Lehrmann inquiry head Walter Sofronoff files Federal Court challenge of corruption report

Walter Sofronoff KC has instigated legal proceedings to challenge a report finding he engaged in ‘serious corrupt conduct’ during an inquiry into the prosecution of Bruce Lehrmann.

Walter Sofronoff KC. Picture: Tertius Pickard/NewsWire

You can now listen to The Australian's articles. Give us your feedback.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles.

Walter Sofronoff KC has instigated legal proceedings to challenge a report finding he engaged in serious corrupt conduct during an inquiry into the prosecution of Bruce Lehrmann.

The ACT Integrity Commission on Wednesday published a report saying Mr Sofronoff’s disclosure of confidential documents to journalists during the inquiry damaged its integrity and could possibly constitute a criminal offence.

Mr Sofronoff, within hours of the findings being published, filed a Federal Court application “challenging the lawfulness of the Integrity Commission’s report”.

The commission’s 130-page report into Mr Sofronoff’s conduct was tabled in the ACT Legislative Council on Wednesday, and found the former judge had been “significantly compromised” when chairing an inquiry probing the conduct of former ACT chief prosecutor Shane Drumgold during Mr Lehrmann’s rape trial.

It said Mr Sofronoff acted outside of his duties when providing the final report from the inquiry to journalists – The Australian’s Janet Albrechtsen and the ABC’s Elizabeth Byrne – before it had been handed to the ACT Chief Minister.

No adverse findings have been made against either journalist.

The Sofronoff inquiry’s final report found Mr Drumgold intentionally directed a junior lawyer in his office to make a misleading affidavit and, in doing so, “egregiously abused his authority and betrayed the trust of his young staff member”.

Mr Sofronoff, a former Queensland solicitor-general, in his report said he was “deeply disturbed” by Mr Drumgold’s ignorance of ethical principles and accused him of having “Pilate-like detachment”.

The commission rejected Mr Sofronoff’s submission he supplied the final report under embargo because it was “important for these journalists to be prepared for the release of the report”.

“It is patently incorrect to state that possession by journalists of the report prior to its publication by government was necessary to enable adequate reporting of its content: its content would be available by its release by government, as envisaged by the act,” the report said.

Former Law Council president Arthur Moses SC described the findings as “an overreach”, saying they could have the effect of discouraging retired judges from ­accepting appointments to lead controversial inquiries.

He said the opinion expressed in the report “does not change the fact that Walter Sofronoff is an eminent jurist”.

“Do I think that Mr Sofronoff showed an error of judgment? Yes. Would I have done what Mr Sofronoff did if I held that office? No,” he said.

“However, with the greatest respect to the ACT Integrity Commissioner, the opinions … expressed that Mr Sofronoff engaged in serious corrupt conduct seem to be an overreach.”

He said the report could discourage judges from accepting appointments to lead inquiries in controversial matters. “It is to be expected that judicial review will follow an inquiry if there are allegations it has engaged in error in some form,” he said.

“What is troubling is the perception that could be created, rightly or wrongly, that the head of an inquiry who has been appointed to examine the conduct of an officer of the executive would then be the subject of an inquiry by the executive if the executive takes issue with what the head of the inquiry has done.”

Mr Sofronoff’s lawyer Glen Cranny late Wednesday issued a statement saying: “Mr Sofronoff has today filed an application in the Federal Court of Australia challenging the lawfulness of the Integrity Commission’s report.”

The ACT Integrity Commission probe was launched after Acting ACT Supreme Court judge Stephen Kaye last year found Mr Sofronoff’s behaviour during the inquiry gave rise to a “reasonable apprehension of bias”.

However, he upheld the majority of Mr Sofronoff’s findings against Mr Drumgold.

Evidence tendered in the ACT Supreme Court hearing revealed Mr Sofronoff had 65 telephone calls with journalists around the time he was chairing the inquiry – 55 with The Australian and 10 with other news outlets.

Mr Sofronoff’s regular communications with Albrechtsen throughout the inquiry meant he “lost sight of the important public function he was discharging”, the commission found.

“Parallel to the known board processes, Mr Sofronoff was engaging privately with Ms Albrechtsen, a journalist, who was not a participant in the inquiry and who was known to have strong views about issues that would certainly be the subject of the report to government,” the ­report said.

“Even in the earlier stages of their engagement, Mr Sofronoff had, in Acting Justice Kaye’s words, become a ‘fellow traveller’ with Ms Albrechtsen. This engagement intensified over time.”

The ACT Integrity Commission found the disclosure of the report to the journalists and sharing witness statements, report drafts and notices of adverse findings to Albrechtsen could constitute a criminal offence under the Inquiries Act.

The commission noted the repeated response of The Aus­tralian that it had not broken any embargo.