The courts had a vital role in this case as the final outcome would not have been reached if it were not for the court hierarchy.
The charge against Eades of “inciting a person under 16 to commit an act of indecency towards him” is a table two indictable offence, meaning that it is to be dealt with summarily (in the Local Court), unless the prosecution nominates that it should be heard in the District Court.
The case was first heard in the local court where Eades was acquitted. However, as a result of the court hierarchy the DPP was able to appeal the case to the Supreme Court (NSW) where it was determined that the magistrate had erred in law, thus permitting the case to be remitted to the Local Court.
The charge against Eades of “inciting a person under 16 to commit an act of indecency towards him” is a table two indictable offence, meaning that it is to be dealt with summarily (in the Local Court), unless the prosecution nominates that it should be heard in the District Court.
The case was first heard in the local court where Eades was acquitted. However, as a result of the court hierarchy the DPP was able to appeal the case to the Supreme Court (NSW) where it was determined that the magistrate had erred in law, thus permitting the case to be remitted to the Local Court.