HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-05-01 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Keogh Case

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (14:30): My question is to the Attorney-General. Does the Attorney-General accept the conclusion of Chief Justice Chris Kourakis SC that Keogh lied to several people about the full value of insurance that Keogh had taken out on Anna-Jane Cheney's life before she was murdered?

The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER: Point of order, sir: standing order 97, and especially given the report of the Supreme Court on an array of comments from Mr Foley, I think quoting selectively from documents of this nature is very concerning, especially when he doesn't have the leave of the house.

The SPEAKER: I have the point of order. Given what is being traversed today, I am going to allow that question but I do have regard to what the minister is saying. I will allow the Attorney an opportunity to answer.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Could he repeat the question.

The SPEAKER: Could you please repeat the question, thank you.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: My question is to the Attorney-General. Does the Attorney-General accept the conclusion of Chief Justice Chris Kourakis that Keogh lied to several people about the full value of insurance that Keogh had taken out on Anna-Jane Cheney's life before she was murdered?

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (14:31): I have no view on that and nor do I seek to do so. As I have said before, the question of Mr Keogh and his guilt or innocence is not a matter that I propose to proffer any contribution on.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: The matter—

Mr Picton interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Kaurna is called to order

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: —that has been traversed in the Full Court that relates to his claim indeed relates to the quashing of the sentence. The matter that relates to the Full Court determination, which led to the tabling of that historical document, is a matter that relates to freedom of information law, and it's an important law. It's an important decision of the Supreme Court. Everyone in this room should appreciate the significance of that law in relation to the protection of privilege.

It details, in particular, legal professional privilege, but just in this chamber we of course need to be aware of the parliamentary privilege that we protect for the purposes of citizens. It is an important piece of law, and so the issue in relation to the material as to opinion is historical and is of interest to some but is of no import for my personal determination about whether it's right or wrong.

Mr Malinauskas interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The deputy leader is called to order.

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