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

My guess is that the main reason for proceeding to a second trial (contrary to Justice Martin's call for a pardon) was that the murder was that of a senior policeman. There are strong links between the police and the DPP, and the police did not want Eastman released. The ACT Attorney General did not intervene (and I am not sure whether that would have been appropriate given the doctrine of separation of powers).

The financial outcome of the Eastman case is that in 2016 (before the occurrence of the re-trial) it was then reported that the legal proceedings to date had cost the ACT Government approximately $30 million. ACT taxpayers subsequently forked out about $7 million more for this year's re-trial. The ACT Government had been forced to allocate dedicated funding to the Eastman case in recent territory budgets in order to retain legal aid funding for other cases. We have not seen the last of the matter. Eastman is seeking compensation, with the claim said to amount to about $20 million in damages sought.

In the end there are few winners. The Winchester family received no closure, though in this respect they are no different to many other victims of unsolved crime. David Eastman (for someone now legally found not guilty) has lost nearly half his life to jail. Whatever his character defects, one has to acknowledge than a less resilient person would not have persevered as he has.

Money-wise, the expenditure on this case, if allocated elsewhere, could (for example) have saved the lives of some hospital patients, built a school, or repaired a dangerous section of road.

Overall, the only (big financial) winner in all this has been the legal profession.