The former Queensland judge Walter Sofronoff will challenge findings that he engaged in “serious corrupt conduct” by leaking his inquiry into the prosecution of Bruce Lehrmann to two journalists before it was made public.
The Australian Capital Territory Integrity Commission’s report, released on Wednesday, found that Sofronoff’s conduct fell within “several elements of the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’”, through his disclosures to two journalists: Janet Albrechtsen at the Australian and Elizabeth Byrne at the ABC.
Sofronoff had been appointed by the ACT government to determine whether the investigation into the aborted Lehrmann trial in 2023 had been affected by political influence or interference.
His report ruled out political influence or interference, praised police conduct and found that the ACT director of public prosecutions, Shane Drumgold, had “at times … lost objectivity and did not act with fairness and detachment” during the trial.
Lawyers for Sofronoff said on Wednesday evening that he had filed an application with the federal court to challenge the lawfulness of the Integrity Commission’s report.
after newsletter promotion
The report found that Sofronoff’s decision to share confidential documents with journalists before the report’s public release was “contrary to the obligations of confidentiality prescribed by the Inquiries Act” and “could have amounted to offences against the Inquiries Act”.
“The disclosures were dishonestly concealed from persons involved in the inquiry, in particular Drumgold and the chief minister, which prevented them taking protective legal action.”
The report said Sofronoff had claimed his conduct “complied with the requirements of the Inquiries Act” and that he believed he had “acted in the public interest to ensure the media were adequately informed about the issues being investigated by his inquiry and in a position to comment accurately about them”.
Nevertheless, it concluded that Sofronoff had not acted in good faith and that his actions “undermined the integrity of the board’s processes and the fairness and probity of its proceedings to such an extent as to have been likely to have threatened public confidence in the integrity of that aspect of public administration. It therefore constituted serious corrupt conduct.”
More details to come
