The Eastman Case: Implications for an Australian Criminal Cases Review Commission

Flinders Law Journal, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 433-469, 2015

Sydney Law School Research Paper No. 16/18

37 Pages Posted: 7 Mar 2016

See all articles by David A. Hamer

David A. Hamer

The University of Sydney - Faculty of Law

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

Hamer, David A., The Eastman Case: Implications for an Australian Criminal Cases Review Commission (March 6, 2016). Flinders Law Journal, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 433-469, 2015, Sydney Law School Research Paper No. 16/18, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2743034

David A. Hamer (Contact Author)

The University of Sydney - Faculty of Law ( email )

New Law Building, F10
The University of Sydney
Sydney, NSW 2006
Australia

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
161
Abstract Views
857
Rank
331,218
PlumX Metrics