Shane Drumgold takes legal action against Sofronoff Inquiry

Former ACT chief prosecutor Shane Drumgold is taking legal action against the Sofronoff Inquiry.

Shane Drumgold. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

Former ACT chief prosecutor Shane Drumgold has launched an extraordinary legal action challenging both his “termination” by the ACT government and the findings of the Sofronoff inquiry that he engaged in serious malpractice and grossly ­unethical conduct in Bruce Lehrmann’s rape trial.

Mr Drumgold, who was previously stated to have resigned from his position as director of public prosecutions following the damning report, has listed a case in the ACT Supreme Court for September 14.

He has applied for a judicial ­review to quash either the entire report by inquiry chair Walter ­Sofronoff KC or the findings about Mr Drumgold, listing the board of inquiry, Attorney-General Shane Rattenbury and the ACT as defendants.

Earlier this month, Mr Rattenbury said he had spoken to Mr Drumgold and that “in light of the commentary in the report” the pair had “agreed that his position as director of public prosecutions was no longer tenable”.

However, Mr Drumgold is now seeking to prohibit or ­restrain Mr Rattenbury making a decision under section 28 of the DPP Act, which allows the ­attorney-general to terminate the appointment of the director for specified reasons, including misbehaviour and physical or mental incapacity.

The Australian sought comment from Mr Drumgold, who has been on paid leave since he appeared before the inquiry over five days in May. His now-dis­puted resignation was to have taken effect on Friday.

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 the 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. Mr Drumgold is now seeking a declaration that the report and decisions are invalid and that the Attorney-General stop any ­action against him on the basis of the report.

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.

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 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.

ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr told the Legislative ­Assembly on Tuesday that Mr Drumgold’s legal action “will ­obviously occur in the context of the appropriate judicial review provisions”.

“Accordingly, it is not appropriate for me to comment further,” Mr Barr said.

Mr Barr has previously suggested Mr Sofronoff could face charges over the premature leaking of his report. However, the government has refused to comment on whether Mr Drumgold will face ­charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice or the common law ­offence of misconduct in public office.