Keogh Case

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (15:49): Yesterday, the long-awaited legal advice by then solicitor-general Kourakis regarding Henry Keogh's conviction was released by the Attorney-General. It was given to the Rann government in 2006 to reject a third petition for seeking a judicial review by Keogh for the murder of Anna-Jane Cheney in 1994. In a lengthy freedom of information challenged by the Seven Network, it was released first by the state Ombudsman and then unanimously on appeal by a Full Court of three Victorian judges.

Now that the report is not privileged, Mr Kourakis needs to explain some of the conclusions reached, which were completely at odds with what the Criminal Court of Appeal found based on the evidence of eminent forensic pathologists—the same experts Mr Kourakis received submissions from. I am astounded Mr Kourakis still preferred the evidence of a totally discredited, incompetent and unqualified Dr Colin Manock, as Mr Kourakis himself described as 'flawed or generally deficient', to the expert advice he sought from his own highly regarded pathologist, Professor Barrie Vernon-Roberts, who told Mr Kourakis that Anna-Jane Cheney's death was more likely the result of an accident or a medical event, not murder.

In considering the most crucial aspect of the defence's case—the timing of critical bruising to Miss Cheney's leg—Mr Kourakis overlooked the advice of his own expert who had recommended a test be done that would have concluded that the bruise Dr Manock claimed was made around the time of death either did not exist or was made well before death. So why, when the Full Court, years later, accepted it as strong enough to quash Keogh's conviction? Why was this vital report and the advice it contained, which strongly suggests the likelihood of a miscarriage of justice, withheld from Keogh and his lawyers for almost 10 years?

Instead, Mr Kourakis still preferred the circumstantial evidence over the alternative forensic material put forward, which later led three senior judges to quash the conviction and order a retrial. The DPP has not proceeded, while SAPOL seem to believe the case is still open. How can that be when the chief expert witness in Keogh's trials had no credibility and his evidence should be thrown out? As eminent pathologist Dr Derek Pounder, who gave evidence at the Full Court, said:

Describing the pathology evidence as 'flawed' is restrained. The level of critical misinformation is shocking and open to an allegation of deliberate misrepresentation.

Dr Byron Collins, another who provided evidence, described it as fiction masquerading as fact. Mr Kourakis needs to answer why he felt, as a senior legal practitioner and officer of the Crown, it was not necessary to act on the alternative forensic advice now known to him, resulting in the need for a compensation payout to Mr Keogh. As solicitor-general, Mr Kourakis effectively delivered his own judgement on guilt or innocence. He rejected the notion of death by natural causes, preferring the incriminating circumstances of insurance policies, subsequent lies and having multiple lovers that swayed the jury to reject accidental death or natural causes.

So why did he not recommend a court of appeal consider the merits of the case, as it finally did almost 10 years later with much the same evidence? The Crown, which is meant to be a model litigant, had a duty to disclose this information and did not until it was happened upon years later by Keogh's defence. It causes me to wonder if it would ever have been disclosed. The Labor government was content to let Henry Keogh rot in gaol for a crime he did not commit and he would have if the law was not changed to allow new and fresh evidence to be considered.

The Crown failed miserably as model litigants. The public needs to have faith in the institution of justice. Now I can fully understand why successive Labor governments fought tooth and nail to keep this advice a secret. When he was acting attorney-general and he disclosed sections of the report in rejecting the petition, a hostile Kevin Foley not once mentioned Professor Vernon-Roberts. That now smacks of a disgraceful political cover-up to keep Henry Keogh locked up in the interests of politics rather than justice.

The people of South Australia had been misled. Keogh deserves the payout for this contemptible conduct. This report further reinforces my demand for a royal commission into Dr Manock's cases—the single biggest scandal in the state's criminal justice history. What a Pandora's box that is. But does anyone in authority care?