‘Fair go for Shane Drumgold’ case springs a giant leak

Inquiry head Walter Sofronoff. Picture: Jack Tran

Shane Drumgold has claimed that the leak of the Sofronoff Report denied him procedural fairness.

The same notion has been echoed by other people who appear more concerned about a leak to a newspaper than the substance of a report that found that the chief prosecutor was guilty of serious misconduct in office.

So let’s interrogate that argument to see if it holds water.

Drumgold called for this public inquiry. He was invited to participate in a public inquiry led by Walter Sofronoff KC.

Drumgold made a lengthy written 80-page submission to that inquiry.

He attached exhibits to his statement that numbered more than 200. In the interests of fairness and transparency, submissions by the various parties making allegations about other parties were circulated to other parties, including Drumgold.

In other words, the chief prosecutor had advance warning of the possible lines of questioning in the witness box.

Further submissions could be made to Sofronoff by any of the parties, including by Drumgold, at any time during this inquiry on matters the subject of this inquiry.

In May, Drumgold gave ­evidence over many days in the witness box.

He was represented by a very experienced silk, and former senior crown prosecutor, Mark Tedeschi. The barrister cross-examined many of the other witnesses who gave evidence during those public hearings. Oral submissions were made by Tedeschi defending his client throughout the inquiry.

In June, Drumgold was provided with a 10-page Notice of Proposed Adverse Findings putting him on notice of what Sofronoff may find given evidence revealed to the inquiry.

Drumgold responded, in more than 100 pages, with submissions to Sofronoff as to why those findings should not be made.

In order words, Drumgold received procedural fairness – in spades. Indeed, given the findings about Drumgold by Sofronoff, one could put it this way: more effort was put into ensuring this would be a fair inquiry than Drumgold, as the ACT chief prosecutor, put into ensuring a fair trial for Bruce Lehrmann. Drumgold should have known what was headed his way. All he needed was self-awareness.

He admitted to misconduct in the witness box. He said he made innocent mistakes.

In just about every instance, Sofronoff disagreed with that claim, finding, for example, that Drumgold deliberately misled the court.

Drumgold, along with sections of the media, and the ACT Labor government, can excite themselves all they wish about leaks to a newspaper. The Australian did not breach an embargo and will not reveal the source of the leak.

It’s curious that those who have spent years defending Julian Assange for leaking stories that may have undermined national security are now hot and bothered about a leaked report that found a DPP who wields enormous state power against citizens behaved improperly.

A case of politics or sore losers? Maybe both.

Indeed, unless the government was proposing to suppress the report, in part or in whole, the government can’t complain about the fact of publication, only about its timing.

The real story for the media and the ACT government – when they catch up – is the substance of the Sofronoff report. The former chief prosecutor was found to have deliberately misled a chief justice in order to withhold material from ­defence lawyers – material that should have been disclosed so that lawyers could properly defend a young man potentially facing jail.

At every stage, Drumgold was provided with procedural fairness. By the truckload.

In his final report, Sofronoff attached copies of the potential adverse findings relevant to each party so that we, the people – including the media – can compare the potential adverse findings with the findings in the final report. In other words, we can decide whether Sofronoff’s report is fair on Drumgold, and other parties.

When kvetching about leaks comes to an end, when responsible media outlets turn their attention to that fair process and those findings, they will discover that the Sofronoff Report is solid, and its ramifications for the criminal justice system very serious indeed.