Networked Knowledge - Media Reports

Henry Keogh homepage
Article: Australian law on miscarriages of justice
Article: UK law on miscarriages of justice
Article: USA law on miscarriages of justice

News Release

Government of South Australia

www.ministers.sa.gov.au

Hon Kevin Foley
Acting Premier
Acting Attorney General

Thursday 10 August 2006

KEOGH’S THIRD PETITION FOR MERCY REFUSED

Her Excellency the Governor has declined to exercise the prerogative of mercy, on advice, on the third petition of mercy from convicted murderer Henry Keogh and has today written to his lawyers to advise them.

Acting Attorney General Kevin Foley says he has also declined to refer the petition to the Supreme Court, after considering advice received from the Solicitor General Chris Kourakis QC.

Mr Foley says that after considering the report of the Solicitor General, delivered after an exhaustive examination over two and a half years of 37 complaints contained in Mr Keogh’s third petition, he formed the opinion that it did not disclose any arguable basis on which the Supreme Court could find that there had been a miscarriage of justice.

[The following quotations from the advice of the Solicitor-General have the effect of waiving any legal privilege there may have been in that advice]

“Nor does it disclose any reason to doubt Mr Keogh’s guilt of the murder in 1994 of Anna Jane Cheney,” Mr Foley said.

“It is important to understand that the case against Mr Keogh was never dependent on the pathology evidence alone.

“For example, in his address to the jury, the prosecutor Paul Rofe QC said: ‘If this was just pathology evidence then Keogh should be acquitted.’

“The trial judge too directed the jury that: ‘It is accepted by both sides that the pathology evidence, by itself does not solve this case for you.’

“Rather it was the overwhelming strength of the whole of the circumstantial evidence against Mr Keogh that led, and still leads, to a conclusion of guilt.

“Some of the criticisms of the way in which Dr Manock conducted the autopsy of Ms Cheney may be valid. However, those matters were known to the defendant’s lawyers or the expert pathologists they engaged at the time of trial.

“There was no deficiency in the prosecution’s disclosure. Nor is there any feature of the way in which the trial was conducted that shows any real risk that there was a miscarriage of justice on this ground.

“Nothing that the petitioner, or his lobbyists through the media have raised, change the facts surrounding the awful death of Ms Cheney.”

Mr Foley says on reading Mr Kourakis’ report, it reminds us of evidence at the trial which found Ms Cheney was found dead in her bath;

at a time when without her knowledge, her life was insured to a total value of about $1.2 million under five policies that had been fraudulently obtained by Mr Keogh, by forging her signature on the policy applications;

the very day after she and Mr Keogh had attended on a wedding celebrant to register their intent to solemnise a relationship that Mr Keogh had betrayed by having affairs with two other women;

within 24 hours of her suffering up to 15 bruises to different parts of her body.

with two bruises at the very top of her head that are difficult to explain innocently.

“The combined weight of the circumstances is more than enough to prove Mr Keogh’s guilt.

“Moreover, the lies told by Mr Keogh to several people, including Ms Cheney’s father and the police shortly after her death can be viewed as an attempt to conceal the full value of the insurance he had taken out on her life, and therefore the amount he stood to gain from her death.

“It is not arguable that there has been a miscarriage of justice,” Mr Foley said.

Mr Foley said the report notes that other complaints made in support of the petition were totally without merit, such as:

Ms Cheney’s car was missing on the night of her death suggesting that a person other than Mr Keogh was involved:
Police photographs taken on the night show that there was a car in the driveway of Ms Cheney’s home. More importantly, Mr Keogh gave evidence on his trial that it was there. This claim was either made without Mr Keogh’s instructions or, alternatively, it was raised and supported by Mr Keogh in the knowledge that it was contrary to his evidence.

It was not possible for Ms Cheney to have been drowned in the bath:
Strong criticisms were advanced of one possible scenario that was advanced at trial by Dr Manock. Indeed the defence mounted a strong attack on Dr Manock’s hypothesis at trial. However, Dr Manock’s theory was only ever presented as one possible way in which Mr Keogh might have drowned Ms Cheney. Although the pathologists called by the defence at Mr Keogh’s trial strongly disagreed with Dr Manock’s theory, they all agreed that another could have deliberately drowned Ms Cheney. That concession is obviously correct. Apart from the specious suggestion that there was insufficient water in the bath, no other reason for doubting the possibility that was advanced by the petitioner.

There was not enough water in the bath for Ms Cheney to have drowned:
Mr Keogh’s own evidence was that he found Ms Cheney with her face under water. The preponderance of eyewitness accounts establishes that the bath was one-half to three-quarters full.

A photograph of Mr Keogh’s left hand was reversed when it was developed so that it appeared to be his right hand:
The allegation is correct. However, the photograph was never used at either of Mr Keogh’s trials. It was an exhibit to a statement tendered at the committal heating but was never tendered on his trial before a jury. It was in all likelihood a photographic development error that could not possibly have affected Mr Keogh’s trial in any way. An interview with Mr Rofe QC about this matter that was broadcast on the television current affairs program Today Tonight is reproduced in the petition. The reporter asserted in that interview that the photographs had been admitted into evidence on Mr Keogh’s trial. That assertion is patently wrong.

A photograph of Ms Cheney’s legs shows an injection mark or insect sting:
Neither the police who carefully examined Ms Cheney’s body on the night, nor Dr Manock, saw any such mark. If it had caused an allergic reaction it would have been obvious. An independent expert has reported that there is no evidence upon which to conclude that Ms Cheney suffered an anaphylactic reaction.

Ms Cheney may have suffered an allergic reaction to Naprosyn tablets found in the home:
The Forensic Science Centre conducted tests of Ms Cheney’s blood and no trace of Naprosyn was found.

Some swelling of Ms Cheney’s face is apparent in photographs taken of her body on the night of her death:

Police officers who closely examined Ms Cheney’s body reported no swelling. Importantly, neither did Mr Keogh. Relying on the photographic appearances, it has been insinuated that the appearance of Ms Cheney’s face was deliberately altered after her death. The allegation is inherently improbable. No motive for any such conduct is given. Moreover, Mr Keogh was present in the house at all relevant times. He has certainly never suggested that he saw anyone at the house attempt to change Ms Cheney’s facial appearance.

For further information contact Jill Bottrall on 8463 3362 or 0419 990 160

Top of Page