Findings of corrupt conduct
The Commission has found that Andrew Kelly engaged in corrupt conduct by deliberately failing to disclose a conflict of interest and continuing to deal with matters affecting Kazal tenancies.
Charif Kazal engaged in corrupt conduct by holding out the prospect of employment in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to Mr Kelly and paying him $11,170 for his flight and accommodation expenses arising from a trip to the UAE in May 2007, with the intention that these would tend to influence Mr Kelly to exercise his official Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority functions in a manner favourable to Kazal business interests.
Recommendations for prosecutions
The Commission must seek the advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) on whether any prosecution should be commenced. The DPP determines whether any criminal charges can be laid, and conducts all prosecutions. The Commission provides information on this website in relation to the status of prosecution recommendations and outcomes as advised by the DPP. The progress of matters is generally within the hands of the DPP. Accordingly, the Commission does not directly notify persons affected of advice received from the DPP or the progress of their matters generally.
The ICAC is of the opinion that the advice of the DPP should be sought with respect to the prosecution of Andrew Kelly for the common law offence of misconduct in public office in relation to his failure to disclose his conflict of interest. The DPPs' advice not to proceed against Mr Kelly has been accepted by the Commission.
The ICAC is of the opinion that the advice of the DPP should be sought with respect to the prosecution of Charif Kazal for an offence under the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 of giving false evidence to the Commission that he never intended to settle Mr Kelly's accommodation account for the May 2007 trip. The DPPs' advice not to proceed against Mr Kazal has been accepted by the Commission.
Recommendations for disciplinary action
Andrew Kelly is no longer a public official. It is therefore not necessary to make any recommendation in relation to the taking of disciplinary or dismissal action.
Recommendations for corruption prevention
The Commission has made four corruption prevention recommendations to the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority as follows:
Recommendation 1
That responsibility, authority and accountability for heritage protection be located within a single, independent role with a commensurate level of seniority within the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority (SHFA).
Recommendation 2
- That heritage considerations relevant to any decision on SHFA properties should record the factors considered and the reasons for decisions, and full transparency be given to both the matters considered and the reasons for the decisions.
- That the SHFA includes heritage considerations as a standard component in all board papers and executive memoranda dealing with property and leasing matters.
Recommendation 3
That the SHFA establishes a formal process that tenants are required to follow when applying for compensation on works they have carried out on SHFA properties (including a report prepared by suitably qualified professionals that documents the work undertaken, why it was necessary, and an itemised list of expenditure).
Recommendation 4
That where a recommendation to the general manager and board of the SHFA would provide a significant client benefit, a comprehensive written business case is to be provided to the general manager and board by the responsible director.
Implementation Plans
The implementation plan posted below has been provided by the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority (SHFA) in response to the ICAC's corruption prevention recommendations. Its appearance here is for information only and does not constitute the approval or endorsement of the plan by the Commission.
Implementation plan
Final progress report
The progress report posted below has been provided by the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority (SHFA) in response to the ICAC's corruption prevention recommendations. Its appearance here is for information only and does not constitute the approval or endorsement of the report by the Commission.
Progress report