Family visited Zygier more than 50 times

 Email this story

Print

3 Comments

Ben Zygier Photo provided and copyright

The report reveals that “Prisoner X”, Melbourne man Ben Zygier who had made Aliyah had ample legal representation and that he had received more than 50 visits from members of his family and confirms that neither Zygier or his family requested any consular assistance during his detention in Israel.

• DFAT’s knowledge of Mr Zygier’s detention and death; and how and when that information was received;
• Government handling of consular aspects of this case; and .
• Lessons learned and recommendations for future improvement in consular services.

• the individual’s legal rights would be respected and,
• he had legal representation of his own choosing;
• the individual’s family members had been notified of his arrest and detention; and
• he was not being mistreated.

• Mr Zygier was granted regular access to a lawyer and more than 50 visits by family members, while in detention in 2010.
• There was no request from Mr Zygier, his family or his lawyer for Australian consular assistance;
• Despite the above, there was a lack of clarity in Government decision-making over consular responsibilities; and
• In the event, no Australian consular assistance was provided to Mr Zygier and there is no record in this report of any direct contact between Australian Government officials and Mr Zygier during this time.

Foreign Minister Senator Bob Carr

The Zygier case was complex and outside the normal bounds of consular activity. However it is unsatisfactory that there was a lack of clarity over the exercise of consular responsibilities.

• With the benefit of hindsight it would have been prudent to consult the Australian Head of Mission in Tel Aviv in February 2010 about the likelihood of Australia being granted consular access to Mr Zygier.

• A clear understanding within government about consular responsibilities in the case would have generated greater confidence in the decision-making around it.

• A more coherent system for handling intelligence information on individual consular cases would have assisted management of issues around Mr Zygier’s circumstances.

• Although a record of briefings in February 2010 would have assisted future handling of issues around the case, this would have been difficult given the briefing agency’s request that no written record be kept.

• Subject to a specific exemption from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Heads of Mission should be informed of the circumstances of any Australian citizen detained for any reason within the country of their accreditation if that information is available to any Australian agency.

• The Department should lead whole-of-government development of a protocol for dealing with individuals detained on intelligence-related matters.  The protocol could be modelled on a protocol developed in 2011 to handle cases involving Australians detained overseas in security-related circumstances.

• A better system should be developed to ensure that senior consular officers can access written records, including intelligence, of sensitive cases.

• A further review be held into the consular services that should be provided by Australia to dual nationals, particularly in circumstances where the individual is employed by the government of the other country; and

• We await the outcome of the various inquiries underway or foreshadowed in Israel into the handling of the Zygier case by Israeli authorities before seeking further details from Israel, noting that the Australian government has no legal basis on which to conduct an inquiry in Israel into the circumstances of Mr Zygier’s detention or death.