Family of Anna Jane Cheney demands to see legal opinions on $2.57m payout to Henry Keogh
THE family of murder victim Anna Jane Cheney have demanded the state government release legal advice that led to it paying her alleged killer Henry Keogh $2.57 million compensation.
THE family of murder victim Anna Jane Cheney has called on the State Government to release the legal advice it relied on to make a $2.57 million ex-gratia payment to her suspected killer, Henry Keogh.
And former Attorney-General John Rau yesterday broke his silence on the payout, stating his recollection of the legal advice was that “the state did not face a significant risk of a successful legal action by Mr Keogh’’.
As serious questions continue to be raised over the controversial payout, The Advertiser can reveal an initial request for compensation by Mr Keogh’s lawyers last year was rejected by the former Labor government.
The lawyers were told to present a formulated claim for compensation — but up until the March 17 election, this had not occurred.
As part of the process, Mr Rau commissioned an independent opinion on the compensation request from respected barristers Jonathon Wells QC and Ben Doyle.
A Cheney family member yesterday said he would like all legal opinions obtained by the former government – and any obtained subsequently by the current government – to be released publicly.
“It is taxpayers’ money,’’ he said.
“It would enable us to satisfy ourselves a proper course of action has been taken.
“We are not talking about a cheque for $50,000 – it is a huge amount of money.’’
“We would like some answers surrounding this process and to see if it has been correct. If it has not been then we need to work out what the correct course of action is.’’
Mr Rau yesterday said there were “many unanswered questions surrounding the payment’’.
“While I was still Attorney-General, I do not recall seeing any advice saying the government was at significant legal risk in the Henry Keogh case,’’ he said.
“Had we been successful in March, I would not as Attorney-General have taken anything to Cabinet without a formulated claim.
“I do not know what legal advice has been received since March 17, but I do not recall seeing a formulated claim prior to that date.”
In response to a series of questions from The Advertiser – included whether a formulated claim had been provided since the election – a brief statement was provided by Attorney-General Vickie Chapman.
“The ex-gratia payout to Mr Keogh was made on the basis of independent legal advice and Crown Solicitors’ advice commissioned by the former Labor Government,’’ Ms Chapman said.
The Attorney-General said she had not been contacted by Mr Keogh’s lawyers since the election.
“The decision is entirely consistent with standard practice for compensation payments of this nature,’’ he said.
Henry Keogh was released from prison in December 2014 after serving two decades behind bars following his conviction for drowning Ms Cheney in her bath in 1994. His conviction was quashed in 2014 because of flawed forensic evidence and a retrial ordered, but Director of Public Prosecutions Adam Kimber QC subsequently dropped the murder charge because key witness pathologist Dr Colin Manock was too ill to testify.
The Cheney family member said he was shocked when he was contacted by telephone at 5pm last Friday by Ms Chapman’s office advising him the payment had been settled that day and would be made public on Monday.
“I always thought his lawyers would at some stage put in a claim, but given that he was not acquitted, I though the government would fight any request,’’ he said.
“The appeal judges made it pretty clear that while his lawyers had asked for an acquittal, that they rejected that and that it would be open to a properly directed jury to convict.’’
The spokesman said the role of Ms Chapman in the payout also needed to be scrutinised.
On six occasions since 2005, Ms Chapman had asked questions to successive Attorneys-General about the Keogh case.
The questions included the progress of his petitions for mercy and on why medical reports had not been released to Mr Keogh’s advocates.
“I would have thought in something as serious as this, if they were not going to let it run its course through the courts, that you would have someone completely independent, outside of government, come in and look at it,’’ he said.
On Wednesday, Ms Chapman told parliament she had taken legal advice and was advised she had no conflict of interest in handling the matter.
The family member said he could not understand how a new government could reach such a decision “so quickly’’ after taking office.
“Why suddenly has this been such a priority and why does this government have such a different view on this?’’ he said.
The family member said a request he made via email to then Opposition Leader Steven Marshall on November 20, 2015, following one of Ms Chapman’s questions in parliament, was ignored. “Perhaps you could let me know if this is something the Liberal Party will be pursuing, be it for scoring political points or is it something Vickie Chapman sees as a real cause,’’ he wrote in the email.
The Cheney family’s lawyer, Greg Griffin, said judges in successive appeals had pointed out the overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence against Mr Keogh, even without the forensic evidence.
This included the fact he forged Ms Cheney’s signature on five insurance policies worth $1.125 million that he had taken out, his affairs with two women while he was with Ms Cheney and lies he had told under oath.
Evidence at the crime scene also conflicted heavily with statements made by Mr Keogh concerning his attempts to revive her when he discovered her in the bath.
“This is not a case in which there was no other evidence,’’ he said.
“That is a far cry from cases in which there have been payouts because of the circumstances.
“The view of the family is if there had been a retrial, a conviction was certainly a possibility and the Full Court in 2015 stated that.’’
Mr Griffin said if no formulated claim had been made by Mr Keogh’s lawyers, questions then surrounded how the payment was arrived at.
“How do you then determine to pay $2.57 million?’’ he said.
“The Cheney family would like to see the opinions and the formulated claim. Surely the opinions would be in answer to the formulated claim.’’