Appointment of Acting Judge for Eastman proceedings

Canfan 23 December 2014 6

Attorney-General Simon Corbell has announced the appointment of Acting Judge the Hon Anthony Whealy QC to the ACT Supreme Court.

The appointment of Acting Judge Whealy is on the recommendation of the Supreme Court.

“Justice Whealy is a highly qualified suitable Acting Judge to hear upcoming proceedings regarding the Eastman matter,” Mr Corbell said.

Mr David Eastman has applied for a stay against the Director of Public Prosecution’s decision to re-try him for the 1989 murder of Colin Winchester. The stay application is due to be heard in 2015.

Justice Whealy has been a solicitor since 1965 and a barrister since 1971. He practiced as a Queen’s Counsel from 1984 to 2000. From 2000 to 2012 he was a Justice of the Supreme Court of NSW, then a Judge of the NSW Court of Appeal from 2010 to 2012.

Since that time, Mr Whealy has also been the Chair of the COAG Committee on Counter-Terrorism Laws, an Acting Judge of Appeal in Western Australia and Assistant Commissioner of the Independent Commission against Corruption.

He is also currently a part-time Commissioner of the NSW Law Reform Commission, Deputy Chair of the NSW Sentencing Council, a University Visitor for the Catholic University and a consultant for the Judicial Commission of NSW.

“Justice Whealy’s skills and experience are exemplary and he will be an important addition to the ACT’s judiciary,” Mr Corbell said.

“His appointment also reflects this Government’s commitment to support our resident judges and reduce waiting periods for resolution of matters before the courts.”

(Simon Corbell Media Release)

What's Your Opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
6 Responses to Appointment of Acting Judge for Eastman proceedings
Silentforce Silentforce 3:32 pm 31 Dec 14

My Spray

As a long time Canberra resident, ratepayer and taxpayer; I do not want any government that is supposed to represent the majority of its electors to run an anti-campaign against the citizens who elected them – either by majority or preferences and who also are forced to pay for their decisions by the means listed.

Unpopular examples I quote are:

1. The decision to re-try David Eastman for the 1989 murder of Colin Winchester. It is not in the public interest and does not serve the interests of Justice because:

• The original prosecution was found to be unsafe;
• Original evidence was destroyed and material witnesses are deceased and/or have been discredited;
• No compelling new evidence has been (publicly) been released that would add value or change the above;
• On a human rights basis, Mr Eastman has served more time than others for more heinous alleged offences; and
• The decision to re-try will be uneconomical to pursue due to the above, Mr Eastman’s age, the further impost to the public purse given likely future appeals as a result of investigated and undisclosed exculpatory evidence, and compensation likely to be awarded in the event of prosecution loss.

2. The “Mr Fluffy” buyback scheme will benefit a few and add insult to injury to the ACT Government and Commonwealth following previous failures by BOTH governments to remedy the issue. You research who was Labor and who was Liberal.
• In the interest of taking personal responsibility for decisions made and fairness to our fellows, I propose that original property owners/ installers of this insulation who have realised a significant capital gain on their property and for those who inherited the same at no cost title transfer that they suck it up and manage it themselves at their own expense.
• ACT and Commonwealth funds should only be expended on others affected who have demonstrated suffering on a case by case basis.
• Failing the above, disaffected residents have the ability to pursue legal remedies through ACAT and the Courts. If compared to my first example of Eastman, these options present a lesser risk of loss to ACT ratepayers and taxpayers legally and financially.

3. Light Rail

• Pursuing the Light Rail option currently proposed and overwhelmingly rejected by all polling will subject current ACT ratepayers, taxpayers and their children and grandchildren to destitution more than any present opposition policy could possibly impose when added to the above commitments.

In light of the above, I suspect that proceeding with the above mentioned policies and projects will severely inhibit the likelihood of future Labor politicians occupying a prime location on Sydney Harbour once it hits voters on the side of the head (or bank account) like a brick.

banco banco 11:39 pm 28 Dec 14

dungfungus said :

Have the AFP started looking for other possible (probable) contenders for the rap?
I can think of several in Canberra and one not too far from Canberra.

……and admit the original investigation was a joke? Of course not.

dungfungus dungfungus 10:07 pm 26 Dec 14

Have the AFP started looking for other possible (probable) contenders for the rap?
I can think of several in Canberra and one not too far from Canberra.

John Moulis John Moulis 1:45 pm 24 Dec 14

What a waste of money. Just let him go.

Masquara Masquara 1:41 pm 24 Dec 14

If this Justice Whealy has a brain the size of a pea he will spare us all the huge cost of pandering to Simon Corbell’s ego. 10:56 am 24 Dec 14

The quality of the case against Eastman can be judged by the fact that the prosecutor in the previous hearing, Michael Adams QC, had previously accepted a brief to oppose the weak finding of the Morling Commission that the case against Lindy Chamberlain had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Release the audio tapes into the public domain for study using today’s technology, so that we can all see what a stinking heap of lies the case against Eastman was.

RIchard Mullins. (M.Sc, speech and language processing, Macquarie University 2006).

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site