House of Assembly Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1) 54 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Question Time Keogh Case Keogh Case Mr KOUTSANTONIS House of Assembly West Torrens Keogh Case Mr KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (14:03): My question is to the Attorney-General. Does the Attorney-General stand by her decision to compensate Mr Henry Keogh, given the findings of the Court of Criminal Appeal? With your leave, sir, and that of the house, I will explain. Leave granted. Mr KOUTSANTONIS House of Assembly Mr KOUTSANTONIS: The court found: The task of the jury involved consideration of all of the circumstances of the case, including the fact that a young and apparently healthy woman died suddenly while taking a bath in circumstances where the applicant may have had a motive to murder her and had the opportunity to do so on the night of her death. Nevertheless, the forensic pathology evidence was a central component of the prosecution case before the jury. We do not accept the submission made by the applicant's counsel that there should be a direction of acquittal. To the contrary, we consider that the non-expert circumstantial evidence, when considered together with the forensic pathology evidence— The Hon. V.A. Chapman House of Assembly The Hon. V.A. Chapman: It's very long. Mr KOUTSANTONIS House of Assembly Mr KOUTSANTONIS: That's right, it is. It's an important matter. as it is now understood, is such that it would remain open to a properly directed jury to convict. However, we expressly recognise that a properly directed jury may consider that the evidence would not be sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. These are truly jury questions and this judgement should not be taken to express a view on whether the applicant in fact committed the crime with which he was charged. For our part, our review of the material does not establish a case for acquittal following this appeal. Accordingly, we would set aside the conviction and order a retrial. It is a matter for the Director to determine how the matter should proceed. We grant permission to appeal and allow the appeal. We set aside the conviction of Henry Vincent Keogh for the crime of murder. We direct that Henry Vincent Keogh be re-tried. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Before I call the Attorney-General, I point out that I would expect quite a broad answer with such background facts. I appreciate that they are of a sensitive nature. I call the Deputy Premier. The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN House of Assembly Bragg Deputy Premier Attorney-General The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (14:05): I thank the member for the question. I would ask the apparently newly appointed shadow attorney-general in asking this question that, when he quotes from a Full Court judgement of the Court of Criminal Appeal, he ensures that he takes into account, or in fact even reads, the rest of the judgement to ensure that what is clear are that these are the facts. The conviction in respect of Mr Keogh was quashed. There had been referral to a retrial. The DPP of the day instituted a further charge. He withdrew that under what we describe as a nolle prosequi. The situation today, as we speak, is that Mr Keogh has spent almost 20 years in gaol and his conviction was quashed. Consistent with that, the former attorney-general, who is still with us here in the chamber, received in his time a claim in respect of funds for taking into account those circumstances. He instructed senior independent counsel to give advice to the then government as to the request and, obviously, risk to the state and had proceeded to enter into correspondence on behalf of the former government with those representing Mr Keogh. That situation was left unresolved when the new government came into office. We have considered all the material. I want to say that I appreciate those independent senior counsel who made themselves available to assist in the negotiations on this matter and indeed to those representing other parties. I would ask that all those matters be considered by the opposition. In short, am I confident of the decision that was made by this government to settle this case and end the tawdry history of this in our legal history of South Australia? Yes, I am.