FORENSIC PATHOLOGISTS

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Leader of the Opposition) (14:40): My question is again to the Premier. Do the findings of the Medical Board of South Australia that two of our most senior forensic pathologists have engaged in unprofessional conduct give him cause for a lack of confidence in the court cases involving evidence given by them; and, if so, what action does he intend to take in response to these developments? In November last year and March this year the Medical Board delivered findings that Dr Colin Manock and Dr Ross James had engaged in unprofessional conduct and had withheld evidence from two major trials. The pathologists named have carried out thousands of autopsies and appeared as expert witnesses in hundreds of trials.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (14:40): Of course I am concerned if it is sustained at the end of the day that pathologists working in the court system did not do their job properly or withheld evidence, but I do not think the Leader of the Opposition gives a true picture of the case of Dr James.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Manock is a quite different matter, and I gather that will be reheard soon and, when it is reheard, we will know where we stand. If, indeed, the allegations of the Leader of the Opposition and Today Tonight are upheld against Dr Manock, I will share their concern.

Mr Hamilton-Smith interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: What it does not mean is that Henry Keogh is not guilty, which is what—

Mr Hamilton-Smith interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The member for Heysen interjects that is right. I wish the member for Heysen would step the Leader of the Opposition through criminal law and procedure. So, instead of looking like a smacked backside, the Leader of the Opposition should be quiet and to listen, because—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I am sorry? Could you repeat it?

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: A fairy. Okay. Mr Speaker, alas, so many people who watch the Today Tonight program have never been given—not in recent years—a fair picture of the evidence on which a jury convicted Henry Keogh. What is remarkable about Today Tonight's coverage since 2004, I think, is that there is almost no mention of the life insurance policies, the lovers, the lies—non-pathology evidence on which Keogh was convicted.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: And the member for Heysen agrees.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for MacKillop will come to order!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Whether a conviction is unsafe will be determined on the whole of the evidence, not just the pathology evidence. So the member for Heysen, I am sure, in a quiet moment after question time, will be able to step the leader and the deputy leader through criminal law and procedure.

Mr Hamilton-Smith interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The Leader of the Opposition interjects, 'Let the case be reviewed.' As a matter of fact, the Keogh case has been reviewed time and again by the Court of Criminal Appeal, by the High Court, and by successive solicitors-general. It is probably the most picked over case in South Australia's legal history. So, when he asks whether the Henry Keogh case will be reviewed, I think the Leader of the Opposition is taking the Liberal Party into very dangerous tabloid territory, and I caution him against it.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I wish that the Parliamentary Liberal Party would have some compassion for the Cheney family. I wish they would show some respect to Anna-Jane's mother and father and her brother, and not get themselves in this mire.

When Dr Manock's case is heard and finalised and there is a finding, if there is a finding of unprofessional conduct I will comment at that time and, if it is sustained, I will share the concern of those who have criticised Dr Manock's conduct.

On the question of Dr James—which I think is a quite different matter—the finding against Dr James was that, though he was not asked the question, he did not volunteer certain information. One of the things that witnesses are told when they go to court is, 'Listen to the question and answer the question.' That is probably why—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: That is why so often journalists and politicians do not make particularly good witnesses. What they are told is, 'Listen to the question and answer the question.' Dr James—

Ms Chapman: A professional witness.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Now the member for Bragg, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, is personally attacking Dr James. I would urge her to read the Medical Board decision and then wait for the result of the appeal. Dr James has a reputation throughout the legal profession—both prosecution and defence—for having an open-door policy, for speaking frankly to both sides, and for being an objective witness. We will see what the result is when the appeal is determined.