Drumgold’s disgrace is a poor reflection on the ACT

Like many of the actions taken by his deep-green ACT government, Chief Minister Andrew Barr has been wrongheaded and self-absorbed in his response to findings that his Director of Public Prosecutions, Shane Drumgold, lied to the Supreme Court and engaged in serious malpractice and grossly unethical conduct. Rather than focus on the serious deficiencies exposed by experienced judge Walter Sofronoff KC, Mr Barr attempted to shoot the messenger. Instead of apologising for the appalling state of affairs and the damage Mr Drumgold’s actions had done to the perception as well as the actual discharge of justice in the ACT, Mr Barr raised the prospect of putting Mr Sofronoff in the dock.

This is tin-pot stuff served up as a distraction for a gullible media. Mr Barr’s distractions sit in the same frame as the claims made a day earlier by Mr Drumgold that Mr Sofronoff had gone rogue in investigating his actions as DPP rather than concentrate on his personal concerns about the difficulties experienced by alleged victims in the criminal justice system.

In truth, Mr Sofronoff looked at Mr Drumgold’s complaints and found them to be baseless. He made a series of recommendations to improve the system of justice in the ACT, which have been accepted. What Mr Sofronoff discovered, however, was fatal for Mr Drumgold’s continued position as DPP and potentially his right to practise and remain at liberty. Mr Drumgold’s attempts to justify his actions on the basis of a commitment to social justice are at odds with his legal responsibilities. His actions were forensically detailed by Mr Sofronoff. Most notable was Mr Drumgold’s complete disregard for the professional welfare of junior staff, who he manipulated for unethical purposes in the trial of Bruce Lehrmann.

Mr Barr and ACT Attorney-General Shane Rattenbury said Mr Drumgold’s actions met the threshold under section 28 of the DPP Act, which is the standard of misbehaviour in office that can lead to dismissal. They should have sacked him rather than allow him to resign. By not sacking him they seem to be suggesting the misconduct was not a big deal. Indeed, the ACT government’s immediate concern seems to be about how the public was able to learn of Mr Sofronoff’s findings in a timely manner that was outside their control. He provided embargoed copies of his report to The Australian and the ABC. Details of his report were published first in The Australian but, as we have made clear, we did not break an embargo to publish them.

Mr Rattenbury now says the early release of the report will hold up any further inquiries and possible legal action against Mr Drumgold. This is a nonsense. Unquestionably, Mr Drumgold deserves to be afforded procedural fairness, something Mr Sofronoff found had been lacking in the DPP’s treatment of Mr Lehrmann. There is no dispute that Mr Drumgold was afforded procedural fairness by Mr Sofronoff in the preparation of his report. Mr Rattenbury does not need to consult with Mr Drumgold about whether court proceedings against him are warranted. That is something that must be determined by the facts and the law. Just as legitimate questions about Mr Drumgold’s past actions as a prosecutor cannot be satisfactorily addressed by a cursory appraisal of cases under his control since becoming director.

Above all is the public’s right to know what Mr Sofronoff found. There was unquestionably a great public interest in Mr Sofronoff’s report being made public quickly and without political interference. The fact the ACT government has shown itself to be more interested in delay and obfuscation is something that should concentrate the minds of everyone interested in the proper administration of justice.