Lawyers hand evidence to Shane Drumgold case against Sofronoff inquiry

As Bruce Lehrmann’s former prosecutor prepares for trial against the inquiry which ended his career, lawyers assisting Walter Sofronoff KC have handed over evidence.

Shane Drumgold.

Three lawyers assisting Walter Sofronoff KC in an inquiry probing the conduct of former ACT chief prosecutor Shane Drumgold have given multiple USBs of evidence to the ACT Supreme court, as Mr Drumgold prepares for trial against the inquiry which ended his career.

The USBs were handed over as part of Mr Drumgold’s case against the Sofronoff inquiry challenging the findings of the inquiry that he engaged in serious malpractice and grossly ­unethical conduct in Bruce Lehrmann’s rape trial, and his subsequent termination.

Counsel assisting the inquiry — Erin Longbottom KC, Joshua Jones and Eleanor Lynch — on Monday morning gave the evidence to the ACT Supreme Court as part of a return of subpoena hearing. Lawyers have been granted access to inspect and uplift the evidence for a period of 24 hours.

Mr Drumgold launched legal action against the Sofronoff inquiry — which he effectively demanded himself to probe political and police conduct during the Lehrmann trial — and the ACT government last year.

His legal challenge came after Mr Sofronoff ruled that every one of the allegations made by Mr Drumgold that sparked the inquiry was baseless and the chief prosecutor “did not act with fairness and detachment as was ­required by his role”.

Mr Drumgold conceded he made mistakes in the case but ­rejected the key findings of the inquiry that he had lied to the ­Supreme Court and engaged in serious malpractice and grossly unethical conduct.

After Mr Sofronoff’s report was leaked to the media, including to The Australian, Mr Drumgold said he had been denied procedural fairness.

“It has deprived the ACT government of the opportunity of considering my conduct ­objectively,” he said.

Walter Sofronoff. Picture: NCA NewsWire/Tertius Pickard

Mr Drumgold says Mr ­Sofronoff failed to comply with s.17 of the ACT Inquiries Act, which provides that board members must not provide inquiry documents to others or communicate inquiry information ­except under provisions provided by the act.

As part of these proceedings, he is seeking a declaration that the report and decisions are invalid.

Mr Drumgold challenges a number of Mr Sofronoff’s findings on the grounds of “legal ­unreasonableness”.

These include the findings that he had breached his duty by reading Brittany Higgins’ counselling notes; that he had been wrong not to disclose police ­documents; that he had betrayed the trust of junior staff members; and that he falsely claimed legal professional privilege over documents.

Mr Drumgold also disputes Mr Sofronoff’s finding that he had knowingly lied to Chief Justice Lucy McCallum over a note of a meeting he had with Lisa Wilkinson prior to her Logies speech and that he failed in his duty to warn the TV presenter of the dangers of making the speech.

He further objects to the findings that his treatment of Liberal senator Linda Reynolds in the witness box was grossly unethical and that his comments lauding Ms Higgins after the discontinuance of the Lehrmann case were ­improper.

In mid-December, the ACT Supreme Court heard Justice Michael Kaye allow an application by six police officers seeking to uphold the inquiry’s findings to be joined as defendants in the action.

The police officers include Superintendent Scott Moller, Senior Constables Trent Madders and Emma Frizzell, Inspector Marcus Boorman, Sergeant Robert Rose and Commander Michael Chew - all of whom assisted in the investigation into Brittany Higgins’ allegations that she was raped by Mr Lehrmann.

Mr Sofronoff’s report found that while investigating the matter, the police “performed their duties in absolute good faith, with great determination although faced with obstacles, and put together a sound case”.

Detective Superintendent Scott Moller. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

Justice Kaye ruled on December 15 that the officers should be joined as parties to the case because of their “sufficient legal interest” in its findings.

“It is sufficient to conclude that there is a material potential that the interests of the (officers) might be directly affected by the relief sought by the plaintiff, and, accordingly, that they have a sufficient legal interest in maintaining the decision of the Board, so as to maintain the validity of the findings by the Board, which vindicated their conduct in the investigation of the criminal charge, and in the prosecution of it,” Justice Kaye ruled.

“For the same reasons, I am persuaded that the inclusion of the applicants in the proceeding would be necessary to enable the Court ... to adjudicate effectively and completely on all the issues in dispute in the present proceeding.”

The matter will return to court on Wednesday, and is listed for trial on February 13.