Eastman v Director of Public Prosecutions (ACT) and Ors

The applicant, Eastman, sought judicial review of a decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions (ACT) to prosecute him for an offence under the *Crimes Act 1900* (ACT). The proceedings were before McHugh J in chambers.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Director of Public Prosecutions had acted unlawfully in commencing the prosecution, specifically whether the Director had failed to consider relevant matters or had taken irrelevant matters into account when deciding to prosecute.

McHugh J considered the principles governing the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in Australia, noting that while prosecutors have a broad discretion, this discretion is not unfettered and must be exercised in accordance with the law. His Honour examined the evidence presented by the applicant regarding the Director's decision-making process, including whether the Director had adequately considered the applicant's mental state and the potential for a defence of mental impairment. The Court applied the principles of administrative law, particularly the grounds for judicial review of administrative decisions, to assess the lawfulness of the Director's actions.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.