Eastman v Besanko

The appeal concerned David Harold Eastman's challenge to the refusal by Justice Besanko to order an inquiry into his conviction for murder. The Attorney-General for the Australian Capital Territory was also a party. The primary dispute revolved around whether the refusal to order an inquiry constituted a reviewable decision under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989 (ACT) and, if so, whether the refusal was affected by legal error. The Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory heard the appeal from a decision of the ACT Supreme Court that had dismissed Mr Eastman's application for judicial review.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the refusal to order an inquiry was a "decision" to which the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989 (ACT) applied, whether the refusal was affected by Wednesbury unreasonableness, and whether the refusal involved an error of law concerning the proper construction of the phrase "doubt or question" as used in section 422 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). Additionally, the court considered whether written submissions lodged by Mr Eastman after the conclusion of the hearing should be considered.

The Court of Appeal held that the refusal to order an inquiry was not a reviewable decision under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989 (ACT). Applying the principles from *Griffith University v Tang*, the court found that the refusal did not confer, alter, or otherwise affect legal rights or obligations, and therefore did not derive from the relevant enactment in the manner required for a decision to be subject to judicial review. The court also determined that the further written submissions from Mr Eastman should not be considered, as no leave had been granted for their late filing and to avoid preferential treatment for self-represented litigants.

The appeal was dismissed. The appellant was ordered to pay the Intervenor's costs.