners.

He had misunderstood Mr Zaoui's concerns that the information may, in fact, be sourced indirectly from the Algerian authorities.

Such information may well not relate to Mr Zaoui's "activities in Algeria" but rather to his alleged activities since being forced to flee.

"If Mr Woods really believes that all classified information received by the NZSIS, indirectly originating from the Algerian authorities, will only concern Mr Zaoui's activities in Algeria, that is extremely naive."

Mr Zaoui did not know if he was deemed a threat or danger to New Zealand's security as a consequence of alleged activities previously carried out by him, because of alleged associations with others, because of fears of what he may do in the future, or a fear that others may seek to do something to him.

As long as Mr Zaoui did not know the answers he would not get a fair hearing in Inspector-General of Intelligence Laurie Greig's review of his security risk certificate.

The whole process was already slanted against him in natural justice terms because of the unfettered access of the Inspector-General to the director "behind the back of and without the knowledge of Mr Zaoui".

Mr Zaoui's lawyers admitted in court, after pressure from the Crown, that they planned to call for Justice Greig to stand down following comments reported in a Listener article which they believe show bias and predetermination.