Eastman v The Honourable Justice Anthony James Besanko and Attorney-General for the ACT

(2010) 244 FLR 262; [2010] ACTCA 15

ACT Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Decision to which ADJR Act applies
4. › Decision made under an enactment
5. › Whether refusal to order inquiry into conviction confers, alters or otherwise affects legal rights or obligations
6. › Application of Griffith University v Tang test
7. › Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989 (ACT), ss 3, 5
8. › Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 422, 424, 425
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › Privative clauses
4. › Whether statutory provision excluding right of appeal and denying right to order of inquiry manifests legislative intention to exclude judicial review
5. › Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 425
1. Criminal Law
2. › Inquiries into convictions
3. › Power to order inquiry
4. › Construction of 'doubt or question' as to guilt
5. › Whether doubt or question resolved by evaluation of available material
6. › Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 422, 424
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Self-represented litigants
3. › Further submissions after reservation of judgment
4. › Whether written submissions filed without leave after hearing concluded should be received
5. › Need to avoid preferential treatment for self-represented litigants

Quick Take

A refusal by the Supreme Court to order an inquiry into a conviction under s 424(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) is not a reviewable decision under the ADJR Act because it does not confer, alter or otherwise affect legal rights or obligations. Part 20 of the Crimes Act, particularly s 425, manifests a legislative intention to exclude review of such decisions. Written submissions filed after a hearing has concluded without leave will not be received, and self-represented litigants are not entitled to preferential treatment in this regard.