So many things end with a whimper. Perhaps it’s just as well: those bangs can take it out of you. The whimpers, on the other hand, can just slip by as if nothing has ever happened. For Henry Keogh, being saved the torment of a third trial was a blessing. However, everything comes at a price. Who can possibly advise a man and his family on how to make up for 20 lost years?
Henry and Faye Hambour had become romantically entwined during their five years of correspondence and her visits to the jail. Now that he was out he was looking for some semblance of normality. But families don’t always cooperate. Some of Faye’s children also had difficulty coming to terms with her new man. Had he not spent 20 years in jail he would perhaps have been the type of person they’d be comfortable with: educated, thoughtful and urbane. Henry the ex-convict was another person entirely. For both sides this was an uneasy pairing. In April 2016 they travelled to Bali and were quietly married.
On 20 January 2016 Henry’s brother David passed away. It was a huge shock to the family. He was only 51. David was highly regarded by those he’d worked with in the nursing community as a kind, compassionate man. One of his former colleagues wrote in anticipation of his funeral service, ‘Henry will be there, a free man. Who knows just how much his brother loved him, and how hard he fought, for your right to be a free man. So sad, that such a tragedy has followed such a triumph.’57
It is easy to forget in the midst of all the turmoil that a fruitful life was lost. Regardless of the cause, which to the Cheney family remains Henry Keogh’s doing, this is a human tragedy with a devastating ripple effect on many lives. It might seem patronising to say, particularly from an observer in my position, but it needs to be acknowledged just the same. The Keogh story will always be a reminder of the necessity for scrupulous and objective inquiry and the importance of peer review of any findings.
The professional conduct of Dr Manock continued to be revealed as more and more bizarre. At the time of writing, Indigenous man Derek Bromley’s second appeal was before the Supreme Court. Bromley has so far spent 34 years in jail for a murder he claims he didn’t commit. His is another of Dr Manock’s dubious cases. Not only are the forensics improbable but the Crown’s chief witness suffered from schizophrenia. The day after the murder, at which he was present, he was admitted to a mental hospital. It was there the police interviewed him. In December 2016, five psychiatric and psychological expert witnesses, including one chosen by the Crown, agreed that this crucial eyewitness’s testimony should have been ruled inadmissible. Then, in March 2017, three forensic pathologists, again one from the Crown, assessed Dr Manock’s autopsy as throwing no light on the time or cause of death, and as throwing no meaningful light on what occurred.
During the appeal submissions for Bromley’s case, a statement was provided from a former police officer who had once been stationed at the opal-mining township of Mintabie in the state’s far north. Sometime in the late 1970s Dr Manock was required to travel to the remote location to conduct an autopsy on an Indigenous man whose death was unexplained. When he arrived the local publican offered the state’s Director of Forensic Pathology his coolroom in which to conduct his investigation. Dr Manock declined the offer, and according to the police witness performed the autopsy in the open and in front of onlookers. The scene would have been shocking enough but his recollection includes the following detail: ‘The pathologist dipped a metal ladle into the bodily fluids and blood within the trunk of the body, held the ladle in front of him at arm’s length facing the gathered group, and made inappropriate remarks.’58 The Indigenous elders I met with and interviewed over this affair were appalled. How this had not surfaced before now is hard to understand. It is impossible to believe word of this macabre performance had not reached Adelaide and those at the Forensic Science Centre.
Dr Manock continued his unconventional inclinations into his senior years. I was stunned to learn that four or five years ago he had married for the third time. Three wives is not excessive these days but his new wife is known as Madame Gabrielle. She has for many years run a fetish parlour in the city. Gabby, as she’s known when off-duty, is the public and private front of the business. I rang The Fetish Palace to speak with her about Colin Manock, her current husband. There were no denials but it was a very short conversation.
Along with Derek Bromley, David Szach, convicted over the body-in-the-freezer murder, and Frits Van Beelen, jailed for the Taperoo Beach murder, have applied to appeal under the new amendment. At the time of writing, the Van Beelen appeal is the most advanced, having already been heard by the Full Court. The application attacks the unreliable nature of Dr Manock’s time-of-death evidence, which was based on the stomach contents of the victim. Kevin Borick, who was a junior in the original trials in the early ’70s, is running the appeal.
The bench on the Van Beelen appeal included Chief Justice Chris Kourakis. For me, his work on Keogh’s third petition had left a deep sense of disappointment, particularly after the Vernon-Roberts report surfaced in 2013. Borick applied for Kourakis to recuse himself on the basis of apprehended bias. The Chief Justice paraphrased Borick’s reasoning in his findings: ‘the fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that I “might not bring an impartial mind to the conclusion and resolution” of the issue of Mr Manock’s competence raised on his appeal’.59 Kourakis’s response referred to earlier criticisms of Dr Manock’s autopsies. As proof of his impartiality he also quoted some of the shortcomings identified by Vernon-Roberts over Anna-Jane’s autopsy. He omitted from his decision, however, the professor’s ultimate conclusion that there was no forensic evidence of murder. The application to recuse himself was declined.
The result of the full-court hearing that followed raised more questions than answers. Between the three justices, Kourakis, Kelly and Vanstone, the appeal was rejected. Kourakis not only allowed leave to appeal, he overturned the conviction of 45 years’ standing, while the other two declined to even grant leave to appeal on the basis that the ‘fresh’ time-of-death evidence was not ‘compelling’. The disparity could not have been more stark. The majority carried the day. Borick then applied for leave to the High Court, which heard the special-leave application on 10 February 2017 and granted leave on the question of fresh evidence. The matter went before five judges of the High Court on 21 and 22 June 2017; at the time of writing, the court had reserved its decision. It is the first case under the 2013 appeal amendment to be considered by the country’s highest court.
I remained deeply troubled by what had happened with the Vernon-Roberts report. The more I dwelt on it the greater an affront to proper process it seemed to me to be. How could such an unequivocal assessment of the forensic failures in the Keogh case not have been acted on or at the very least disclosed? Immediately after the DPP dropped the charge against Henry Keogh I approached the Attorney-General’s media adviser. Among other things, I wanted to know if he would investigate the decision by Mr Kourakis not to order tests for haemosiderin as recommended by Vernon-Roberts and why the report had remained a virtual secret for nine years. I received no reply.
The only option was to seek some political support. The most appropriate person to approach was MP Vickie Chapman, the Deputy State Leader of the Liberal Party and, more pertinently, the Shadow Attorney-General. A week after Henry’s court ordeal ended Chapman addressed the Attorney-General, John Rau, in the House with the following:
Does the Attorney agree that if the Crown or any of its agencies are in possession of exculpatory evidence after the conviction of a person, it has a duty, and indeed an ongoing duty, to disclose the same to that party or his or her representatives?60
What I hadn’t anticipated was the role of the Speaker, former Attorney-General Michael Atkinson. He immediately stopped the exchange with, ‘I think what is occurring is the Deputy Leader is asking the Attorney-General for a legal opinion and that is out of order.’61 Each time a question was asked he intervened with a point of order. After a series of interruptions there was some limited exchange:
VC: Why was the report dated 22 November 2004 of Professor Vernon-Roberts not disclosed to Henry Keogh’s legal representatives until 5 December 2013?
JR: I am not aware of the facts that are contained in that question as to whether they are accurate facts or not … I think all I can say to the honourable member is I will take her question, I will make the appropriate inquiries, and if indeed the facts are as stated by her, I will seek to find some explanation.
VC: When making that inquiry, can I request that the Attorney read the Full Court determination which covers this issue and of which I am sure he is aware, in which he will find the references to those. My next question to the Attorney is …
MA: That was an impromptu speech. The deputy leader will be seated.62
And with that, further inquiries were shut down. Chapman prompted John Rau about his promise to explain why the report had remained a secret for so long. This time the brush-off came directly from him: ‘The appropriate method and forum for the obtaining of information of that type would be the court and not the Parliament.’63 However, there was nothing before the courts and the matter sat squarely within the responsibility of the Attorney-General. Chapman had a third go a few months later, which resulted in the complete dismissal of the issue. The Attorney-General’s last words were, ‘That [question] reminds me of … one I frequently hear coming from the lips of Mr Archer, I think his name is … I have nothing further to add.’ 64