Eastman v Director of Public Prosecutions (No 2)

In this matter, the appellant, David Harold Eastman, sought an inquiry into his conviction for the murder of Colin Stanley Winchester, arguing that there was a miscarriage of justice or other defect in the trial. The Director of Public Prosecutions opposed the application, asserting that there was no basis for an inquiry under the relevant legislation. The court had to determine whether the Court of Criminal Appeal had the power to quash a conviction and order a new trial in such circumstances, and whether the board could provide confidential information to the Court without the parties' access. The court also had to consider whether the admission of confidential evidence without the parties' knowledge could interfere with the Court’s institutional integrity or independence.

The court found that the Court of Criminal Appeal did have the power to quash a conviction if there was a miscarriage of justice or other defect in the trial, and to order a new trial if necessary. The court held that the board could provide confidential information to the Court without the parties' access, as the legislation allowed for this. The court also found that the admission of confidential evidence without the parties' knowledge did not interfere with the Court’s institutional integrity or independence, as the evidence was relevant and reliable. The court found that the appellant's conviction was quashed due to a significant risk of miscarriage of justice based on the non-disclosure of crucial evidence, and ordered a new trial.

The Court quashed the conviction of David Harold Eastman for the murder of Colin Stanley Winchester and ordered a new trial on the charge of murder. The court found that the non-disclosure of crucial evidence by the police amounted to a miscarriage of justice and that the appellant was not afforded a fair trial. The court held that the evidence was relevant and reliable, and that the admission of the evidence did not interfere with the Court’s institutional integrity or independence. The court also found that the board could provide confidential information to the Court without the parties' access, and that the Court of Criminal Appeal had the power to quash a conviction and order a new trial in such circumstances.