Eastman v Attorney-General for the Australian Capital Territory

In Eastman v Attorney-General for the Australian Capital Territory, the applicant sought judicial review of the decision of the ACT Executive, led by the Chief Minister, to refuse to exercise the prerogative of mercy in relation to the applicant’s sentence. The applicant argued that the decision was made without proper consideration and was therefore unreasonable. The primary respondent was Jon Stanhope MLA, the Chief Minister at the time, but the court substituted the Attorney-General for the Australian Capital Territory as the proper respondent. The applicant argued that the decision was subject to review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989 (ACT) and was justiciable.

The court was required to determine whether the decision of the ACT Executive to refuse to exercise the prerogative of mercy was justiciable and whether it was subject to review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989 (ACT). The court also needed to determine whether the decision was made without proper consideration and was therefore unreasonable. The court held that the exercise of the prerogative of mercy was not justiciable, but the statutory process for considering the exercise of the prerogative was justiciable. The court further held that the grounds of review were not made out, as the decision was not made without proper consideration. The court found that the decision was made in accordance with the statutory process and that the applicant had not demonstrated any error in the decision-making process.

The court held that the decision of the ACT Executive to refuse to exercise the prerogative of mercy was not subject to review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989 (ACT) because the exercise of the prerogative of mercy was not justiciable. However, the statutory process for considering the exercise of the prerogative was justiciable. The court held that the grounds of review were not made out, as the decision was not made without proper consideration. The court found that the decision was made in accordance with the statutory process and that the applicant had not demonstrated any error in the decision-making process. The application was dismissed, and the Attorney-General for the Australian Capital Territory was substituted for the respondent.