Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

The Eastman case: an unstable defendant, a lawyers' picnic, and a huge waste of public money

By Brendan O'Reilly - posted Tuesday, 4 December 2018

If you ask a lawyer (especially one from over the border in NSW) to comment on the criminal justice system in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), there is a good chance they will break into a suppressed smile or even shake their head. The reason is that the ACT system is widely regarded as a bit odd, - a "defendant's jurisdiction" with the most "progressive" laws and judiciary in the country. The ACT system is noted for light sentences and having a (very expensive) "Alexander Maconochie Centre" (the first prison in Australia purpose built to meet "human rights obligations"). You get the drift.

Against this background you would think that David Harold Eastman was fortunate to be investigated and tried within such a system. This turned out not to be the case.

On 10 January 1989 (almost 30 years ago!) AFP Assistant Police Commissioner Colin Winchester (who commanded the ACT's police force) was shot dead near his Canberra home. Twenty-three years ago (in November 1995) Eastman (now aged 73) was convicted of the murder, and was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole (the heaviest sentence I can ever recall in Canberra).


Even back then, Eastman was widely regarded as intelligent but suffering a hair-trigger temper. He was later diagnosed by a criminal psychiatrist as also suffering from an extreme paranoid personality disorder. Another psychiatrist diagnosed Eastman with chronic paranoid schizophrenia, believing he was not fit to plead. It was claimed that Eastman had become distracted when representing himself, and became micro-focused (on issues like his treatment by the police or the judge) instead of being able to look at the bigger picture.

I can personally recall (in the 1980s) being at a Canberra social event, and someone pointing Eastman out, suggesting we give him a wide berth. Eastman reportedly once assaulted a female journalist and punched the deputy registrar of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. He allegedly also threw a jug at a judicial officer in 1992, called a judge a "corrupt shit" and swore at the prosecutor.

During the original 85-day trial, Eastman repeatedly (ie 11 times) sacked various legal teams (often subsequently reinstating them). He eventually chose to represent himself. In June 1995 (in the middle of the trial) Eastman's bail was revoked after frequent clashes with the judge, who accused him of disrupting proceedings. There had been reports that former ACT Supreme CourtChief Justice Miles (who had stood aside due to illness) feared for his life and requested security, following alleged threats by Eastman. Eastman continued to be difficult during his many later proceedings and appeals, his conviction being subsequently the subject of almost continuous litigation.

In May 2001 Justice Miles ordered a judicial inquiry into the case, setting off a raft of appeals from David Eastman and the Director of PublicProsecutions (DPP). Eventually in 2003 the High Court upheld a decision to order an inquiry into his conviction, and determined the Federal Court was wrong to stop it.

A first Judicial Inquiry on 6 October 2005 reported there had been no miscarriage of justice and that Eastman had been fit to plead. Between November 2005 and April 2008, Eastman unsuccessfully appealed the 2005 finding. Then in October 2007 he appealed his original conviction but it was dismissed by the Full Bench of the Federal Court. Leave to appeal to the High Court was also refused. In April 2011 Eastman applied for another inquiry into his conviction, which was ordered in September 2012.

The second inquiry was headed by Acting Justice Brian Martin. The inquiry was on a similar scale to the original trial - six months of hearings, more than 50 witnesses, 260 exhibits culminating in a 450 page report plus a confidential section that was not released.


The second inquiry found that:

A substantial miscarriage of justice occurred in the applicant's trial. The applicant did not receive a fair trial according to law. He was denied a fair chance of acquittal. The issue of guilt was determined on the basis of deeply flawed forensic evidence in circumstances where the applicant was denied procedural fairness in respect of a fundamental feature of the trial process concerned with disclosure by the prosecution of all relevant material. ........A retrial is not feasible and would not be fair. While I am fairly certain the applicant is guilty of the murder of the deceased, a nagging doubt remains. ......Regardless of my view of the case and the applicant's guilt, the substantial miscarriage of justice suffered by the applicant should not be allowed to stand uncorrected. ......In view of the nature of the miscarriage of justice that has occurred and the period the applicant has spent in custody, and in view of the powers conferred on the Full Court, I do not recommend that the Court confirm the conviction and recommend that the Executive grant a pardon. I recommend that the applicant's conviction on 3 November 1995 for the murder of Colin Stanley Winchester be quashed.

On 22 August 2014 the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory quashed the conviction. Contrary to the recommendation by Martin J that "a retrial is neither feasible, nor fair", a retrial was ordered. Eastman appealed the decision for a retrial to the ACT Court of Appeal and then to the High Court. Both appeals were dismissed.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

3 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Brendan O’Reilly is a retired commonwealth public servant with a background in economics and accounting. He is currently pursuing private business interests.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Brendan O'Reilly

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 3 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy