17 October 2006
A SENIOR federal public servant who was found guilty of leaking confidential information to a journalist has won his appeal at the Supreme Court of Victoria .
Desmond Patrick Kelly, 53, of Langwarrin, was accused of leaking the contents of a secret government document revealing plans to knock back a $500 million boost to war veterans pensions.
Following the publication of a story in the Herald Sun, Kelly was charged under the Commonwealth Crimes Act for leaking a confidential statement by then Veterans Affairs Minister Danna Vale.
He pleaded not guilty to the charge of unauthorised communication of a document, but was found guilty by a Victorian County Court jury in January.
Mr Kelly was sentenced to immediate release and ordered to be of good behaviour for 12 months.
A Full Court of the Court of Appeal today quashed his conviction and directed that a verdict of acquittal be entered.
In their reasons for judgment, justices Robert Redlich and John Coldrey stated they did not believe that "upon the whole of the evidence it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the applicant was guilty".
Mr Kelly, a 36-year public service veteran, attended court today, but declined to comment.
_______________________________________
COA COMMENT – How is it constitutionally possible for a Government (of public representatives) to have a person charged with an offence of providing information that alerts the public to Government policy decisions that may have an adverse effect on a significant numbers of the public? What genuine harm does that do to good governance, the democratic system or political awareness?
It may do harm to a political party that wants to keep secret their policy decisions that will harm a significant number of citizens. But is that what the Crimes Act is for – to protect a political party which is in Government? If somebody leaked the policies of the shadow government (e.g. Labor) would that be an offence against the Crimes Act. – No of course not – so the Crimes Act is MISused to protect the interests of the particular political party in Government.
Is this the Government’s description of open Government and transparency of public administration? If it is – it redefines both the words ‘open’ and ‘transparency’ to a new meaning of ‘secretive’ and ‘opaque’.