Attorney-General Kyam Maher defends SA government’s handling of Hillier triple murder compensation claims

The Attorney-General has defended the state government’s handling of the Hillier triple murder case – but the victims say he’s misunderstood the situation.

The Attorney-General has denied $40,000 in Victims of Crime payments were recovered from the family of two murdered children – but they and their lawyer say he is wrong.

On Friday, Kyam Maher insisted the grandparents of Amber Rigney and Korey Mitchell had not been required to return their VOC payments before their claim against the Department for Child Protection was settled.

“There was a very substantial settlement that was paid out on top of the money that’s already been paid out,” Mr Maher told FIVEaa.

“They’ve already got it (the VOC payment), they will keep it … there’s obviously been, however it’s happened, a misunderstanding.”

Attorney-General Kyam Maher. Picture: Dylan Hogarth

Amber and Korey’s grandfather, Steve Egberts, said Mr Maher’s public comments did not match their communications with the state government.

He signed documents stating he “agrees and accepts that the amount of statutory compensation already paid to me” for “the incident” will “be repaid to the VOC Fund as part of payment of the settlement”.

“We’ve got paperwork that says that we had to return our VOC money as part of our settlement,” he said.

“Everybody who has been sent paperwork is saying the same thing – that we had to return that money.

“I don’t understand how the Attorney-General can make these statements when it’s written down in black and white … the paperwork says the complete opposite.”

Steve Egberts and Janet Wells, the paternal grandparents of murder victims Amber Rose Rigney and Korey Lee Mitchell. Picture: Keryn Stevens

Solicitor Andrew Carpenter, who represented Mr Ebgerts and his partner Janet Wells, said Mr Maher was mistaken.

“The government sought to recover the amount already paid to my clients before settlement, despite it having the ability to waive that recovery under the VOC Act,” he said.

“Their settlement sum had deducted from it the amount that they had already received from the VOC fund … they did not keep it, they do not have it.

“In a egregious case of governmental systemic failure like this, the discretion to waive recovery should have been enlivened.”

The Advertiser has contacted Mr Maher regarding Mr Egberts’ and Mr Carpenter’s claims.

Korey and Amber with their mother, Adeline Yvette Wilson-Rigney. Picture: Supplied

In May 2016, Amber and Korey were murdered, alongside their mother Adeline Yvette Wilson-Rigney, by Steven Graham Peet.

Their grandparents, Steve Egberts and Janet Wells, received a combined $40,000 VOC compensation to raise the children’s surviving sibling, who is in their care.

In 2022, the Coroners Court found the children’s deaths were preventable but DCP failed to intervene due to its “continuing unlawful practices”.

In May, The Advertiser revealed the government had settled a claim, filed by Mr Egberts and Ms Wells, on the condition it recovered their VOC payments.

The couple asked Mr Maher to intervene and waive recovery, saying Peet would otherwise be absolved of having to pay back the $40,000 when he is released from prison.

This week, Mr Maher declined to intervene in a letter sent, to the couple, by the Crown Solicitor’s Office.

That letter further specified that future settlements “will include a discharge and release form that expressly states the claimant agrees not to make a request of the Attorney-General to exercise his Section 29 discretion”.

That section of the VOC Act deals specifically with requests to waive recovery of previously-paid compensation.

Convicted triple murderer Steven Graham Peet. Picture: Emma Brasier

On radio, Mr Maher said he wanted to “absolutely assure” the public that, upon Peet’s release, the government “would be looking to recover substantial” money from him.

He said the government did not want to stop victims petitioning him about their cases.

“What we are looking at doing is when there has been a VOC payment, and then a civil claim against the government, just making very clear in the deed that civil payment is on top of the VOC payment,” he said.

“People get to keep the VOC payment as well as an additional civil payment.

“The victims, as has happened in this case, get to keep their VOC money and that other money is awarded on top of that – taking into account what they’ve already got.

“The money will be kept by those victims, and that is as it should be.”

Mr Egberts said that, on the back of Mr Maher’s comments, he welcomed a speedy resolution of the issue.

“I don’t think anyone has misunderstood anything … again, the paperwork makes it all very clear,” he said.

“If Mr Maher says we are allowed to keep this money, then we look forward to it being refunded into our account – so that Peet is held fully responsible for his actions.”