RvEASTMAN[No9]
[2016]ACTSC69
1On22August2014,theFullCourtoftheSupremeCourtoftheAustralianCapitalTerritoryquashedDavidEastman’s1995convictionforthemurderofColinWinchester,amurderwhichtookplaceon10January1989.InfurtherpursuanceofitspowersundertheapplicableActofParliament,theCourtorderedthatEastmanberetried.
2TheACTDirectorofPublicProsecutions,intheexerciseofhisdiscretion,determinedtoproceedwitharetrial. Eastmanmadeapplicationforapermanentstayofthe proceeding.
3Thepracticaleffectofsuchanapplication,ifsuccessful,thoughnotitslegaleffect,isakintoacquittalofacriminalcharge.Astayofproceedingisonlygrantedinrareandexceptionalcases,anditisfortheapplicanttoestablishcircumstancesfittingthatdescriptionasithasbeenexplainedindecisionsoftheHighCourt.
4Inpursuinghisapplication,Eastmanrelieduponacombinationofcircumstances.Heaccepted thatnoneofthem,individually,wouldjustify agrantoftherelief whichhesought.
5ThemattersuponwhichEastmanreliedwere—
(1)whatheallegedwastheblameworthyconductoftheprosecutionlegalteaminfailingtodisclosecertaininformationinitspossessionbeforethe1995trial;
(2)whatEastmanallegedwasdeliberatelyunfairconductofthe1995trialbytheprosecutionlegalteam;
(3)incidents, specifically intheperiod betweenJanuary 1989 andtheendof1992,ofpoliceharassment;
(4)allegednon-disclosurebytheprosecutionofmatterssaidtohavecometotheattentionoftheprosecutionaftertrialandafterEastman’ssubsequentunsuccessfulappealagainstconviction;
(5)acontentionthattheprosecutioncase,contrarytotheopinionoftheFullCourt,wasnotstrong;
(6)delay,andwhatEastmanclaimed wouldbeprejudicetohimintheeventthatanewtrialwasheld;
(7)allegedadversepublicitywithrespecttohisroleinthemurder;
(8)hisageandotherpersonalcircumstances;
(9)theexpenseofconductinganewtrial,whichheassertedwouldbeunwarranted;and
(10)acontentionthat,intheeventofanewtrial,theprosecutionwouldbepresenting, inpart, a ‘new’case.
6TheCrown—thatis,theprosecution—disputedalmostallofthefactualallegationsraisedbyEastmanandreliedalsouponcertainlegalprinciplesinsupportofargumentthatastay shouldberefused.
7TheapplicationwasheardoveraninedayperiodinFebruary2016.Fivewitnessesgaveoralevidence,averylargenumberofdocumentswereputintoevidence,andthepartiesmadeelaboratesubmissions.
8MuchoftheapplicationwasheardinclosedCourt,sothat,iftheapplicationfailed,theholdingofatrialwhichwasfairbothtoEastmanandtheprosecutionwouldnotbecompromised.
9EastmanhasnotsatisfiedtheCourtthattheproceedingagainsthimshouldbepermanentlystayed.
10InorderthatatrialwhichisfairbothtoEastmanandtheprosecutionwillnotbe
compromised,theCourt’sreasons,publishedtoday,willbeprovidedonlytotheparties,andtheywillbeenjoinedagainstdisclosingthe reasonstoothers.
11Itwoulddefeat thepurposeof theCourt’sreasonsbeingprovided onlytothepartiesifthissummarywastosetouttheCourt’sextensivefindingsoffactandanalysisofprinciples.Itcanbesaid,however,thatthefailureofEastman’sapplicationdoesreflecttherejection,orpartialrejection,asthecasemaybe,ofvariousmatterswhichheraised.
14April2016