Eastman v The ACT

[2008] ACTCA 7

ACT Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Reviewability of decision
4. › Decision 'under an enactment'
5. › Whether Executive decision to take no further action following s 475 inquiry was a decision of an administrative character made under an enactment
6. › Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989 (ACT)
7. › Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 475
1. Administrative Law
2. › Prerogative of mercy
3. › Judicial review of exercise of prerogative
4. › Whether exercise of prerogative of mercy is amenable to judicial review
5. › Whether Horwitz v Connor remains binding
6. › Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 (Cth), s 37(d)
1. Administrative Law
2. › Bias
3. › Apprehended bias
4. › Political decision-maker
5. › Public statements by Chief Minister prior to Executive decision
6. › Whether different standard applies to political decision-makers compared to judicial officers
7. › Whether public statements demonstrated pre-judgment

Quick Take

The exercise of the prerogative of mercy by the ACT Executive under s 37(d) of the Self-Government Act is not judicially reviewable, following Horwitz v Connor, which remains binding until the High Court holds otherwise. A decision by the Executive to take no further action following a s 475 inquiry is not a decision 'under an enactment' for ADJR Act purposes because it has no capacity to affect legal rights. Public statements by a Chief Minister expressing views on the likely outcome of an Executive decision do not demonstrate apprehended bias, given the different standards applicable to political decision-makers as established in Jia.