Fresh twist in long-running saga over Walter Sofronoff and the Bruce Lehrmann trial inquiry

The retired judge who chaired the high profile inquiry into Bruce Lehrmann’s trial is no closer to learning whether he will be charged over the saga.

The head of an inquiry into the rape trial of Bruce Lehrmann is no closer to learning if he will be charged for leaking the report’s findings prior to handing them to the ACT government.

Walter Sofronoff KC admitted to regularly briefing journalists during the board of inquiry and to handing his final report to two outlets weeks ahead of its formal release, after the details of his findings were aired in the media.

ACT Attorney-General Shane Rattenbury aired his ongoing frustration over the matter during a radio interview on Wednesday morning.

But while he indicated the option of charging Mr Sofronoff over the leak remained on the table, Mr Rattenbury would not name a deadline for a decision to be made.

NCA NewsWire has repeatedly contacted Mr Sofronoff for comment.

“The government feels that the board of inquiry act is very clear about the expectation that material not be shared,” he told ABC’s Radio National.

Mr Lehrmann pleaded not guilty to sexually assaulting his former colleague Brittany Higgins at Parliament House in 2019. His trial was aborted last October due to jury misconduct and a planned retrial was abandoned due to concerns about Ms Higgins’ mental health.

The charge was dropped and there have been no findings made against Mr Lehrmann.

Mr Sofronoff leaked the report’s findings to the media ahead of giving it to the government.

“In this case, we have had that situation arise and I don’t think the Act ever contemplated that the person leading the board of inquiry would be the one to actually share that material.

“So we are also seeking legal advice and as you can imagine, it’s a very sensitive and complex matter and we expect to move forward on that. We’ll receive that advice in due course.”

When asked directly if Mr Sofronoff would be charged, Mr Rattenbury said the government had not determined a view yet.

On Tuesday, Mr Rattenbury revealed he had received a letter from the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions, Sally Dowling SC, about a “significant factual inaccuracy” in Mr Sofronoff’s report.

Ms Dowling’s letter, dated August 14, expressed concern about a paragraph of the final report that appeared to incorrectly attribute an opinion expressed by federal police about the conduct of prosecutors to a NSW Supreme Court judge.

Mr Rattenbury said the government was still considering their options. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

The Attorney-General said it was disappointing the error was made, considering other events associated with the inquiry.

“We’re obviously very disappointed. Unfortunately, the early release of the report did undermine some of those intended processes,” he said.

“I guess our focus now is on following through on the recommendations in the report.”

It comes after outgoing Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold launched legal action in the form of a judicial review to quash the Sofronoff report’s adverse findings against him.

The report found Mr Drumgold “knowingly lied” to Supreme Court justice Lucy McCallum and made several damning findings about his conduct during the case.

In a statement after the report’s release, Mr Drumgold denied any wrongdoing and said the report’s early release had denied him procedural fairness.“Although I accept my conduct was less than perfect, my decisions were all made in good faith, under intense and sometimes crippling pressure, conducted within increasingly unmanageable workloads,” he said.“The pre-emptive release of the report to the media has denied me procedural fairness. It has deprived the ACT Government of the opportunity of considering my conduct objectively.”

In documents filed to the Supreme Court, Mr Drumgold claims Mr Sofronoff did not afford him natural justice and some of the findings were “legally unreasonable”.

He wants the court to order that no action can be taken against him in response to the inquiry’s findings.

The case is listed for a directions hearing in the ACT Supreme Court on September 14.