David Harold Eastman v DPP

• Jurisdiction: Australian Capital Territory
• Judge: Rares J,Wigney J,Cowdroy AJ
• Judgment Date: 22 August 2014
• Court: Supreme Court of ACT
• Docket Number: File Number: SC 222 of 2014
• Date: 22 August 2014

David Harold Eastman

and

Director of Public Prosecutions

[2014] ACTSCFC 2

Before:

Rares J, Wigney J, Cowdroy AJ

File Number: SC 222 of 2014

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

CRIMINAL LAW — INQUIRY INTO CONVICTION — construction of s 430(2) of Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) — consideration of ‘test’ to be applied in deciding what order to be made under s 430(2) — effect of s 422(1) of Act on Court's exercise of power and function to make order under s 430(2) — meaning of ‘conviction’ in the context of s 430(2) — whether Court can quash conviction as a result of miscarriage of justice or other defect in the trial — whether necessary for Court to decide whether person is ‘guilty’ in fact — relationship between powers of Court under s 430 and usual powers of courts of criminal appeal — whether to order new trial — relevant considerations in exercise of discretion to order new trial

CRIMINAL LAW — INQUIRY INTO CONVICTION — power of board to receive information and evidence in private without permitting access to parties — procedural fairness hearing rule — whether board can give confidential report to Registrar under s 428 of Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) to which parties not have access — whether Full Court can consider confidential report of board — construction of ss 18, 21, 24 of Inquiries Act 1991 (ACT) and Pt 20 of Crimes Act

EVIDENCE — CRIMINAL LAW — public interest or matter of state immunity — public interest in maintaining confidentiality of identity of informers — whether Court has discretion to admit evidence subject to immunity under s 130 of Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) or otherwise — power to admit evidence subject to immunity while denying access to parties — whether admission of evidence in those circumstances interferes with or impairs the Court's institutional integrity or independence

COURTS AND JUDGES — principle of open justice — suppression and non-publication orders to protect confidential information and evidence — informers — power of superior court of record to receive and act on information or evidence that none of parties has seen — inherent powers of superior court

Cases Cited:

Alexander v The Queen(1981) 145 CLR 395 applied

Alister v The Queen(1983) 154 CLR 404 applied

Applicant VEAL of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs(2005) 225 CLR 88 applied

Assistant Commissioner Condon v Pompano Pty Ltd(2013) 295 ALR 638 applied

Attorney-General v Kaddour & Turkmani[2001] NSWCCA 456 applied

Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Parish (1980) 43 FLR 129 applied

Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor(1996) 186 CLR 541 applied

Browne v Dunn(1893) 6 R 67 referred to

Buckley v Bennell Design & Constructions Pty Ltd(1978) 140 CLR 1 referred to

Burgess v Boetefeur (1844) 7 M & G 481 applied

Cain v Glass (No 2) (1985) 3 NSWLR 230 referred to

Chamberlain v The Queen [No 2](1984) 153 CLR 521

Chief Executive Officer of Customs v Labrador Liquor Wholesale Pty Ltd(2003) 216 CLR 161 applied

Chu v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs(1997) 78 FCR 314 referred to

Cobiac v Liddy(1969) 119 CLR 257 referred to

Commissioner of Police v Tanos(1958) 98 CLR 383 applied

Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd (2012) 293 ALR 257 applied

Commonwealth of Australia v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales, 26 June 1995: BC 9504840 applied

Crampton v The Queen(2000) 206 CLR 161 applied

Daubney v Cooper(1829) 10 B & C 237 referred to

David Syme & Co Ltd v General Motors-Holden's Ltd[1984] 2 NSWLR 294 applied

Davies v The King(1937) 57 CLR 170 applied

Dickason v Dickason(1913) 17 CLR 50 applied

Director of Public Prosecutions (Nauru) v Fowler(1984) 154 CLR 627 applied

Dupas v The Queen(2010) 241 CLR 237 applied

Dyers v The Queen(2002) 210 CLR 285 applied

Eastman v ACT Executive Australian Capital Territory (2013) 274 FLR 286 referred to

Eastman v Director of Public Prosecutions[2014] ACTSCFC 1 applied

Eastman v Director of Public Prosecutions of the Australian Capital Territory(2003) 214 CLR 318 applied

Eastman v The Queen(1997) 76 FCR 9 referred to

Eastman v The Queen(2000) 203 CLR 1 referred to

Elias v The Queen (2013) 248 CLR 48 applied

Fitzgerald v The Queen[2014] HCA 28 applied

Fountain v Alexander(1982) 150 CLR 615 applied

Gilham v R [2012] NSWCCA 131 applied

Grassby v The Queen(1989) 168 CLR 1 applied

Griffiths v The Queen(1977) 137 CLR 293 referred to

Gypsy Jokers Motorcycle Club Inc v Commissioner of Police(2008) 234 CLR 532 applied

Hinton v The Queen(2000) 177 ALR 300 applied

Hogan v Australian Crime Commission(2010) 240 CLR 651 applied

John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Police Tribunal of New South Wales(1986) 5 NSWLR 465 applied

Justins v The Queen (2010) 79 NSWLR 544 applied

Kennon v Spry(2008) 238 CLR 366 applied

King v The Queen(1986) 161 CLR 423 applied

Lee v The Queen(2014) 308 ALR 252 applied

Mallard v The Queen(2005) 224 CLR 125

Marks v Beyfus(1890) 25 QBD 494 referred to

McDermott v The Queen(1948) 76 CLR 501 referred to

Moti v The Queen 245 CLR 456 applied

National Crime Authority v Gould(1989) 23 FCR 191 referred to

Ng Yuk-Kin v The Crown (1955) 39 HKLR 49 applied

Nicopoulos v Commissioner for Corrective Services (2004) 148 A Crim R 74 referred to

Nudd v The Queen(2006) 225 ALR 161 applied

Owners of the Ship ‘Shin Kobe Maru’ v Empire Shipping Co Inc(1994) 181 CLR 404 applied

PMT Partners Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service(1995) 184 CLR 301 applied

Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority(1998) 194 CLR 355 applied

( Nunn) v Chief Constable of Suffolk PoliceR[2014] 3 WLR 77 referred to

R v Arthur Stanley Smith (1996) 86 A Crim R 308 applied

R v Celep [1998] 4 VR 811 referred to

R v Doyle (2001) 123 A Crim R 151 referred to

R v Edwards(2009) 255 ALR 399 applied

R v Glennon(1992) 173 CLR 592 applied

R v Hamilton (1930) 30 SR (NSW) 277 referred to

R v Taufahema(2007) 228 CLR 232 applied

R v Thomas (No 3) (2006) 14 VR 512 applied

R v Anderson (1991) 53 A Crim R 421 applied

Re Conviction of McDermott; A reference by the Attorney-General for New South Wales under s 77(1)(b) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001(2013) 303 ALR 143 referred to

Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Lam(2003) 214 CLR 1 applied

Reg v Hunt; Ex parte Sean Investments Pty Ltd(1979) 180 CLR 322 applied

Reg v Lawrence[1982] AC 510 applied

Reid v The Queen[1980] AC 343 referred to

Ridgeway v The Queen(1995) 184 CLR 19 applied

Rinehart v Welker (2012) 83 NSWLR 347 applied

Scott v Scott[1913] AC 417 applied

Spies v The Queen(2000) 201 CLR 603 applied

Stanoevski v The Queen(2001) 202 CLR 115 applied

Super Pty Ltd v SJP Formwork (Aust) Pty Ltd (1992) 29 NSWLR 549 referred to

Telstra Corporation Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission(2008) 176 FCR 153 applied

The Queen v Hillier(2007) 228 CLR 618 applied

The Queen v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386 referred to

Weiss v The Queen(2005) 224 CLR 300 referred to

Wilson v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (2010) 78 NSWLR 704 referred to

Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions[1935] AC 462 applied

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)

Due Process of Law Act 1368 (42 Edw 3 c 3)

Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT)

Evidence Act 2011 (ACT)

Inquiries Act 1991 (ACT)

Magna Carta 1297 (25 Edw I c 29)

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT)

Texts Cited:

DC Pearce & RS Geddes: Statutory Interpretation in Australia (7th ed, 2011)

Wigmore on Evidence (McNaughton Revision) Vol VIII ?2374

Representation:

Counsel:

Mr M Griffin QC with Mr A Flecknoe-Brown

Mr J Kirk SC with (on 14 and 15 July 2014) Ms A Mitchelmore and Dr P Dwyer

Decision:

The Court orders that:

(1) the conviction of David Harold Eastman for the murder on 10 January 1989 of Colin Stanley Winchester be quashed

(2) there be a new trial of David Harold Eastman on the charge of murder

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction	5
The legislative scheme	8
The construction issue	10
The parties' arguments on construction	10
Construction of s 430 — Consideration	11
What is a ‘doubt’ or ‘question’?	17
Conclusion – the construction issue	22
A brief summary of the issues in the report	23
The broad positions taken by the parties before the Full Court	25
The prosecution case at trial	25
Mr Barnes and the forensic evidence	30
Dr Roantree's evidence	36
How the board dealt with new information concerning the alternative hypothesis	38
The confidentiality issue	40
Director's submissions as to the board's reception and use of confidential information	40
The confidentiality issues in the hearing in the Full Court	41
The Full Court's powers as a superior court of record	42
Can the Full Court admit the 5 unredacted documents in to evidence confidentially?	43
Can the Full Court admit evidence covered under s 130(1) and prohibit the parties' access to it?	45
The confidential section – did the board make a jurisdictional error?	48
Should the Full Court make an order to suppress the redacted documents available in the inquiry?	50
How should the Full Court deal with the confidential section and the 5 unredacted documents?	51
Conclusion – the confidentiality issue	54
The conviction issue – the Director's submissions	55
The conviction issue – consideration	58
The new trial issue — background	66
Retrial – the parties' submissions	66
Retrial — consideration	67
Conclusion	78

THE COURT:

1 On 3 September 2012, a judge of the Court made an order under s 424(1) of the Crimes...