Eastman v The Australian Capital Territory & Ors [2008] HCATrans 339 (30 September 2008)

Last Updated: 1 October 2008

[2008] HCATrans 339

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
No C5 of 2008

B e t w e e n -

DAVID HAROLD EASTMAN

Applicant

and

THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Respondent

Office of the Registry
No C6 of 2008

B e t w e e n -

DAVID HAROLD EASTMAN

Applicant

and

THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY ALLAN MILES

First Respondent

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Second Respondent

Applications for special leave to appeal

KIRBY J
HEYDON J
KIEFEL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 30 SEPTEMBER 2008, AT 11.15 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

MR D.J.C. MOSSOP: May it please the Court, I appear for the respondents. (instructed by ACT Government Solicitor)

KIRBY J: Mr Mossop, you are in Court appearing for the respondents in matters No 5 and 6 which were removed from the list but have been now restored to the list and you are here today simply out of courtesy to the Court, as I understand it. Is that correct?

MR MOSSOP: Yes, your Honour. We were informed that the matter was simply put in for mention.

KIRBY J: Yes. I have called on out of turn Eastman v The Australian Capital Territory and Eastman v The Honourable Jeffery Allan Miles & Anor. There is no appearance for Mr Eastman, who is in custody, and, Mr Mossop, you appear in both matters for the respondent.

MR MOSSOP: I do.

KIRBY J: It is known to you, Mr Mossop, that the Court has received a facsimile from the applicant, Mr Eastman, indicating that he is now unrepresented. The consequence of his withdrawing his instructions to his solicitor was that counsel, who had formerly been retained in the matter on behalf of Mr Eastman, Mr Boyce of counsel in Melbourne, lacked a solicitor. He therefore could not continue in the matter and consequently withdrew from the case. At that stage the Court was intending to remove the matters from today’s list and to restore them at some later stage.

Having received the notice from Mr Eastman, by facsimile from prison, that he now represents himself; that he has no wish to delay the applications; does not seek an adjournment of oral submissions; and is content for the applications to be determined on the papers, that is the course that the Court is minded to consider. Whether the Court will consider that it is appropriate and just to deal with the matters on the papers only, without hearing any oral submissions either from the respondents or from or on behalf of Mr Eastman, is a matter the Court will determine in due course.

If the Court can properly deal with the matters on the papers, that is what it will do. It will in due course announce its decision in these matters. If the Court considers that it is necessary to revert to having oral submissions, then the parties will both be informed. We will then take matters further from there at that stage. Does that raise any matter upon which you would wish to be heard?

MR MOSSOP: No, your Honour.

KIRBY J: The Court will take that course and we note the facsimile from Mr Eastman. The Court will consider the course that it should adopt in both of these applications and announce its decisions in due course.

MR MOSSOP: May it please the Court.

KIRBY J: Thank you for coming to the Court today, Mr Mossop.

AT 11.18 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED