The trial continues in Brisbane of Mr Khaleed Daoed, alleged assistant to convicted people smuggler Abu Quassey (now serving a five year sentence in Egypt for accidental homicide and people smuggling). Daoed has been charged with two counts of aiding a people smuggling operation in violation of the Migration Act. The charges relate to two voyages organised by Quassey from Sumatra in 2001 — Yambuk which reached Christmas Island, and the boat now known as SIEV X which sank en route, drowning 353 people.
My primary information source for the following commentary — for which I take full editorial responsibility — is Sue Hoffman, attending the trial as a volunteer observer. Her trip was funded by the Western Australian Action Alliance and other refugee supporters around Australia. Australian media coverage of the trial was intense in the first week (17–20 May) but fell away to very little in the second week (23–27 May).
I am bound by court reporting rules to not express opinions on the evidence before the court that might be construed as an attempt to influence the outcome of the case. I can express no views as to Mr Khaleed Daoed’s innocence or guilt under the charges.
The Crown announced initially that it would present fourteen witnesses under the SIEV X charge: five survivors now living in Finland, four in New Zealand, and four in Australia, and an Australian Federal Police (AFP) officer who recorded earlier statements by Daoed.
By the end of week two, the five witnesses from Finland, two of the NZ and two of the Australian-based witnesses had completed testimony and cross-examination. Witnesses who have so far testified have come from the forty-five survivors of the sinking, and from members of the group of twenty-three Iraqi Sabaean Mandaeans who left the boat in the Karakatu Islands, Sunda Strait, during its journey.
The Court is taking a strict approach to admissible evidence. The judge has reminded the jury that while this case involves a tragedy, they must focus on the evidence relating to the alleged offence. He said that as they consider the evidence, they must focus on actual facts, occurrences, and conversations. For example, was there a meeting? Was money handed over? The Court’s focus is on the organisation of the trip, not on how or why the 353 deaths occurred. Questions pertaining to the size, condition, or overcrowding of the boat, number of passengers, fares, secrecy of operation etc, are relevant only insofar as they bear on the question of whether this was a people smuggling operation, and on the states of mind of the principal, Abu Quassey and of the accused, Khaleed Daoed.
Adhering to the Court’s requirements has proved stressful for some witnesses, who have shown confusion and distress at the Court’s apparent lack of interest in hearing how their loved ones died. Two witnesses broke down in court.
At the outset the Crown summarised its case: that Daoed took part in promotional meetings with prospective passengers, in which he described the boat; that he negotiated terms of travel, sometimes with Abu Quassey, and sometimes with two other alleged Quassey associates, Maysam and his brother Maysar; that Daoed received payments and kept records of payments; that Daoed assisted in the transfer of passengers between places within Indonesia up to and including the embarkation point.
The defence is challenging that portrayal of Daoed’s role. Daoed has claimed (in a taped statement he gave to the AFP prior to the case, and which was played to the court last Friday and Monday) that he was not working with Quassey, but was providing voluntary humanitarian assistance to the passengers, drawing on his local knowledge and his knowledge of the Indonesian language. The Defence cross-examination of crown witnesses has tried to demonstrate cases of inconsistency, faulty memory, or testimony based on hearsay from other survivors.
The Defence has yet to present its case.
Recently, the Minister for Justice Senator Ellison, in reply to a question on notice from Senator Bob Brown, advised the Senate that ‘there is no current investigation or inquiry’ being conducted into the sinking of the boat known as SIEV X, although ‘one Australian Federal Police member remains involved in preparation for further court proceedings concerning this matter’. (Senate Hansard, 10 May 2005 — Question on Notice No 432,)
Even after this trial delivers its verdict, the truth about the sinking of SIEV X may still prove elusive. In Bishop Tom Frame’s words: ‘I am afraid that in the case of SIEV X, we might be confronted with the unknown and burdened with the unknowable.’
This trial is turning out to be a frustrating experience for the SIEV X victims. They must be haunted by an unanswered question: Why isn’t Abu Quassey here on trial as well?
I see this trial as a tragic lost opportunity. Much taxpayer money was spent in bringing a large and representative group of SIEV X survivor witnesses to Australia from Finland and New Zealand, and their lives have been interrupted — witnesses who have important knowledge as to the sinking of SIEV X, and who as secure permanent refugees in those two countries have no reason to withhold any evidence from an Australian court.
After this trial ends — whatever the outcome in respect of Mr Daoed — it will be claimed by the Australian Government’s supporters that justice has been done and that this must now finally put an end to further public discussion of the SIEV X matter.
But this will be an arguable claim. Crucial questions about how SIEV X sank will remain unanswered, until such time as there is a full powers independent judicial inquiry into the sinking of SIEV X and the Australian Government’s people smuggling disruption program in Indonesia. Something the Senate has three times demanded over the past three years.
As I understand it, Labor, Democrats and Greens parties remain committed to the pursuit of this enquiry — neither they nor I accept Frame’s view that the truth about the sinking of SIEV X may be unknowable. One day, under a different kind of Australian government, a SIEV X judicial enquiry will be held.
References
Bishop Tom Frame, "SIEV X and Public Ethics", Public Administration Today , September-November 2004, pages 87-90.
Sue Hoffman, private notes provided to Tony Kevin
Marg Hutton, "The Daoed Trial: Week One", on www.sievx.com, 22 May 2005. Please note: this site is temporarily unavailable as it shares server space with a watergate site — with the identity of Deep Throat finally being revealed that site is experiencing so much traffic it is bringing down the server.
Tony Kevin, A Certain Maritime Incident: the sinking of SIEV X, Scribe Books, Melbourne 2004.