Supreme Court rejects lawyer Michael Hegarty’s bid to claim some of murder suspect Henry Keogh’s $2.57 million payout

Murder suspect Henry Keogh will keep all of his $2.57m payout after a judge scathingly dismissed an SA lawyer’s bid to claim some of the cash.

Henry Keogh will keep all of his $2.57 million taxpayer-funded compensation payment, a court has ruled. Picture: Matt Turner.

Murder suspect Henry Keogh will keep all of his $2.57 million compensation payout – and have his court costs paid by the lawyer who sought to claim a chunk of it.

In a scathing 38-page judgment, the Supreme Court on Friday ended Michael Hegarty’s lawsuit against Keogh with a summary judgment in favour of the former prisoner.

Judge Katrina Bochner said Mr Hegarty’s claim Keogh had given “a verbal agreement” to retain him was so defective that it warranted more than simply dismissing the case.

“I am of the view that strike out is not an appropriate remedy in this case,” she said.

“It is not that (the claim) is improperly pleaded or does not disclose a cause of action – it goes deeper than that.

“The evidence adduced by Mr Hegarty demonstrates that he has no reasonable basis for prosecuting the claim.”

Keogh, who was released from prison in 2014 following an appeal, remains the sole suspect in the 1994 death of his then-fiancee, Anna-Jane Cheney.

When prosecutors opted not to try him a third time, the State Government awarded him a $2.57 million taxpayer-funded payout for his 21 years in prison.

Lawyer Michael Hegarty has lost his bid to claim some of Keogh’s payout. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Brenton Edwards.

Mr Hegarty and barrister Kevin Borick QC subsequently sued Keogh, claiming he had promised to pay their retainers should his appeal succeed and he be released.

Keogh, however, argued the duo were never more than “volunteers”, while Mr Borick eventually dropped out of the lawsuit.

In her judgment, Judge Bochner agreed with another of Keogh’s submissions – that he was “vulnerable” when Mr Hegarty and Mr Borick approached him in prison.

“At the time, (Keogh) had been prison for more than nine years some 300km from Adelaide … he had petitioned the Governor for mercy five times,” she said.

“There can be no doubt that a person in his position would be a vulnerable person who should be fully informed of all the circumstances and details of any agreement he was being asked to enter into.

“On the basis of Mr Hegarty’s evidence, there is no reasonable prospect that he will be able to establish that the agreement (with Keogh) was in writing,” she said.

There was also no reasonable prospect, she said, of successfully arguing any agreement was “fair”, appropriate under the Legal Practitioners Act or applicable under common law.

“Keogh is entitled to summary judgment in respect of the claim,” she said.