‘No foundation’ for claims Walter Sofronoff’s mind was ‘poisoned’: lawyers

A former chief prosecutor has ‘no proper basis’ for claims Janet Albrechtsen ‘infected’ the mind of former judge Walter Sofronoff over the Bruce Lehrmann rape case, a court has heard.

The Australian columnist Janet Albrechtsen and former ACT chief prosecutor Shane Drumgold.

Former ACT chief prosecutor Shane Drumgold SC has “no foundation” for claims that The Australian’s columnist Janet Albrechtsen “poisoned” the mind of former judge Walter Sofronoff KC while he was conducting an inquiry into the handling of Bruce Lehrmann’s rape case, a court has heard.

Senior counsel for the ACT government told the ACT Supreme Court on Wednesday that allegations that Ms Albrechtsen’s reporting somehow influenced Mr Sofronoff’s adverse findings against Mr Drumgold’s conduct during the prosecution of Mr Lehrmann had “no foundation” and should not be accepted.

The court also heard a submission that Mr Sofronoff engaged with “any journalist” who contacted him throughout the inquiry, and the fact he communicated more with Ms Albrechtsen than others was simply because she “asked more questions”.

Mr Drumgold launched legal action against the ACT government and Mr Sofronoff’s inquiry last year, challenging findings in the inquiry’s final report that he engaged in serious malpractice and grossly ­unethical conduct during Mr Lehrmann’s trial for the alleged rape of Ms Higgins.

Mr Sofronoff’s report found Mr Drumgold betrayed a junior lawyer who trusted him, acted with “Pilate-like detachment” during the trial and treated criminal litigation as “a poker game”. It also vindicated police officers involved in investigating Ms Higgins’ claims as having “performed their duties in absolute good faith”.

Mr Drumgold is seeking a declaration that the report is invalid.

Earlier in the hearings, the court was told by Mr Drumgold’s lawyer, Dan O’Gorman SC, that Mr Sofronoff had been “poisoned” by frequent communication with Ms Albrechtsen, who Mr O’Gorman claims wrote consistently “negative” stories about his client.

However, on Wednesday, Kate Eastmann SC, acting for the ACT government, told the court this was not the case and there was “no proper basis” for a finding that Ms Albrechtsen could be characterised as an “advocate” who actively swayed the opinions of Mr Sofronoff.

“What we do dispute is that the factors alone, being the communication between Ms Albrechtsen and Mr Sofronoff, to the extent that they’re relied on to prove that her bias infected him, overlooks taking into account the way in which the inquiry was conducted, the terms of reference and the numerous opportunities that the plaintiff had to explain his conduct and to provide submissions,” she said.

Ms Eastmann said there was insufficient evidence available to determine whether Ms Albrechtsen influenced the opinions of Mr Sofronoff.

“The critical plank in this is whether the contentions about Ms Albrechtsen, her state of mind or her bias, can be established by the information,” she said.

“That shouldn’t be part of your inquiry. Your Honour is not asking whether she was biased, but is the available information sufficient for Your Honour, to start that first step in the steps. This is where we say, a fair look and consideration of the available material will not satisfy this element. And, if this element fails, the whole of the claim would then fail.”

Walter Sofronoff and Shane Drumgold.

Ms Eastmann also said there was “no evidence” Ms Albrechtsen provided her “post-verdict” reporting to Mr Sofronoff, or if he read any of the articles in question.

“There’s just no evidence that Mr Sofronoff and read any articles or was interested in reading any articles or collation of matters at that point in time,” she said.

“In our respectful submission, even if he had read the articles, there’s nothing to support quite a serious allegation that the first defendant (Mr Sofronoff) was infected or poisoned (by Ms Albrechtsen’s views).”

Ms Eastmann conceded that the “absence of transparency” in Ms Albrechtsen’s communications with Mr Sofronoff could be cause for concern.

Counsel for the board of inquiry, Brendan Lim, told the court on Wednesday that Mr Sofronoff would engage with any journalist who approached him, and Ms Albrechtsen was just “the most persistent”.

“That evidence is not evidence of Mr Sofronoff’s intention or belief or state of mind,” he said. “It is factual evidence about the approach he in fact adopted. Namely, I will engage with journalists who ask me questions, and then the fact that Ms Albrechtsen asked more questions than another journalist is really beside the point.”

Justin Greggery KC, representing six police officers joined to the proceedings, told the court there was “nothing sinister” about Mr Sofronoff contacting the media personally throughout the inquiry.

“The mere fact that the board communicated with Ms Albrechtsen in itself is not sufficient (to prove bias),” he said. “The fact that Ms Albrechtsen was what has been described as an opinion columnist, who held views, is also not of itself sufficient.”

Earlier on Wednesday, Mr O’Gorman submitted that Mr Sofronoff “failed to provide a fair hearing” to Mr Drumgold, in not giving him the opportunity to properly respond to allegations that he “egregiously preyed upon the inexperience” of one of his junior lawyers.

Lawyers for the ACT government submitted Mr Drumgold had ample opportunity to respond to allegations against him during the inquiry.

The hearing continues.