David Eastman will soon learn whether he has lost a bid to prevent his retrial over the alleged murder of Assistant Australian Federal Police Commissioner Colin Stanley Winchester.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
The ACT Supreme Court is expected to hand down its decision on Eastman's stay application about 9.15am on Thursday morning, following a hearing that stretched across a number of weeks earlier this year.
The stay application is Eastman's last-ditch bid to prevent a second trial for the 1989 Winchester killing, although he or the Director of Public Prosecutions may appeal the decision, depending on the result.
Eastman was freed in 2014 following 19 years behind bars, after a court quashed his conviction due to fundamental errors in forensic analysis used to link him to the crime scene.
But the court, while freeing him, also ordered that he face a re-trial for the alleged murder.
Prosecutors say there remains a strong circumstantial case against Eastman, even without the tainted gunshot residue analysis of Robert Barnes, which was picked apart in an inquiry headed by former Northern Territory Chief Justice Brian Martin.
Eastman has strongly resisted a second trial, and based his stay application on six main grounds.
He has argued that the extensive media coverage of the case has created prejudice against him, although prosecutors say much of the publicity has been favourable to him.
Eastman argues the case is not strong enough to warrant a retrial, and that the large expense to the public would be too exorbitant to warrant the proceedings.
The delay since the alleged murder is also said to put him in an unfair position.
Eastman's legal team argue their client's personal circumstances, including his age, time served, and health, mean a second trial should not be pursued.
They have also sought to use alleged prosecutorial misconduct in the original trial to argue against a re-trial, saying the prosecution deliberately sought to conceal weaknesses in their forensic case by not disclosing certain information to Eastman.
That goes against the finding of the Martin inquiry, which found that any non-disclosures were inadvertent, not deliberate.
Acting Justice David Ashley heard the stay application.
