Kristina Keneally's son guilty on false evidence - shame he's not a female ex-Prime Minister
T
Apparently it's OK for female former Prime Ministers to give false evidence.
The police officer son of former NSW premier and senator Kristina Keneally has been found guilty of fabricating evidence that wrongfully put a man into custody.
Daniel Keneally, 25, faced Downing Centre Local Court on Tuesday where magistrate Rodney Brender found a police statement Keneally wrote contained many falsehoods.
Brender rejected claims by Keneally’s lawyer that his client made an honest mistake while looking at many sources of information in a busy station.
The offence related to an incident where Keneally was a few hours into a night shift at Newtown police station when Luke Brett Moore called in February 2021.
Keneally’s written statement, which he told the court he felt pressured to make after talking to higher-ranking officers, resulted in Moore being arrested and held in custody for three weeks.
The activist and founder of “I Sue Police” was later released on bail and the charge dropped, due to a recording of the conversation made on his phone.
The recording, taken without Keneally’s knowledge, showed significant discrepancies to what was in the officer’s statement.
These included Keneally naming a police officer he alleged Moore threatened to kill, which had not occurred.
The magistrate said the conversation as recorded by Keneally in his statement “just didn’t happen”.
“There is no basis to suggest any other person suggested the content or affected [Keneally’s] memory,” Brender said.
The magistrate found Keneally knew it was a real possibility that evidence of a threat to a policeman could lead to a prosecution.
Keneally also knew his statement could be used in any court proceedings and would mislead relevant tribunals, the magistrate said.
Keneally will remain on bail to be sentenced on December 21.
Outside court, Keneally’s lawyer Paul McGirr said his client “holds his head high”.
“We respect the court’s decision but can say we will definitely appeal on the basis that my client never wilfully put something in a statement that he knew to be false,” he said. “It’s a very high hurdle for the prosecution to prove.”
ENDS
