Shane Drumgold, Walter Sofronoff Supreme Court showdown begins
The opening salvos of a legal fight are about to begin, as former DPP Shane Drumgold begins a campaign he hopes will reinstate his reputation, and possibly catapult him back into his old job.
The first day of a legal throwdown brought by former ACT director of public prosecutions Shane Drumgold SC against the inquiry that ended his career will be heard in the ACT Supreme Court on Tuesday, in a battle the disgraced prosecutor hopes will reinstate his reputation and possibly catapult him back into his old job.
Mr Drumgold launched legal action against the ACT government and the inquiry, chaired by Walter Sofronoff KC, last year, challenging findings in the final report that he engaged in serious malpractice and grossly unethical conduct during the rape trial of Bruce Lehrmann.
Mr Sofronoff’s report – from an inquiry Mr Drumgold called for – 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”.
Mr Drumgold has conceded he made mistakes in the case but rejects the key findings of the inquiry that he had lied to the Supreme Court and engaged in serious misconduct.
He has also taken issue with the fact Mr Sofronoff gave his report to The Australian and the ABC under embargo before the ACT government made the findings public, alleging Mr Sofronoff failed to comply with s. 17 of the ACT Inquiries Act.
As such, he has taken the matter to the ACT Supreme Court claiming to have been denied procedural fairness, and is seeking a declaration that the report and its decisions are invalid.
The matter will be heard before Victorian Supreme Court judge Stephen Kaye because of a conflict of interest issue preventing it from being heard by a judge in Mr Drumgold’s jurisdiction.
In January, the court heard Mr Drumgold would attempt to prove Mr Sofronoff engaged in an “unreasonable” relationship with The Australian’s columnist Janet Albrechtsen while he was conducting the inquiry.
Mr Drumgold’s lawyer, Dan O’Gorman SC, wished to submit evidence of text messages, phone calls and emails between Mr Sofronoff and Albrechtsen, which he says speak to the “unreasonableness” of their relationship while the inquiry was conducted.
“We say the apprehended bias arises in this way – in the months leading up to and during the inquiry, Ms Albrechtsen was writing numerous articles … critical of Mr Drumgold,” Mr O’Gorman told the court.
He continued: “A comparison is made of communications Mr Sofronoff had with Ms Albrechtsen in particular and with other journalists. We point out that Mr Sofronoff made 65 telephone calls between Feb 9 and July 31, and … 55 were with The Australian.”
Mr Drumgold failed in a bid to strike out parts of Mr Sofronoff’s affidavit explaining why he engaged with the media throughout the inquiry, including comments “his interest was to ensure the accurate coverage of the work of the inquiry so far as he was able to do so”.
In mid-December, Justice Kaye allowed an application by six police officers seeking to uphold the inquiry’s findings to be joined as defendants.
His report found that while investigating the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins, the police “performed their duties in absolute good faith”.
More Coverage
