David Harold Eastman inquiry

Networked Knowledge - Media Reports

[This edited version of the report has been prepared by Dr Robert N Moles]
Appeals and Reviews Homepage
A state of Injustice (2004) book online
Losing Their Grip - The Case of Henry Keogh (2006) book online
Forensic Investigations and Miscarriages of Justice (2010) book

On 10 August 2012 Louis Andrews of the Canberra Times reported “Fresh inquiry into Eastman murder conviction”.
David Harold Eastman will have a wide-ranging inquiry into his conviction for the 1989 murder of AFP Assistant Commissioner Colin Winchester. Justice Shane Marshall this morning said he was satisfied there was a fresh doubt or question about Eastman’s guilt. The judge said there was a significant risk that the conviction was unsafe because of the doubt. ACT Supreme Court Chief Justice Terence Higgins will now appoint a judge or magistrate to head the inquiry.
Outside the court Eastman’s counsel Terry O’Donnell welcomed the ruling. “This inquiry has been a very long time coming,” he said. “It is hoped that a broadly-based judicial inquiry will get to the truth behind the murder of Assistant Commissioner Colin Winchester. Mr Winchester was shot dead in the driveway of his Deakin home in January 1989.
In 1995 Eastman was convicted of his murder, and subsequently sentenced to life behind bars, but he has always maintained his innocence. Justice Marshall ruled the inquiry should go ahead after assistant Director of Public Prosecutions, John Lundy, said the director’s office didn’t oppose another review. Eastman’s legal team are relying on a 19-ground application, filed in court this morning. Their arguments are wide-ranging, covering questions about the conduct of the prosecution, misconduct by investigating police, the inadequacy of Eastman’s defence, the role of the trial judge and the prisoner’s mental state.
Eastman has had an inquiry before, but the focus was his fitness to plead. The broad scope of the fresh review makes it a significant development in a case which has captivated and divided the Canberra community for more than two decades. Earlier this year Eastman’s last hope for a fresh inquiry appeared to rest with Attorney-General Simon Corbell. Justice Marshall had ruled he had no power, under key provisions of the Crimes Act, to give the prisoner another bite at the inquiry cherry.
Last week a full bench of the ACT Supreme Court overturned his decision and ordered him to consider the application. The three judges said Justice Marshall's interpretation could bar innocent people exonerated by scientific advances from rightfully obtaining a fresh review. ''The consequences of the construction accepted by His Honour [Justice Marshall] would be that if, for example, advances in forensic medicine proved the innocence of the person convicted, no further inquiry could take place,'' they wrote.
This morning Justice Marshall made it clear he did not agree with their ruling. “I still think I’m right about the jurisdictional question by the way, and no-one’s taking that to the High Court, but one day maybe someone will have a look at that,” he said. And he launched a stinging rebuke towards Mr Corbell and the ACT Government Solicitor’s office, who supported the arguments of Eastman’s lawyers before the full court.
Solicitor-General Peter Garrisson, in his submissions, presented the arguments both for and against the judge’s ruling, acting as a “contradictor’’ to assist the court. But during the hearing the ACT government lawyers agreed Justice Marshall had misinterpreted the relevant section. The judge today said the Attorney-General “must not know what a contradictor means” and said the situation was an ‘’absolute disgrace”. He added it was “curious’’ the executive had the unfettered discretion to order a fresh inquiry. They have previously declined to do so.
The wording
The wording of Justice Marshall’s order for an inquiry came directly from the Crimes Act. He ordered “there be an inquiry into the conviction of the applicant for murder recorded on November 10, 1995”. He said there was a “doubt or question about whether the applicant was guilty of the offence”. Justice Marshall agreed there was a “significant risk that the conviction is unsafe because of the doubt”, and the doubt couldn’t be properly addressed in an appeal. “It is in the interests of justice that the doubt be considered in an inquiry,’’ the judge said.