Dec 192008
 

I heard this piece of news on this afternoons NewsRadio, and frankly, my heart sank.

Just over 18 months ago, I became interested in the plight of Allan Kessing, and concerned about the plight of whistleblowers in general. Allan’s issue is of particular concern to me because he and I have corresponded off and on since my first post identifying his position. Because of my interest, he mailed me to say a simple ‘thanks’ and we struck up a kind of remote but shared interest in events surrounding his case. He has kindly shared certain information with me about his case, who was involved, and the circumstances leading to his being identified as a prime scapegoat for a powerful corporation and those protected by it.

In June this year, after a few exchanges, I made Allan the offer of internet space upon which to tell his story. He accepted and a sub-domain has been created. He’s not a blogger, per se, but has a drive to see justice done, not only for his benefit, but as a means of standing up for what he believes to be right. To date he’s not been willing, or legally able to use the space to tell the facts of why he is being victimised by Sydney Airport Corporation, aided by a spineless stance on the part of Australian Customs Service, his former employer at the time he wrote security assessment reports on Sydney Airport Corporation, which he’d been commissioned to write, by that employer.

Those reports were damning, even though watered down at the behest of ACS management, resulting in an independent inquiry being launched by the Howard government, the results of which vindicated those reports’ revelations. Yet Allan Kessing had already been drawn into the legal system, which seems to have blithely ignored the results of that inquiry, preferring to focus on an obscure charge of damaging the national interest, or leaking privileged information. Neither is factual. The real details of who wrote what, who said what, who duck-shoved to whom and just what wasn’t ‘leaked’ have never been made public principally on the grounds of sub judice. With Allan’s appeal against his conviction being dismissed by the High Court NSW Court of Criminal Appeal today, there would appear to be few other avenues available to him in his search for real justice, than to make the facts of his case public. That’s a decision only he can make. I hope he does choose to tell all, because those he would name deserve to be named. Deserve to be outed for their complicity and destruction of a man’s life simply to hide their own lack of personal morals and business ethics.

This week’s Law Report, on ABC Radio National, addressed yet again the issue of whistleblowers, and the victimisation that goes on in both public and private sectors. Allan Kessing can’t claim the protection that his former work colleagues might be able to claim, through union backing, because he’d retired from the ACS not long after his reports had been written. Those who have identified him as their scapegoat know full well that he has no such support, and knew they needed only to persist with the legal process long enough to exhaust his financial resources and he’d lie down, beaten. Allan Kessing carries a conviction against his name for doing what he considered to be right and just. In shining a light on those who failed to protect the national interest, yet targeted him with the same charge because they knew he couldn’t fight back long enough to win. Allan Kessing has never ‘leaked’ anything. He has never endangered this country’s national interest or the flying public

. He has not gone about to deliberately defame any person, or any business. He simply blew a whistle on a set of circumstances he saw as not being addressed to the satisfaction of the law of the time. He has, is and will doubtless continue to pay for his conscience. I suggest it’s well past time those who ought to have paid, did so.

Your space awaits you, Allan.

  6 Responses to “A Message From Sydney Airports Corporation”

  1. The decision in December rejecting Kessing’s appeal was in the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal not the High Court.Given your interest in the case, you might like to see my comments regarding Section 70 of the Crimes Act.
    See http://foi-privacy.blogspot.com/search?q=Rough+public+service+justice.+

  2. The decision in December rejecting Kessing’s appeal was in the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal not the High Court.Given your interest in the case, you might like to see my comments regarding Section 70 of the Crimes Act.
    See http://foi-privacy.blogspot.com/search?q=Rough+public+service+justice.+

  3. A faux pas on my behalf. Confused his next appeal with the one just denied. Thanks for the pickup.

  4. A faux pas on my behalf. Confused his next appeal with the one just denied. Thanks for the pickup.

  5. A faux pas on my behalf. Confused his next appeal with the one just denied. Thanks for the pickup.

  6. A faux pas on my behalf. Confused his next appeal with the one just denied. Thanks for the pickup.