A judge has lamented the potential for an ‘‘appalling’’ waste of taxpayers' money amid the Director of Public Prosecution's bid to stop the inquiry into David Eastman's murder conviction.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Justice Michael Wigney said that whatever the result of the DPP's challenge, there "doesn't seem to be any upside to any of this".
The court also ruled against the DPP's bid to stop witnesses giving evidence to the inquiry until its challenge, designed to quash the proceedings, is resolved.
The DPP is trying to overturn key decisions that created the inquiry and shaped its scope.
The inquiry has already heard a substantial amount of evidence relating to Eastman’s 1995 conviction for the shooting murder of the ACT’s police chief Colin Stanley Winchester outside his neighbour’s home in 1989.
It was established by the government following an order by Justice Shane Marshall last year, and is on summer break until late January.
But just before the recess, the DPP issued a challenge to two key decisions, including the order made by Justice Marshall.
The DPP has been before the full bench of the ACT Supreme Court this week, but its challenge has not yet been resolved, and will now not return to the court until February 20.
The DPP on Wednesday sought to prevent witnesses from giving further evidence to the inquiry until its challenge was complete.
It argued that, on a ‘‘balance of convenience’’, it was best for witnesses to not give any further evidence because it would be a waste if its case against the inquiry succeeded.
Justice Wigney said that one of the most unfortunate aspects of the current case was the potential for an ‘‘appalling waste of resources’’.
Justice Wigney said that if he restrained the inquiry, there would be a cost to the ACT Government.
But he said if the he did not stop witnesses from giving evidence, and the DPP won its challenge, there would also be a waste of resources.
‘‘There doesn’t seem to be any upside to any of this,’’ he said.
Lawyers acting for the ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell said they were ‘‘most anxious’’ the inquiry would continue, noting the ‘‘very, very significant investment that has occurred since it commenced’’.
Counsel for Eastman said the DPP’s application would have an obvious delaying effect on the inquiry.
He said it had given Eastman a real opportunity in his goal of quashing his conviction.
‘‘Delaying the inquiry, delaying the taking of evidence, will have a real impact on that goal,’’ he said.
Eastman’s lawyer criticised the DPP for taking 14 months to mount its challenge.
He said there was still no explanation for that delay, despite it being a ‘‘significant cause’’ of Wednesday’s push to prevent witnesses giving further evidence.
‘‘That delay is very largely the reason why this application for interlocutory relief is being made,’’ he said.
He said the DPP might have a strong case in challenging Justice Marshall’s decision to order the inquiry, but not for attacking the inquiry itself.
He said the inquiry would remain established under the Inquiries Act, even if the DPP successfully challenged Justice Marshall’s order.
Eastman’s counsel said the DPP had also failed to seek orders for damages, which is required when asking for an injunction.
The full bench of the ACT Supreme Court - Justice Wigney, Chief Justice Helen Murrell, and Justice Anna Katzmann - rejected the DPP’s application.
Chief Justice Murrell noted there had been a ‘‘very substantial expenditure of public funds’’ associated with the inquiry, which would be ‘‘thrown away’’ if it was restrained, even for a short time.
The hearing of the DPP’s challenge will come back before the Supreme Court on February 20.
The inquiry itself will resume on January 20.