ACT Attorney-General Shane Rattenbury’s court visit sparks concern among lawyers

The ACT’s first law officer has defended a move described by legal sources as “a bit how you going”.

ACT Attorney-General Shane Rattenbury. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

Legal figures have raised concerns over the ACT Attorney-General’s decision to attend a jury empanelment amid controversy over perceptions of political interference in sexual assault prosecutions, with one senior barrister saying “the optics are terrible”.

But Attorney-General Shane Rattenbury has defended his attendance, saying he had “no prior knowledge” of the cases he observed during a pre-planned visit to the territory’s courts.

Mr Rattenbury found himself at the centre of a media storm last week, when The Australian reported he had quizzed the acting ACT Director of Public Prosecutions, Anthony Williamson SC, about decisions that had been made to discontinue several sexual assault cases.

The newspaper reported Mr Williamson had angrily told colleagues it was highly inappropriate that he had been “hauled over to [Mr Rattenbury’s] office like an errant little schoolboy” to explain decisions he had made as an independent statutory officeholder.

While Mr Williamson declined to discuss the January meeting, Mr Rattenbury strongly denied any wrongdoing and rejected suggestions he had sought to interfere with the independence of the acting top prosecutor.

Anthony Williamson SC, the acting ACT Director of Public Prosecutions. Picture: ACT DPP

He insisted he had only asked policy-related questions and had not imposed political pressure on Mr Williamson to change his decisions on any individual cases.

This masthead can now reveal that last Tuesday, the day after the controversial meeting was revealed publicly, Mr Rattenbury attended the empanelment of a jury in an ACT Supreme Court trial that involved allegations a man had indecently assaulted a child.

Attorney-General Shane Rattenbury outside the ACT Legislative Assembly last year. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

The Attorney-General defended the move, with a spokeswoman saying Mr Rattenbury had been invited weeks beforehand to attend a tour of the ACT courts and tribunal.

“As part of the tour, the Attorney-General saw parts of various proceedings across multiple courts, as well as court facilities including a remote witness room,” the spokeswoman said in response to questions on Tuesday.

“The Attorney-General had no prior knowledge of the matters he was to observe and had made no requests to visit particular matters or courtrooms.”

The spokeswoman also said Mr Rattenbury had spent less than 10 minutes in the jury empanelment.

The ACT courts, which Attorney-General Shane Rattenbury toured last week.

While Mr Rattenbury has sought to quell the controversy, his visit to the courts has stirred another wave of commentary in Canberra’s legal community.

A number of lawyers, who wished to remain anonymous, expressed fears it continued to feed perceptions the ACT Government was interfering in sexual assault cases.

One said it was “certainly bizarre”, describing Mr Rattenbury’s presence in the jury empanelment as “a bit how you going”.

Another senior legal source told this masthead they were amazed Mr Rattenbury had not inquired about the types of cases he would be observing, given the controversy surrounding him at the time.

“The optics are terrible, and the timing,” the source said, noting sexual assault cases had been particularly sensitive matters since the aborted criminal trial of Bruce Lehrmann.

Mr Lehrmann denied raping Brittany Higgins at Parliament House in 2019, when the pair were federal Liberal Party staffers.

The charge was ultimately discontinued, and Mr Lehrmann maintains his innocence.

The senior legal source added that politicians in the ACT – a small jurisdiction – were quite recognisable, giving rise to concerns about the impact of Mr Rattenbury’s presence.

“Jurors who know who he is, what are they going to be thinking when they see the Attorney-General, at the apex of the executive [branch of government], sitting there?” the experienced barrister said.

The ACT Bar Association waded into the controversy surrounding Mr Rattenbury last week, saying it was not appropriate for “any person or organisation, inside or outside of government, to play a role in influencing, guiding or directing the ACT DPP”.

Association president Brodie Buckland said doing so “would cut across the independence of that office”.

“Whilst the ACT Bar Association is not aware of details of any meeting, we note that the independence of the DPP is of fundamental importance to proper functioning of the criminal justice system in the ACT,” Mr Buckland said last week.

“It is why the office of the DPP exists as a statutory appointment independent of government, and why the DPP is answerable to the [ACT] Legislative Assembly and not the executive.”