Eastman v Director of Public Prosecutions (ACT)

Administrative law – Injunction and declaration sought to prevent magistrate from conducting an inquiry under s 475 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) – Whether Supreme Court judge had power to instigate such an inquiry in the circumstances – Whether a doubt as to an accused person's fitness to plead is a doubt as to the "guilt" of that person – Whether "guilt" means "guilt as established by the conviction" or only the occurrence of the acts or omissions that constitute the offence – Whether a doubt as to the fitness to plead of an accused person is relevant to such an inquiry.

Criminal law – Inquiry after conviction – Inquiry under s 475 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) instituted – Whether Supreme Court judge had power to instigate such an inquiry in the circumstances – Whether a doubt as to an accused person's fitness to plead is a doubt as to the "guilt" of that person – Whether "guilt" means "guilt as established by the conviction" or only the occurrence of the acts or omissions that constitute the offence – Whether a doubt as to the fitness to plead of an accused person is relevant to such an inquiry.

Statutes – Interpretation – Provision for inquiry into a suggested doubt or question as to the guilt of a person convicted of a criminal offence – Construction of words of legislation so that all integers operate congruously and harmoniously – Construction by reference to words included and omitted – Construction by reference to legal history of Australian and English progenitors to the subject provision – Construction to give effect to a beneficial, remedial provision – Adoption of a purposive approach to statutory construction.

Words and phrases – "guilt", "doubt or question".

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) – s 475.

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1989 (ACT).