The man responsible for marshalling forensic evidence used against the accused killer of the ACT's police chief says prosecutors had ''nothing to hide'' from David Eastman's defence team.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
But former prosecutor John Edward Ibbotson cannot explain why Eastman's defence did not receive a range of material that potentially raised questions about the key forensic witness in the case.
''All I know was that I tried to make sure the defence had everything because I knew David Eastman,'' Mr Ibbotson said on Friday.
''Everything you've shown me should have gone to the defence … if it didn't, I have no idea why.''
The Eastman inquiry - ordered in 2012 after fresh doubt was raised about the conviction - is investigating whether the prosecution complied with its duty to hand over all relevant information to the accused's team before the trial.
The inquiry has uncovered a series of documents, apparently never disclosed to the defence, that relate to the damning evidence of key forensic witness Robert Barnes.
His forensic work was critical in the circumstantial case against Eastman, and linked him with gunshot residue found at the murder scene near assistant commissioner Colin Winchester's home.
The inquiry heard Mr Barnes had a diploma in metallurgy, and no tertiary or masters degree, but was conducting work across a range of forensic fields.
Mr Ibbotson was the deputy director of public prosecutions from February 1992 to September 1994, but served as junior counsel for the prosecution of Eastman in the 1995 trial.
He said he had immediately formed the view that Mr Barnes's forensic work had to be reviewed.
''I was informed that Mr Barnes had not been the person that the AFP wanted at the crime scene,'' he said.
Counsel assisting the current inquiry, Liesl Chapman, SC, questioned Mr Ibbotson on Friday morning about the material that was not given to Eastman's defence.
''I can't explain it, all I'm saying is I tried my best to disclose the information that needed to be disclosed to the defence,'' he said.
''Am I understood?''
He said it amazed him that some of the information appeared not to have been handed over, as he was careful to give the defence team everything.
''We had nothing to hide … so this is really shocking and surprising.''
On Friday afternoon, Mr Ibbotson was questioned about the police's recording and transcription of privileged conversations between Eastman and his lawyers.
That practice was unearthed when a transcript typist accidentally told a solicitor for Eastman that it was good to ''put a face to the voice'' he had been typing up.
The AFP then changed its protocols to ensure only privileged conversations that were ''relevant'' were transcribed.
Mr Ibbotson said he would have been alarmed if he had learned of that practice at the time.
When asked what he would have done, Mr Ibbotson said: ''I would have raised that, as far as I'm concerned that's something that would have gone straight to the director.
''And [I would] get the police to explain what the hell was going on … and advise the defence.''
The former prosecutor also admitted there were problems with the forensic expert, Mr Barnes, handing in some of his material in time for the trial.
He said the issues with Mr Barnes would have made it hard to disclose some information to the defence.
The inquiry continues on Monday before Acting Justice Brian Martin.