The Eastman Case: Implications for an Australian Criminal Cases Review Commission
Flinders Law Journal, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 433-469, 2015
37 Pages Posted: 7 Mar 2016
Date Written: March 6, 2016
Abstract
The case of David Harold Eastman is one of Australia’s most recent and most notorious miscarriages of justice. It is an idiosyncratic case but highlights the familiar weaknesses in investigation and prosecution that can bring about miscarriages of justice – police misconduct, biased experts, prosecution non-disclosure, weak eyewitnesses. It also highlights the obstacles that the wrongly convicted can face in having their convictions overturned. Eastman is intelligent, resilient and persistent, and yet it still took him many years and repeated efforts to have his conviction overturned, demonstrating demonstrates the strength of the system’s attachment to verdict finality. This provides further confirmation of the need for back-end reforms to improve mechanisms for identifying and correcting errors. The English Criminal Cases Review Commission provides a good model. However, the Eastman case also raises the question of which cases should be considered eligible for review. Post-appeal review might be limited to reasonably strong claims of factual innocence supported by new argument. Eastman’s case may not meet such requirements. However, in another respect, Eastman’s case is still worthy of reconsideration. Regardless of the likelihood of his factual guilt, his trial was so flawed that his conviction cannot be considered the product of proper criminal process.
Keywords: Wrongful conviction, criminal cases review commission, criminal justice, forensic science evidence, Eastman
JEL Classification: K10, K30
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation