Eastman v Director of Public Prosecutions (ACT) [2003] HCA 28

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GLEESON CJ,

McHUGH, GUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE, CALLINAN AND HEYDON JJ

DAVID HAROLD EASTMAN APPELLANT

AND

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS OF THE

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY & ORS RESPONDENTS

Eastman v Director of Public Prosecutions (ACT)

[2003] HCA 28

28 May 2003

C11/2002

ORDER

1. Appeal allowed. 2. Set aside orders 4 and 5 made by the Full Court of the Federal Court on 3 July 2002 and, in lieu thereof, order that the appeal from the orders of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory in proceeding No SC 149 of 2002 dated 3 May 2002 be dismissed. 3. The first respondent to pay the costs of the appellant in this Court.

On appeal from the Federal Court of Australia

Representation:

D Grace QC with M E Marich for the appellant (instructed by the appellant)

D A Buchanan SC with S J Gageler SC for the first respondent (instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (ACT))

J D Harris SC for the second respondent (instructed by Kevin Holmes)

P A Johnson SC with D J C Mossop for the third respondent (instructed by ACT Government Solicitor)

J D Harris SC for the fourth respondent (instructed by the Registrar, ACT Supreme Court)

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Eastman v Director of Public Prosecutions (ACT)

Administrative law – Injunction and declaration sought to prevent magistrate from conducting an inquiry under s 475 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) – Whether Supreme Court judge had power to instigate such an inquiry in the circumstances – Whether a doubt as to an accused person's fitness to plead is a doubt as to the "guilt" of that person – Whether "guilt" means "guilt as established by the conviction" or only the occurrence of the acts or omissions that constitute the offence – Whether a doubt as to the fitness to plead of an accused person is relevant to such an inquiry.