Eastman v The ACT

[2008] ACTCA 8

ACT Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Reviewable decisions
4. › Reports and recommendations
5. › Whether judge's report under s 475 of Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) is a decision to which ADJR Act applies
6. › Whether report confers, alters or affects legal rights
7. › Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989 (ACT), ss 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3A(2)
8. › Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 475
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Prerogative relief
4. › Certiorari and mandamus
5. › Whether certiorari lies to quash a report that has no legal effect
6. › Whether mandamus lies to compel further consideration
7. › Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 34B
1. Criminal Law
2. › Post-conviction review
3. › Inquiry under s 475 of Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
4. › Scope of inquiry
5. › Whether inquiry confined to whether doubt arose about fitness to plead or extends to determining actual fitness
6. › Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 475
1. Administrative Law
2. › Procedural fairness
3. › Inquiry proceedings
4. › Whether failure to clarify scope of inquiry denied procedural fairness
5. › Whether reasonable opportunity to be heard was afforded

Quick Take

A judge's report under s 475 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) is not amenable to judicial review under the ADJR Act because it does not confer, alter or affect legal rights or obligations. Prerogative and declaratory relief are similarly unavailable. An inquiry under s 475 is not confined to the narrow question that initiated it but may extend to determining the substantive issue (here, actual fitness to plead). Procedural fairness in a s 475 inquiry requires affording a reasonable opportunity to be heard, not ensuring the party presents their best case.