HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2018-07-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Grievance Debate

Keogh Case

Mr KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (15:05): Today, we have learnt that the Keogh payment was not based on a request from legal representatives of Mr Keogh on the basis of a traditional formulated claim. What we have learnt today is that the Attorney-General made an ex gratia payment to a man the Court of Criminal Appeal felt should have been retried for the charge of murder. I would have thought that if the government was going to pay $2.507 million to a man who was not acquitted—who the court still felt should have been charged with the murder of his fiancée—it would have been something that the Attorney-General would have done a bit more research on, rather than just simply making an ex gratia payment.

She has told the house that she received no advice and that the state was not at risk of not being able to defend this claim successfully. What we know is that the Attorney-General has told the parliament that at no time did she have any advice that there was any risk that the state would be at great risk of having a claim against it. That advice should be made publicly available to the house and to the public.

This is not a matter that has ongoing consideration: it has been settled. The government has signed the deed and paid the money. They should absolutely table that advice so that we can all see on what advice the Attorney relied. Because if the Attorney did not rely on the advice, and if Keogh's lawyers did not put in a formulated claim to the Attorney, we would like to know on what basis that payment was made. Was it on the basis that if Mr Keogh had sued the state his payment would have been in excess of $2.507 million, or was there advice saying the opposite? We would like to know.

We would also like to know why it is appropriate that the Attorney-General, who, before the Criminal Court of Appeal had made their findings in relation to Mr Keogh, had made some very strident remarks in this parliament in support of Mr Keogh. I would have thought that, at the very least, to give the appearance for the family of the victim, Ms Anna-Jane Cheney, the Attorney would have at least recused herself from the decision-making process and allowed her colleagues to independently assess whether this money being paid to Mr Keogh was meritorious.

We have seen the statement from the family, who are deeply hurt by the government's actions. In fact, they were deeply hurt that within their first hundred days the government felt fit to pay this money quickly. This story does not end today. I think the responses of the Attorney-General and Deputy Premier have raised more questions rather than answers. What is concerning for us is that the question of the guilt or innocence of Mr Keogh has not been settled. He was not acquitted by the court.

The conviction was set aside and the court ordered a retrial, and the court found that a jury could find Mr Keogh guilty of murder. In those circumstances, you would have to ask yourself—indeed, I would like to know what the Treasurer was thinking, or what the rest of the colleagues in the cabinet were thinking, or what the Premier thinks of the fact that the state has paid out this amount of money in what seems to me to be a very low-risk case of Mr Keogh successfully taking the state on.

It is also very interesting that the Cheney family has not had their correspondence replied to. I have received an email sent to the Premier by the father of Ms Cheney making comment about the impartiality—or lack of impartiality—by the shadow attorney-general at the time. Obviously, you can see in that a father's concerns about the impacts it might have later on. I can only imagine what the family is going through now, but I say to the family that we will continue to ask questions and continue to probe into what exactly has gone on and why.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT