But the officer's evidence appeared to differ from that given on Wednesday by a former deputy director of public prosecutions, who claimed he was aware of ''misconduct'' involving the deliberate provocation of Eastman during the early stages of the police investigation.

On Thursday morning, former Australian Federal Police officer Stephen Jackson appeared before an inquiry into the 1995 conviction of Eastman for fatally shooting assistant commissioner Colin Stanley Winchester outside his neighbour's home in Deakin in 1989.

Mr Jackson was involved in the investigation into the murder and had some involvement with conducting physical and electronic surveillance of Eastman while he was a suspect during the early stages of the inquiry.

Counsel assisting the inquiry Duncan Berents asked Mr Jackson whether he had ever deliberately intimidated or harassed Eastman. The former officer replied that he had not.

Mr Jackson also denied knowledge of any intention to exacerbate Eastman's paranoia or negatively affect his mental health through surveillance tactics.

Mr Berents asked whether there had been any intention to induce or force a confession from Eastman. ''No, absolutely not,'' Mr Jackson responded.

Mark Griffin, QC, for Eastman, asked the officer if he ever deliberately confronted his client or tried to provoke a reaction from him. Mr Jackson said ''never'', adding that he would have remembered had that occurred.

The officer's evidence followed that of former deputy director of public prosecutions John Edward Ibbotson, who was the junior counsel prosecuting Eastman at trial.

Mr Griffin asked the former prosecutor: ''Were you aware that [Commander Richard] Ninness had engaged in a process of overt surveillance designed to aggravate Mr Eastman and provoke him into some action?''

Mr Ibbotson responded ''my recollection is yes''.

The former prosecutor said he thought the tactic of overt surveillance was used years before the trial, during the early investigation of Eastman.

Mr Ibbotson said he thought it was designed ''to get him moving'', or to get some sort of reaction from him.

He said there was nothing to suggest to him that police were behaving in that way from the time of the inquest or during the trial.

But Mr Ibbotson said he regarded their actions as misconduct and potentially an ''illegal activity''.

''It's trying to entice somebody to do something that they wouldn't normally do, through inappropriate activity,'' he said.

The inquiry before Acting Justice Brian Martin continues.