House of Assembly Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2) 54 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Question Time Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Investigation Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Investigation The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS House of Assembly West Torrens Independent Commissioner Against Corruption Investigation The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (14:30): My question is to the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney-General pay Mr Hanlon or Ms Vasilevski compensation following the collapse of the ICAC prosecution as she paid accused murderer Henry Keogh $2.57 million? With your leave, sir, and that of the house, I will explain. Leave granted. The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS House of Assembly The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: In July 2018, the Attorney-General announced an ex gratia payment of $2.57 million to Mr Keogh after his conviction was overturned. Keogh, according to the evidence to the parliament by South Australia Police, remains the only suspect in the 1994 death of his then fiancée, Anna-Jane Cheney. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Before I give the call to the Attorney-General in this regard, I just remind members that standing order 97 provides for appropriate means by which a member may seek and obtain leave in order to introduce facts. Should leave be granted, the circumstance under which leave is granted is to introduce such facts as are necessary to explain the question and not to then engage further in the subject matter beyond that requirement. I just remind members of that requirement in relation to standing order 97. The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN House of Assembly Bragg Deputy Premier Attorney-General Minister for Planning and Local Government The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning and Local Government) (14:31): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a matter of record that in relation to the matter of Henry Keogh the government have agreed to and paid funds arising out of 19 years of imprisonment in relation to a conviction that was overturned by the Full Court of South Australia. That is a matter of fact, not as asserted by the member in his question; nevertheless, that is a matter of fact. There is no application or request before me by anyone representing Mr Hanlon or Ms Vasilevski in relation to the matter that was dealt with in the Magistrates Court last week, but I am advised that the Office of the DPP are reviewing that matter, including as to what other action is taken in relation to it. I won't add anything further in relation to that matter, but I point out that they are totally distinguishable matters.