Petition of Henry Vincent Keogh

To Her Excellency Marjorie Jackson-Nelson
Governor of South Australia

[Hereinafter referred to as “The Third Petition”]

Background

In August 1995 The Petitioner was convicted of the murder of his fiancée Anna-Jane Cheney, a 29 year old solicitor. The prosecution case was that when she was taking a bath he gripped one of her legs, raising it up and thereby forcing her head underwater, causing her to drown. The motive, it was said, was to cash in her insurance policies and to acquire the benefit of those proceeds.

The Petitioner now claims that the advice to your Excellency in causing you to reject the Second Petition of the Petitioner was erroneous. He requests that his complaints contained herein be further considered by you, according to law.

Introduction

1 Details of the Petitioner’s previous legal procedures are contained in the introduction to the Second Petition.
[See Appendix 1]

2 The Petitioner complains that neither his First Petition nor his Second Petition were determined according to law.

3 In relation to the Second Petition the Attorney General for the State of South Australia has provided two detailed statements to the South Australian Parliament purporting to explain the reasons upon which his advice to the Governor was based.

The first statement was made by the Attorney General to the Legislative Council of the South Australian Parliament on 20 February 2003.
[See Appendix 2]

The second statement was made by the Attorney General to the House of Assembly of the South Australian Parliament on 1 April 2003.
[See Appendix 3]

The Petitioner claims that the Attorney General sought advice from the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions of South Australia and from the South Australian Forensic Science Centre. Both of those organisations (or officers of them) were the subject of complaints in the Second Petition. The Petitioner claims that it was therefore inappropriate for the Director of Public Prosecutions to provide advice to the Attorney General.

The Petitioner complains that much of the information provided to the Parliament of South Australia in the statements by the Attorney General was misleading or incorrect, and as a result, the Governor of South Australia has acted on advice which was inappropriate. As a consequence the Petitioner claims that the Second Petition was not considered according to law. The Petitioner now provides the details of his complaints.

The Second Petition

1 The Attorney General

In his statement to the South Australian Legislative Council on Thursday 20 February 2003 the Attorney General stated:

Dr Manock's evidence as to how the bruises came to be on the victim's leg in the Keogh case had marginal weight and relevance to the prosecution case.

… the verdict did not depend on Dr Manock's evidence.

Facts

In his final address to the jury, at the trial of the Petitioner, the Director of Public Prosecutions stated in reference to Dr Manock’s evidence:

Whereas to murder I suggest the bruising on the lower left leg, if that is a grip mark, is almost in itself conclusive, providing you accept that it was applied at or about the time of death.
[Transcript of Keogh Trial p1019].

… you might give him the benefit of the doubt, explain away in some way, the one positive indication of murder, namely the grip mark on the bottom left leg.
[Transcript of Keogh Trial p1022.

But there are two things, you might think, that are crucial to this case. If those four bruises on her lower left leg were inflicted at the same time, and that time was just before she died in the bath, there is no other explanation for them, other than a grip. If it was a grip, it must have been the grip of the accused. If it was the grip of the accused, it must have been part of the act of murder.
[Transcript of Keogh Trial p1062. See also Appendix 4]

Complaint

The statement by the Attorney General is inconsistent with the prosecutor’s address to the jury at the trial of the Petitioner. The Petitioner says that the Attorney, properly advised, should have informed the Parliament that the prosecutor described Dr Manock’s evidence about the so-called grip mark as the one positive indication of murder and crucial to the Crown case.

2 The Attorney General

In his statement to the South Australian House of Assembly on 1 April 2003 the Attorney General stated:

The most critical aspects of that evidence [Dr Manock’s evidence] were confirmed by other evidence.

Facts

Dr Manock’s evidence was:

Not confirmed by the microscopic examination of the tissues – the histology.

Not confirmed by the photographic evidence.

Not confirmed by any other expert evidence.

The Attorney General told Parliament that the other experts who gave evidence (Dr James, Professor Cordner and Professor Ansford) confirmed Dr Manock’s evidence. That is not correct. The explanation of this was set out at length in the Second Petition. The most that was said was that - if Dr Manock saw the bruises he described, then that could be consistent with a grip mark.

Complaint

The extensive issues raised by the Petitioner in relation to Dr Manock’s evidence in the Second Petition were not properly evaluated, and should now be considered according to law.

3 The Attorney General

In his statement to the South Australian Legislative Council on Thursday 20 February 2003 the Attorney General stated:

Indeed, much of Dr Manock's evidence was … supported by photographic evidence.

Facts

The photographic evidence did not support Dr Manock’s evidence. When correctly interpreted, it demonstrates that Dr Manock’s theory as to the cause of death is impossible.
[See Appendices 5 and 6 and 16]

Complaint

The extensive issues raised by the Petitioner in relation to photographs in the Second Petition were not properly evaluated, and should now be considered according to law.

4 The Attorney General

In his statement to the South Australian House of Assembly on 1 April 2003 the Attorney General stated:

The explanation for the failure to identify bruising on the inner left ankle could be either that the mark was not a bruise or that the tissue removed from that area for histopathology did not contain the bruised area, but sections of the other marks on the front of the legs clearly confirm their nature as bruises.

Facts

The crucial evidence by Dr Manock supporting the grip theory depended on the existence of four bruises. In particular, upon the existence of a bruise on the inner (medial) side of the left leg of Ms Cheney. The above statement appears to accept the argument which has been advanced on behalf of the Petitioner in the Second Petition that the histology slide which is said to be of the bruise at this location discloses no evidence of bruising at all. As the grip theory is entirely dependent upon the configuration of four bruises, this new interpretation of the evidence is sufficient to destroy the grip theory on the basis of which the Petitioner was convicted.

However, no one other than the Attorney General (in the above statement) has ever suggested that there was a bruise on the lower left ankle. The Attorney should be asked to explain why he has introduced this new issue in his statement, when it has never previously been part of the evidence which supported the conviction of the Petitioner.

Complaint

The extensive issues raised by the Petitioner in relation to bruising in the Second Petition were not properly evaluated and should now be considered according to law.

5 The Attorney General

In his statement to the South Australian House of Assembly on 1 April 2003 the Attorney General stated:

Significantly, none of the other pathologists who gave evidence at Henry Keogh’s trial said that the bruising could have occurred after death.

Facts

This statement is incorrect. Dr Manock described the bruising as being peri-mortem. This means about the time of death. It includes the period shortly after death, as well as the period shortly before death. The other pathologists who gave evidence were never asked about this question at trial. If they had been asked, they would have acknowledged (as they have done since) that the persons who moved Ms Cheney’s body shortly after death could have caused bruising to the legs or head. This would include the persons at the scene, and the persons who lifted her body in order to carry it from the premises before placing it on a barouche.

Complaint

 The extensive issues raised by the Petitioner in relation to causation of bruising in the Second Petition were not properly evaluated, and should now be considered according to law.

6 The Attorney General

In his statement to the South Australian Legislative Council on Thursday 20 February 2003 the Attorney General stated in relation to the ABC's 4Corners program entitled “Expert Witness” broadcast on 22 October 2001:

It is worth noting that key South Australian pathologists declined to participate in the program.
[See Appendices 5 and 6]

Facts

This is misleading and does not explain the reasons which they gave for their decision. Ms Sally Neighbour of the ABC 4Corners Program telephoned Dr John Gilbert, Dr Ross James and Dr Roger Byard. They each informed Ms Neighbour that they were unable to participate in the program because they had been informed by Dr Kobus, the Director of the Forensic Science Centre, that he had been informed by the Office of the Minister for Administrative Services that they would not be allowed to participate.

The Attorney General’s incomplete statement to the House suggests that the pathologists concerned may have had other reasons for not participating in the program. Whether or not that is so, it is clear that the principle reason which they gave for their unwillingness to participate in the program was that they were acting in accordance with an instruction from his colleague, the Minister for Administrative Services.

Complaint

The failure of the Attorney General to inform the Parliament of this factor, may have given rise to adverse inferences regarding the validity of the claims made by the Petitioner in his Second Petition. In any event, it indicates that the Attorney General had failed to properly consider this matter when providing advice in relation to the Second Petition, which should now be considered according to law.  

7 The Attorney General

In his statement to the South Australian Legislative Council on Thursday 20 February 2003 the Attorney General stated in relation to the ABC's 4Corners program entitled “Expert Witness” broadcast on 22 October 2001:

The report did not say whether Dr Manock had been asked to comment.

Facts

This is incorrect. The transcript of the program states:

Dr Manock would not be interviewed and would not discuss the details of any case. So the bewildering questions about how he worked and how he reached his conclusions remain unanswered.

Dr Manock was telephoned on a number of occasions by Ms Neighbour, and invited to be interviewed for the program. He had some discussion with her, but refused to participate in any interview.  

Complaint

The Attorney General’s incomplete statement to the House suggests that Dr Manock was not given a fair opportunity to put his views. This may have given rise to adverse inferences regarding the claims made by the Petitioner in his Second Petition. In any event, it indicates that the Attorney General failed to properly consider this matter when providing advice in relation to the Second Petition, which should now be considered according to law.

8 The Attorney General

In his statement to the South Australian Legislative Council on Thursday 20 February 2003 the Attorney General stated in relation to the ABC's 4Corners program entitled “Expert Witness” broadcast on 22 October 2001:

The report made some serious assertions but there was no serious attempt at balance or context or accuracy, and the report verged on dishonesty in the way it sensationalised the Keogh trial and Dr Manock's part in it.

Facts

The claims made in that program were similar to those which were contained in the Second Petition of the Petitioner. The Petitioner can substantiate all of the claims which were made in the Second Petition and by extension the claims made in the program referred to. If the Attorney General had formed the view that such claims were either “dishonest” or “sensationalized” without giving the Petitioner or the ABC any opportunity to substantiate those claims, then he has clearly pre-judged the matter, which is a serious failure of natural justice. Such claims by the Attorney General indicate that he had failed to properly consider the complaints of the Petitioner when providing advice in relation to the Second Petition.

Complaint

In his evaluation of the Second Petition of the Petitioner, the Attorney General demonstrated prejudice and bias. The complaints of the Petitioner must now be considered according to law.

9 The Attorney General

In his statement to the South Australian Legislative Council on Thursday 20 February 2003 the Attorney General stated in relation to the Findings of the Coroner of 25 August 1995 in relation to the Baby Deaths case:

… the fact that certain people were not prosecuted in relation to the deaths is not attributable to the impugned findings of Dr Manock

Facts

This is incorrect. The Coroner, at the conclusion of his examination of the case of Storm Deane (aged 3 months) said that:

..the post-mortem examination achieved the opposite of what should have been its purpose – it closed off lines of investigation rather than opening them up.
[Emphasis added]

The Coroner, at the conclusion of his examination of the case of Joshua Nottle (aged 9 months) said that:

Dr Manock’s investigation, and his subsequent report, provided innocent explanations for the most serious injuries found on Joshua’s body, explanations that I am now satisfied were incorrect. In those circumstances, and in common with the other two cases, the post-mortem examination basically achieved the opposite of its proper purpose in that it closed off lines of investigation rather than opening them up.
[Emphasis added]

I consider Dr Manock’s explanation that he was waiting for further information from the police to be spurious. In my view, it was incumbent upon him to provide the detectives with information so that they would know what to look for.
[Emphasis added]

The Coroner, in the case of Billy Barnard (aged 9 months) said that Dr Manock had said that he could not recall why he did not weigh the lungs. Dr Manock now agreed that bronchopneumonia was unlikely to have been the cause of death. He was unable to recall what he saw in the slides which had led him to this conclusion. The Coroner said that it was astonishing that a pathologist in his position had not seen fit to write it down. The Coroner reported that Dr Manock said he did not send the brain for examination, because he was waiting for something from the detectives, so that he could tell the specialist what to look for. The Coroner said of this:

As Coroner I am perplexed at this statement. Dr Blumbergs [the specialist] is perfectly capable of examining the brain without being told what to look for...

He went on to say:

I am quite unable to accept Dr Manock’s explanation as to why he did not offer this further information to the investigators immediately after the post-mortem examination concluded. It is spurious, in my opinion, to suggest that he did not offer these alternative explanations because he was waiting for further information from the detectives. Unlike Dr Blumbergs, who did not need to be told what to look for, the detectives should have received all the assistance possible so that their investigations could focus on particular issues. With a diagnosis of bronchopneumonia the investigation had no focus.
[Emphasis added]

Complaint

The Attorney General has failed to recognize the seriousness of the criticisms of Dr Manock by the Coroner, and this has adversely effected his evaluation of the complaints of the Petitioner in the Second Petition which should now be considered according to law.

10 The Attorney General

In his statement to the South Australian Legislative Council on Thursday 20 February 2003 the Attorney General stated in relation to the Findings of the Coroner of 25 August 1995 in relation to the Baby Deaths case:

Neither the evidence produced at the inquest, nor the coronial findings, could lead to any real doubt as to Dr Manock's expertise to conduct the autopsy in the Keogh case.

Facts

In the Channel 7 Today Tonight program in relation to this specific claim by the Attorney General, the following comments were broadcast:

Graham Archer: Correct? Totally wrong. While the subjects were babies, Manock failed to diagnose injury and infection common in both infants and adults. No specialised skills were required for that.

Dr Tony Thomas: Not in that particular context –  of the interpretation of bronchopneumonia or even as I said fractured bones which one would expect a forensic pathologist to deal with in adults as well as in children.

Dr Tony Thomas was the specialist forensic pathologist relied upon by the Coroner in the Baby Deaths case.
[See Appendices 7 and 8]

In the Baby Deaths case, the Coroner found that Dr Manock had “seen things which could not have been seen” – such as evidence of bronchopneumonia, which the Coroner found did not exist.

The Coroner also found that Dr Manock had not properly recorded his findings. He said that it was astonishing that a pathologist in his position had not seen fit to write down the facts upon which his opinions had been based.
[See Appendix 9]

Dr Manock has never been properly trained or qualified in histopathology which is a basic requirement for the modern practice of pathology.

It is unreasonable and unacceptable for the Attorney General to state that these shortcomings only arise when Dr Manock is conducting paediatric autopsies.

Complaint

The Attorney General has failed to recognize the seriousness of the criticisms of Dr Manock, and this has adversely effected his evaluation of the claims of the Petitioner in the Second Petition, which should now be considered according to law.

11 The Attorney General

In his statement to the South Australian House of Assembly on 1 April 2003 the Attorney General stated in relation to the investigation:

The information I have been given confirms that the investigator followed the guidelines based on his assessment of the death scene.

Facts

This is incorrect. The Police Forensic Procedures Manual (PFPM) is part of the Police General Orders, and establishes the regulatory framework under which the police operate.
[See Appendix 10]

The PFPM states that the provisions which it contains are the minimum operating standards which are to be adhered to. In many respects those standards and procedures were ignored in relation to Ms Cheney’s death. The Director of Public Prosecutions has stated that he did not know of the existence of this manual, and that he had never seen it. In the interview with Channel 7 Today Tonight the following exchange took place:

Rohan Wenn: In your view was it unfortunate that Manock was the only one who got to see the body?

Mr Rofe: No, as I said that was the established procedure at the time, in my experience.

Rohan Wenn: But it goes against the Police Forensic Guidelines.

Mr Rofe: Well I haven't seen those, and I'm not aware of them.
[See Appendices 11 and 12]

Shortly after the interview, Mr Rofe rang Mr Wenn to state that the document referred to as the Police Forensic Procedures Manual did not exist. Mr Wenn informed Mr Rofe that it did exist and that he had a copy of it in his possession. Indeed, he offered to fax a copy of it to Mr Rofe. The DPP declined that offer.

The PFPM states that in a situation of a sudden and unexplained death (as was the case in relation to Ms Cheney’s death) the following procedures must be adhered to:

The scene must be cordoned off, and even the operational officers must not be given access to the scene until it is released to them by the crime scene investigators. This was not done.

All relevant conditions and circumstances must be properly recorded. This was not done.

If the Director of Public Prosecutions was unaware of the existence of the PFPM then he would be unable to make a proper assessment of the evidence and procedures undertaken by the police in the case of the Petitioner or any other case. He would be unable to provide competent and professional advice to the Attorney General in relation to such matters.

Complaint

The Attorney General has received inappropriate advice and has made an inappropriate assessment of the Petitioner’s serious criticisms of the failure of the police procedures at the scene. This has adversely effected the Attorney’s evaluation of the claims of the Petitioner in the Second Petition, which must now be considered according to law.

12 The Attorney General

In his statement to the South Australian House of Assembly on 1 April 2003 the Attorney General stated in relation to the investigation:

There is no evidence that Anna-Jane's body was in any way tidied up.

Fact

This is incorrect. Contrary to what the Attorney stated to the Parliament, the photographic evidence clearly demonstrates that Ms Cheney’s body was tidied up at the scene. Mrs Cheney (Anna’s mother) has also confirmed to Mr Archer, the producer of Channel 7 Today Tonight, that she re-applied make-up to the face of her daughter at the scene.

In his interview with Channel 7 Today Tonight, the following exchange took place with Mr Rofe the Director of Public Prosecutions:

Rohan Wenn: Anna's face - while she was still at the house - was made up - and her hair was combed, indicating that somebody had dealt with the body. Didn't that concern you?

Mr Rofe: I don't know what you’re talking about.

Rohan Wenn: Well there are photos that were taken by police at the time that show her face unmade and her hair messy - and then later photos show that her face had actually been made up and her hair had been combed, which would indicate that somebody had made her hair up and did her makeup. Were you aware of that?

Mr Rofe: No.

Rohan Wenn: Does that concern you?

Mr Rofe: No.

Rohan Wenn: Doesn't concern you that that somebody’s taken the time to do her make-up and hair and therefore may have done other things to the body?

Mr Rofe: Like....bruises or something?

Rohan Wenn: Well who knows, I think that's the question.

Mr Rofe: Well I think that is the question, but you can speculate on these sorts of things forever. What they should be, as I keep saying, is that they should be put before a court and say are they are of significance or not?

Rohan Wenn: Well if they were put before a court would you consider them significant?

Mr Rofe: It's not for me to make those decisions. That, simply, I don't regard as significant.

Rohan Wenn: But, it does indicate that somebody has been dealing with the body.

Mr Rofe: That's your interpretation of it.

Rohan Wenn: Well how else does she get made up and then get her hair done?

Mr Rofe: I have got no idea. But it may be someone who just out of respect for a dead person ...

Rohan Wenn: Which is fine, except it does indicate that somebody has been dealing with the body.

Mr Rofe: Well it may have been a coroner's assistant. I don't know.

Rohan Wenn: Making her up at the scene of the death?

Mr Rofe: Look I honestly don't know, but it doesn't concern me.

The statements by Mr Rofe that he did not know about this interference to the body at the scene and that if it took place it would be of no concern to him is clearly inappropriate. It demonstrates that his advice to the Attorney General on the Petitioner’s previous Petition should not have been relied upon.

Complaint

The Attorney General has received inappropriate advice and has made an inappropriate assessment of the Petitioner’s serious criticisms of the failure of the police procedures at the scene. This has adversely effected the Attorney’s evaluation of the claims of the Petitioner in the Second Petition, which should now be considered according to law.

13 The Attorney General

In his statement to the South Australian House of Assembly on 1 April 2003 the Attorney General stated in relation to the investigation:

In 1994 it was the policy of the State Forensic Science Centre to take only black and white photographs. For the purposes of examining suspected bruises, black and white photographs are useful because they can be enhanced better than can colour photographs to help with the examination. Therefore, it is quite wrong to suggest that the use of black and white photographs was a poor technique - it was a good practice.

Facts

The Attorney General has misinformed the Parliament in relation to the policy of the Forensic Science Centre in 1994. There are many cases in which the Forensic Science Centre has produced colour autopsy photographs prior to 1994.

The Attorney General should have advised the Parliament where such a policy was to be found if it existed.

The Petitioner claims that there was no such policy. In the alternative the Petitioner claims that if there were such a policy it would have been contrary to common sense, sound practice and national and international experience and standards in the area of pathology.

In his interview with Channel 7 Today Tonight, Professor Derrick Pounder, a pathologist with an international reputation stated:

We would never take a black and white photograph instead of a colour photograph.
[See Appendices 13 and 14]

Complaint

The Attorney General has received inappropriate advice and has made an inappropriate assessment of the Petitioner’s serious criticisms of the failure of the procedures at the South Australian Forensic Science Centre. This has adversely effected the Attorney’s evaluation of the claims of the Petitioner in the Second Petition, which should now be considered according to law.

Dr Tony Thomas

14 The Attorney General

In his statement to the South Australian House of Assembly on 1 April 2003 the Attorney General stated:

Professor Thomas was not a forensic pathologist when he appeared on Four Corners.

Fact

That statement was incorrect. At that time Dr Thomas had been instructed by the Coroner to undertake some 300 autopsies in South Australia. He was also the Chief Examiner for the Royal College of Pathology of Australasia in Anatomical Pathology. He had been the independent consultant engaged by the South Australian Coroner to provide him with advice in relation to his inquiry into the Baby Deaths case. The Coroner clearly stated in his Findings that he accepted without question the advice which had been provided to him by Dr Thomas.

Complaint

The Petitioner had placed significant reliance upon the expert opinion of Dr Thomas in his Second Petition. The Attorney General has clearly failed to properly evaluate the expert opinions of Dr Thomas in that Petition, which should now be determined according to law.

15 The Attorney General

In his statement to the South Australian House of Assembly on 1 April 2003 the Attorney General stated:

I am told [Dr Thomas] had not carried out a post mortem investigation on a homicide case in South Australia.

Facts

Dr Thomas had completed around 300 autopsies on the instructions of the South Australian Coroner. It is clear that the cause of death cannot be known prior to the completion of the autopsy, therefore it would be impossible to assign Dr Thomas to “non-homicide” cases. Dr Thomas had been the independent consultant engaged by the South Australian Coroner to provide him with advice in relation to his inquiry into the Baby Deaths case which was clearly thought to involve cases of suspected homicide.

Complaint

The Petitioner had placed significant reliance upon the expert opinion of Dr Thomas in his Second Petition. The Attorney General has clearly failed to properly evaluate the expert opinions of Dr Thomas in that Petition, which should now be considered according to law.

16 The Attorney General

In his statement to the South Australian House of Assembly on 1 April 2003 the Attorney General stated the following from a judgment by Magistrate Baldino:

I formed the distinct impression that the Professor's views, opinions and hypothesis were not entirely impartial and independent. In this regard I am compelled to agree with the prosecution submission that Professor Thomas was `obviously not an unbiased witness'. As a general principle it should never be overlooked that an expert's role is to assist the court rather than to go into battle for the party which hires his forensic skills. The absence of independ­ence in an expert's evidence renders it unreliable and unsatisfactory.

Whilst the Attorney General quoted extensively from the remarks of Magistrate Baldino which were critical of Dr Tony Thomas, he failed to mention to the Parliament that the Magistrate’s decision had been appealed to the Supreme Court. In that appeal Justice Mullighan overturned the decision of the magistrate. In doing so, he referred to the reasons as to why the magistrate had disregarded the evidence of Dr Thomas.

In relation to the first of the reasons Mullighan J said that he was unable to see the point of the observation by the magistrate.

In relation to the second observation of the magistrate, he said that “there could be no basis for rejecting the evidence of Professor Thomas for that reason”.

In relation to the third observation of the magistrate, Mullighan J said that “In my view, the evidence of Constable Smith was unsatisfactory and did not discredit the opinion of Professor Thomas about the possible circumstances of the blood stains in any way”.

In relation to the fourth matter, Mullighan J said that the learned magistrate formed the impression that Professor Thomas’s views were not entirely impartial. He said of this that:

These are very serious findings so far as Professor Thomas is concerned. He is a specialist in his profession and holds senior and important positions at the Flinders Medical Centre and the Forensic Science Centre where he is an honorary senior consultant. He has a long history of working in forensic pathology overseas and in this State. The finding of the learned magistrate reflects poorly upon him. He gave no reasons for his conclusions. It may be seen that his adverse finding was not based upon a matter of credit or his demeanour in the witness box. It may have been based upon a matter of attitude but that is a matter of speculation. Certainly no suggestion of lack of impartiality or independence or bias was put to Professor Thomas during his evidence by the prosecutor or the learned magistrate. There is no hint of any of these matters in his evidence. His observations and opinions appear to have been recounted in an entirely appropriate manner.
[Emphasis added]

In my view the learned magistrate erred in his dismissal of Professor Thomas’s evidence from his consideration.

The judge went on to allow the appeal. He quashed the conviction and entered a verdict of acquittal. He considered that a re-trial was inappropriate in the circumstances.
[See Appendix 15]

Complaint

The failure by the Attorney General to inform the Parliament that the views expressed by Magistrate Baldino had been fully and completely rejected by the Supreme Court was misleading. In addition to the grave injustice inflicted upon Dr Thomas, the Attorney General has clearly failed to properly evaluate the expert opinions of Dr Thomas in the Second Petition of the Petitioner, which should now be determined according to law.

Top of Page