Indian doctor Mohammed Haneef, charged in connection with the failed UK terror plot, could win his freedom in court because of apparent mistakes in a departmental briefing that led Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews to order his detention.
"Even one error of fact could be enough to undermine the government's case," constitutional lawyer George Williams was quoted as saying by The Australian on Saturday.
Those mistakes are expected to be raised in the Federal Court by Haneef's lawyers on August 8 when they challenge the Government's decision on Monday to revoke his visa.
They are the same apparent mistakes that appear in an affidavit that was used in the Brisbane Magistrates Court against Haneef by the Australian Federal Police when he was granted bail.
While AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty called on lawyers on Friday to stop commenting on the case, Queensland Council of Civil Liberties president Michael Cope said the Federal Court proceedings next month would be crucial.
'If the minister has, for whatever reason, acted on incorrect information, the decision will be overturned,' Cope said.
Andrews has refused to review his decision to cancel Haneef's visa, saying his decision was based on information not seen by Brisbane magistrate Jacqui Payne, who granted the terror suspect bail.
The apparent errors in the information considered by Andrews are contained in a minute on Haneef that was prepared by senior public servant Peter White on Monday.
Assertions contained in that minute are inconsistent with an official police record of interview made public by Haneef's barrister, Stephen Keim SC.
Part of the minute states that Haneef told the AFP he lived in Britain with Sabeel Ahmed, who is one of the suspects in the recent terror attacks there. However, the record of interview said Haneef told police he had moved out of those premises by the time Dr Ahmed had stayed there.
Another part of the document prepared for Andrews, which is marked 'highly protected,' asserts: 'He resided with the UK suspect 5 at 13 Bentley Road, Liverpool, UK, which is a boarding house.'
The second apparent mistake in the briefing for Andrews refers to the fact that Haneef had bought a one-way ticket to India.
The briefing said 'When questioned why it was a one-way ticket Haneef stated that there was no particular reason for this and he intended to return to Australia within 7 days.'
The record of interview showed he gave police a detailed explanation referring to a lack of funds and the fact that the ticket had been bought by his father-in-law in Bangalore.
Haneef's 457 visa was revoked on Monday just hours after Payne granted him bail on a charge of recklessly providing support to a terrorist organisation.
Haneef has chosen to remain in prison in Brisbane, where he is close to his lawyers, rather than seek release on bail and then be incarcerated at the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre in Sydney.
His lawyer, Peter Russo, had on Friday said Haneef was in good spirits and had spoken to his wife and father-in-law in India by telephone.
Andrews's office said he will not be reviewing his decision concerning Haneef.