House of Assembly - 25 May 2005

[This version of the document has been edited by Dr Robert N Moles
Underlining where it occurs is for editorial emphasis]

Henry Keogh

Vicky Chapman (Bragg)

What action will the Attorney-General take to expedite a decision on the current petition of Henry Keogh. On 18 May 2005 on ABC Radio, Michael Keogh, brother of Henry Keogh , stated the following:

The petition has been on the Attorney-General's desk for over 1000 days now, and I think the sad part, it doesn't seem to be of any importance.

The Hon.K.O. Foley

You are supporting a convicted murderer.

The Hon.R.G. Kerin

Point of order, sir. The Deputy Premier has imputed an improper motive to the member for Bragg, totally incorrectly, and he should apologise. Mr Speaker, I demand that the Deputy Premier apologise.

The Speaker

Order! You cannot demand that he apologise.

The Hon.R.G. Kerin

You should, though, sir.

The Speaker

Order, member for West Torrens! The Treasurer, as I heard it, said, `You support a convicted murderer.' I do not see that as unparliamentary.

The Hon.M.J. Atkinson

Mr Speaker, after Henry Keogh was convicted of murder, there was a petition of mercy lodged on his behalf. I will come to that. There were, in fact, three petitions of mercy.

Vicky Chapman

They are the ones waiting on your desk.

The Hon.M.J. Atkinson

Well, no, actually; it is not on my desk.

The first petition of mercy was referred by the Governor to the then attorney-general, the Hon. K.T. Griffin. I imagine that the then attorney-general sought advice from his solicitor-general about that. Indeed, I was only reading advice from the then solicitor-general John Doyle to the Hon. K.T. Griffin about a representation from David Szach, convicted of the murder of Derrance Stevenson, another matter that Graham Archer at Today Tonight is now agitating. That petition of mercy was refused.

Had it been accepted it would have been referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal for adjudication. A second petition of mercy was lodged by Henry Keogh and again it was referred to the Solicitor-General by the Attorney-General, and again the advice from the Solicitor-General to the Attorney-General was that there were not grounds to refer Henry Keogh's conviction to the Court of Criminal Appeal for adjudication because that is the process at law. There is now a third petition from Henry Keogh about his conviction and there is conjecture about the petition, whether it merely reproduces grounds that were already considered by the Solicitor-General in the Hon.K.T. Griffin's time and refused by the Hon.K.T. Griffin.

So cynical is the current opposition that, if it were a ground refused by the Hon.K.T. Griffin, that is good decision-making, but if we examine it carefully, that is a bad decision. The petition is currently with the Solicitor-General, who has a background in criminal law, both prosecuting and defence, and he will advise me on whether the petition should be referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal. What I find astonishing about this process is the vulgarity of the member for Bragg in trying to ingratiate herself with Graham Archer at Today Tonight and in trying to ingratiate herself with the supporters of Henry Keogh who, I gather, will be meeting at the Irish Club soon. So keen is she to ingratiate herself for the sake of a few votes that she is pretending...

The Hon.R.G. Kerin

On a point of order, the Attorney-General is debating the issue. The question was perfectly clear. He is imputing improper motives to the honourable member rather than actually answering the question as to why he is not doing his job.

The Speaker

Order! The Attorney is debating the issue now. If the member for Bragg feels so inclined she can make a personal explanation. As I understood it, to support the case does not mean to say that you condone the actions of a particular person. She is supporting it in terms of advocacy, I guess, in a legal sense. But if the member for Bragg takes offence, it is up to her, not the leader.

The Hon.M.J. Atkinson

As Attorney-General I am not saying that the member for Bragg is supporting or barracking for Henry Keogh by asking this question. Where the vulgarity and misrepresentation comes in is that the member for Bragg is trying to pressure me to make a political decision on a petition for mercy when she should know that petitions for mercy are quasi-judicial proceedings. They are not political decisions. If the Liberal Party wants to say that as a matter of politics

Ms Chapman interjecting

The Hon.M.J. Atkinson

I should refer Henry Keogh's third petition for mercy to the Court of Criminal Appeal in order to get her and Graham Archer off my back, then sorry: I am not going to do that. I am going to have this matter properly considered by the Solicitor-General in the same way

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon.M.J. Atkinson

The member for Bragg says, `He has': that is to say that the member for Bragg asserted that the Solicitor-General had completed his deliberations on the Henry Keogh petition: he has not.

Top of Page