David Harold Eastman v The Australian Capital Territory

David Harold Eastman appealed to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia against decisions of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory concerning an inquiry conducted under section 475 of the *Crimes Act 1900* (ACT). The dispute centred on the reviewability of a report prepared by a judge pursuant to that section, and the scope of the inquiry itself, with Mr Eastman alleging a denial of procedural fairness.

The primary legal issues before the Full Court were whether the judge's report under section 475 of the *Crimes Act* was amenable to judicial review under the *Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989* (ACT), and whether relief could be granted under section 34B of the *Supreme Court Act 1933* (ACT). Further, the Court was required to consider the breadth of the inquiry permissible under section 475 and whether Mr Eastman had been afforded procedural fairness during its conduct.

The Court reasoned that the inquiry under section 475 of the *Crimes Act* was not an administrative decision for the purposes of the *Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act*, but rather a judicial function. Consequently, the report generated by the judge was not subject to review under that Act. The Court also found that the scope of the inquiry was appropriately confined and that Mr Eastman had not been denied procedural fairness, as the process adopted by the judge was consistent with the statutory requirements and the principles of natural justice.

The appeal was dismissed, and Mr Eastman was ordered to pay the costs of the Australian Capital Territory.