PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "In announcing the Governor’s decision to deny the petition, the Acting Attorney-General made statements, the evident purpose of which was to assure the public that there was no reason to doubt Mr Keogh’s guilt [but] the Acting Attorney-General did not refer to that part of the document in which the Solicitor-General referred to the fact that the expert had told him he doubted the accuracy of an important aspect of Dr Manock’s evidence." “By disclosing some parts of the document and failing to reveal other parts of it, the Acting Attorney put Mr Keogh at a forensic disadvantage in that he deprived him of the opportunity to pursue a fruitful line of enquiry before presenting any further petitions for mercy.” Keogh told a parliamentary inquiry last year that the Vernon-Roberts report “was not disclosed to me or my legal team” for a further nine years, and was a key part of his successful case in the court of criminal appeal. “Had the Crown treated that report like the court of criminal appeal did, my case would have been referred and I would have been released a decade earlier than I actually was,” he said. “This deliberate non-disclosure cost me and my family another 10 years… and doubled the time I spent in prison. “I am entitled to ask those in the former Labor government – ‘why?’”
-----------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Vic judges brought in to avoid 'conflict of interest' in Keogh stoush," by reporter Tom Richardson, published by InDaily on January 14, 2019.
GIST: "Three Supreme Court judges have been seconded
from Victoria to help resolve a legal stoush over advice from SA’s
now-Chief Justice, Chris Kourakis, that was used to keep Henry Keogh in
jail for a further eight years. The temporary appointments have been made, the Government told InDaily, “at the request of the Chief Justice to avoid the perception of bias”. In 2003, then-Solicitor-General Kourakis conducted a three-year
review of the evidence in the Keogh case, after his lawyers questioned
the evidence of forensic pathologist Colin Manock. At the time, Keogh had served the first decade of his 25-year
sentence, after his 1995 conviction for the drowning murder of his
fiancé Anna-Jane Cheney. Kourakis’ report, which remains confidential, was used by the former
Labor Government to justify its rejection for Keogh’s clemency bid, with
acting-Attorney-General Kevin Foley telling a 2006 media conference:
“The overwhelming body of evidence shows very clearly that Mr Henry
Keogh is guilty of a terrible, terrible crime.” Keogh’s conviction was finally overturned in 2014 by the Court of
Criminal Appeal, which found there had been a miscarriage of justice due
to flawed forensic evidence. A retrial was later dropped after the
Director of Public Prosecutions withdrew all charges. The Marshall
Liberal Government last year controversially paid Keogh a $2.57 million
compensation settlement. The Kourakis advice is currently at the centre of an ongoing Freedom
Of Information battle, with Channel 7 – whose flagship current affairs
program in SA Today Tonight has long supported Keogh’s cause – seeking access to the documents. The network’s initial FOI request was knocked back, with the
Attorney-General’s Department citing legal professional privilege. The
ruling was upheld after an internal review, but Channel 7 then sought an
independent review by SA Ombudsman Wayne Lines, who overturned the
department’s decision. Lines determined that while the advice had been subject to legal
professional privilege, that had been effectively waived by Foley’s
detailed comments on the case at the 2006 media conference. “The Acting Attorney-General’s conduct was inconsistent with maintenance of the privilege,” Lines determined. The Ombudsman said that Kourakis, in the course of formulating his
advice, “sought and received a report of an expert [the state’s
then-head of pathology Barrie Vernon-Roberts] who cast doubt on an
important aspect of the evidence given at Mr Keogh’s trial by the
prosecution witness Dr Manock”. “The fact that this expert cast this doubt on an important aspect of
Dr Manock’s evidence was communicated in the document, and can be taken
to have been known by the Acting Attorney-General,” Lines found. “In announcing the Governor’s decision to deny the petition, the
Acting Attorney-General made statements, the evident purpose of which
was to assure the public that there was no reason to doubt Mr Keogh’s
guilt [but] the Acting Attorney-General did not refer to that part of
the document in which the Solicitor-General referred to the fact that
the expert had told him he doubted the accuracy of an important aspect
of Dr Manock’s evidence." “By disclosing some parts of the document and failing to reveal other
parts of it, the Acting Attorney put Mr Keogh at a forensic
disadvantage in that he deprived him of the opportunity to pursue a
fruitful line of enquiry before presenting any further petitions for
mercy.” Keogh told a parliamentary inquiry last year that the Vernon-Roberts
report “was not disclosed to me or my legal team” for a further nine
years, and was a key part of his successful case in the court of
criminal appeal. “Had the Crown treated that report like the court of criminal appeal
did, my case would have been referred and I would have been released a
decade earlier than I actually was,” he said. “This deliberate non-disclosure cost me and my family another 10 years… and doubled the time I spent in prison. “I am entitled to ask those in the former Labor government – ‘why?’” Lines also found that Kourakis’ advice did not inform cabinet or
executive council deliberations, but rather was advice that the
Attorney-General conveyed “directly to the Governor through the
Premier”, and thus was not exempt under confidentiality provisions.
https://indaily.com.au/news/2019/01/14/vic-judges-brought-in-to-avoid-conflict-of-interest-in-keogh-stoush/
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/
