Shane Drumgold’s case against Sofronoff inquiry to be heard by Victorian judge

The former ACT DPP’s case against the inquiry that ended his career will be heard by a Victorian judge, due to a ‘conflict of interest’ preventing it from being heard by a judge of his own jurisdiction.

Former ACT chief prosecutor Shane Drumgold.

Former ACT chief prosecutor Shane Drumgold’s case against the inquiry that ended his career will be heard by a Victorian Supreme Court judge, due to a potential conflict of interest preventing it from being heard by a judge in his own jurisdiction.

Mr Drumgold last month launched extraordinary legal action challenging both his “termination” by the ACT government and the findings of the inquiry that he engaged in serious malpractice and grossly ­unethical conduct in Bruce Lehrmann’s rape trial.

The ACT Supreme Court on Thursday heard Chief Justice Lucy McCallum had decided it “would not be appropriate for any resident judge of this court to hear these proceedings.”

ACT Registrar Jayne Reece wrote to parties last week saying there was a potential “conflict of interest” due to Mr Drumgold’s standing in the ACT Supreme Court, which was further “complicated” by the fact Chief Justice McCallum presided over Mr Lehrmann’s trial.

As such, the court heard Chief Justice McCallum had written to Victorian Supreme Court Chief Justice Anne Ferguson requesting she allow one of her justices to become an acting member of the ACT Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Ferguson obliged, and Justice Stephen Kaye is in the process of becoming appointed to oversee proceedings.

“That is the mechanism around in which we will avoid any conflict of interest of our resident judges,” Ms Reece said.

Mr Drumgold is suing the inquiry - chaired by Walter Sofronoff - and the ACT government, 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”.

Shane Drumgold was found to have not acted with ‘fairness or detachment’ in the Bruce Lehrmann rape case.

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.

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.

The court on Thursday heard Mr Drumgold had dropped his claim against ACT Attorney-General Shane Rattenbury.

The parties on Thursday debated the timetabling of the matter, with Mr Sofronoff’s solicitor Glen Cranney arguing he did not have appropriate time to comply with Mr Drumgold’s proposed schedule, which would require him to file particulars “within days”.

“It is unfair on Mr Sofronoff, to force him into that position (when) he doesn’t yet have counsel or clarity around his position,” Mr Cranney said.

Mr Drumgold’s lawyer Terry O’Gorman disagreed, saying Mr Sofronoff had been made aware of the orders last week, and stressing there was “no common sense reason that all orders we request be made today not be made.”

Ms Reece ordered Mr Drumgold file an originating application by tomorrow, and the matter be listed for another directions hearing next week to determine further timetabling.

The matter will likely be heard across two days next year, depending on whether there are large disputes over facts.