House of Assembly Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1) 54 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Keogh Case Keogh Case The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS House of Assembly West Torrens Keogh Case The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (14:17): My question is to the Attorney-General. Has the Attorney-General received any advice or opinion that contradicts the conclusions and findings of the Kourakis report that concluded that Henry Keogh was indeed guilty of murder, and any advice that recommended an ex gratia payment be made to Mr Keogh? The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN House of Assembly Bragg Deputy Premier Attorney-General Keogh Case The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (14:17): We have canvassed this at some length, but I am happy to repeat the following: on coming into office, there was an application submitted by Mr Keogh, via his legal practitioners, to the previous government, seeking a payment in respect of compensation, if you will, for having spent nearly 20 years in gaol, which was subsequently a conviction that was quashed. The former attorney-general had sought and obtained legal advice from two senior counsel—Queen's Counsel—and had been provided a very extensive opinion in relation to that. An honourable member interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN House of Assembly The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As it was a live matter, it was brought to my attention. Further advice was obtained from the relevant counsel, and they were instructed to negotiate, on behalf of the government, consideration of the application for funds. That matter culminated in the resolution, ultimately, via a recommendation to the Treasurer for SAicorp's payment. I think the rest is evident. In fact, a copy of that settlement—full and final settlement of any claims, both for legal claims and costs—was tabled in this parliament, I think within days of that resolution. As has been previously outlined, that position was subsequent to obtaining advice, some 10 years or probably closer to 11 years subsequent to the historical document to which the minister is referring and which, as is now clear, had been overturned, if you can put it in that sense, in a general way by the Full Court determination led by Justices Gray, Sulan and, I think, Blue—I will have to go back; I have a copy of it in my office—who had quashed the conviction in the Supreme Court on 19 December 2014.