The prosecutor who led the trial against David Harold Eastman has admitted information raising questions of a crucial forensic expert should have been handed to the accused killer's defence team.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Michael Frederick Adams, now a NSW Supreme Court judge, is giving evidence this week at the Eastman inquiry, which was ordered after fresh doubt was raised about the former public servant's conviction for the shooting murder of federal police Assistant Commissioner Colin Stanley Winchester in 1989.
Justice Adams was the senior prosecution counsel at the long, complex trial in 1995.
Counsel assisting the Eastman inquiry, Liesl Chapman, SC, quizzed the judge on Tuesday about the prosecution's duty to disclose certain information to Eastman's defence.
That included information that could have been used by Eastman's defence to attack the reliability of the key forensic witness in the trial, Robert Barnes, whose evidence was critical in linking Eastman to the murder.
Mr Barnes' analysis of gunshot residue was reviewed by a number of overseas forensic experts including the Israeli-based Dr Shmuel Zitrin, who did not agree with his conclusions.
Eastman's defence was given access to the overseas experts themselves and their reports.
However, fresh information, obtained under subpoena, suggest the prosecution failed to disclose other, potentially important information on Dr Zitrin's views about Mr Barnes' work.
Mr Barnes had written a report to address the concerns of his overseas counterparts, which, far from placating Dr Zitrin, raised further concerns about the accuracy of the forensic work.
It was those further concerns that were not passed onto Eastman's defence, potentially denying them an avenue of attack on Mr Barnes' reliability.
Both Ms Chapman and Acting Justice Brian Martin asked Justice Adams whether that ''very important information'' should have been given to the defence.
''Yes, I think so. Certainly the defence should have had this information,'' he said.
But Justice Adams went on to say he had assumed the defence would have quizzed Dr Zitrin on the topic when they had access to him before the trial.
Ms Chapman then asked Justice Adams whether, given the importance of the information, he ought to have checked that assumption.
''Yes, on reflection, I think that's right,'' Justice Adams said.
Justice Adams was questioned over records indicating that prosecutors held a range of information raising issue with Mr Barnes' work - from suggestions of technical errors, potential deficiencies, the limited nature of reviews of his analysis, and the report Mr Barnes wrote in response to the overseas experts' reviews.
Acting Justice Martin asked Justice Adams whether he now thought that such information should have been disclosed to Eastman's defence.
''I do now,'' Justice Adams said.
He said that he had thought the prosecution complied with its duty to disclose information by giving the defence access to the overseas experts and their reports, which he assumed encapsulated all the issues.
Justice Adams said the prosecution should have audited all the material they had accumulated before the lengthy trial, and then looked at what should be provided to the defence.
''But we did not do that,'' he said.
He said if the defence had asked for any of the material, they would have handed it over straight away.
Later on Tuesday, Justice Adams was asked about the AFP's interception of phone calls between Eastman and his solicitors.
Some of those recordings were transcribed by police, before the ''cat was let out of the bag'' when a typist unwittingly told one of Eastman's solicitor's that it was good to put a face to the voice he had been ''typing up''.
That prompted a change of protocol by the police, who said only relevant information obtained from conversations between Eastman and his lawyers should be transcribed.
Eastman's barrister, Mark Griffin, QC, asked Justice Adams whether he thought that protocol was strange.
The former prosecutor said it was only justified if Eastman and his solicitor were engaged in a criminal activity, which he said was not suggested in any way.
''But otherwise I must confess, it is unusual,'' he said.
Acting Justice Martin replied: ''That's something of an understatement, isn't it?'' Justice Adams agreed and said if he had been made aware of it, he would have told police in the ''strongest way'' that it was inappropriate.
The inquiry continues.
