Page 3954 - Week 12 - Thursday, 20 October 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
only the second year of returns. But I do believe that over time this information will become a very valuable resource in tracking insurance affordability.
David Harold Eastman
Paper and statement by minister
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment and Minister for Arts, Heritage and Indigenous Affairs) (3.37): For the information of members, I present the following paper:
David Harold Eastman—Inquiry conducted under section 475 (repealed) of the Crimes Act 1900 into the matter of the fitness to plead—Volume 1, dated 6 October 2005.
I ask for leave to move a motion authorising the publication of the paper.
Leave granted.
MR STANHOPE: I move:
That the Assembly authorises publication of the paper.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
MR STANHOPE: I ask for leave to make a statement in relation to the paper.
Leave granted.
MR STANHOPE: On 3 November 1995, David Harold Eastman was convicted by the Supreme Court for the murder of Colin Winchester. In 1997, the full court of the Federal Court rejected an appeal by Mr Eastman against his conviction.
In May 2000, the High Court dismissed an appeal by Mr Eastman against the Federal Court’s decision. The High Court had heard arguments about Mr Eastman’s fitness to plead and determined that the appellate system was not the appropriate forum to address the issue. Justice Kirby suggested that any remedy lay with the executive, and the then section 475 of the Crimes Act was mentioned.
In June 2000, Mr Eastman petitioned the Supreme Court, seeking an inquiry under section 475. The petition referred to passages of the High Court’s May 2000 decision discussing fitness to plead. On 26 July 2000, the then Chief Justice Miles decided not to direct an inquiry under section 475.
On 31 May 2001, Mr Eastman made another application for a section 475 inquiry on four grounds: a psychiatric report of Dr Jolly; the evidence of Detective Cliff Foster; evidence of the involvement of organised crime; and forensic evidence presented by Robert Barnes and Raymond Webb.
On 28 June 2001, the Chief Justice announced that he proposed to conduct a hearing on whether to direct a section 475 inquiry in relation to Dr Jolly’s report. The Chief Justice
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .