wmlro.com: Aus PM's due diligence failure
When then Prime Minister John Howard wanted to understand the relationship between Muslims and Australia, he turned to a high profile young woman in what turned out to be a bad call. And the case proves why the safe harbour provisions in suspicion-based reporting cases is so valuable.
Iktimal Hage-Ali was nothing if not well known. The young Muslim woman was a recipient of the New South Wales Young Australian of the Year award in 2006. She was described as "a Muslim leader" - and by invitation she became an adviser to Howard.
All was cosy, and her life seemed together and on track.
But behind the facade, Hage-Ali was a user of cocaine. And a week before she was awarded the gong, she had been arrested by teh Middle Eastern Organised Crime Squad, who suspected her of being involved in dealing in cocaine.
She has admitted being a user, and yesterday a court found that she was "a regular user of an illegal substance and conducted herself in manner which gave the police grounds to conclude that she was a supplier of the drug to other persons even if on a very low scale."
That, however, Judge Michael Elkaim, was not a good enough reason to arrest her.
But arrested she was, although she was not charged with the offences of supply. But she surrendered her award and moved abroad. Then she sued the police, saying she should not have been arrested and that to do so had damaged her reputation - and the Judge agreed.
He awarded her just over AUD18,000 dollars, saying that it was difficult to calculate damage to her reputation as her previous reputation was not the reality.
Aside from the obvious point that John Howard's people did not find out that one of his advisers was a regular cocaine user, or turned a blind eye, the case is one of fundamental importance in relation to suspicion.
And proves the value of the safe harbour provisions in counter-money laundering laws.
For if the information leading to the arrest had come from a financial institution (it did not) then that FI and its officers would be protected against any claim for damages, by either the accused or - if this case launches others - police forces who act on that information and need to find some way to make up any damages that they are ordered to pay.
Download PDF version of this page