Walter Sofronoff’s mind ‘poisoned’ against Shane Drumgold: court claim

Lawyers for Shane Drumgold claim Walter Sofronoff ‘poisoned his mind’ against the former ACT chief prosecutor while conducting inquiry into the handling of Bruce Lehrmann’s rape trial.

Former ACT chief prosecutor Shane Drumgold.

Walter Sofronoff KC “poisoned his mind” against former ACT chief prosecutor Shane Drumgold SC while conducting an inquiry into the handling of former Liberal staffer Bruce Lehrmann’s rape trial, a court has heard.

The ACT Supreme Court on Tuesday heard allegations that Mr Sofronoff was influenced by frequent communication with The Australian’s columnist Janet Albrechtsen, who Mr Drumgold’s lawyers claim favoured Mr Lehrmann in her coverage of his prosecution, while writing “negative” stories about Mr Drumgold’s conduct during the case.

The court also heard a claim that Mr Sofronoff’s finding that Mr Drumgold breached his duties as director of public prosecutions after reading Brittany Higgins’ counselling notes was “legally unreasonable”.

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.

The court on Tuesday heard Mr Drumgold planned to abandon a claim that Mr Sofronoff acted improperly when giving his report to media outlets under embargo before the ACT government made the findings public.

Instead, he will rely on an allegation Mr Sofronoff exhibited an “apprehended bias” in engaging in an unreasonable relationship with Albrechtsen, who was writing consistently “adverse” stories about Mr Drumgold.

“What Mr Drumgold alleges is that Mr Sofronoff’s association with Ms Albrechtsen in particular might be thought by the fair-minded observer to have possibly diverted Mr Sofronoff enough from deciding the issues in his terms of reference on their merit,” Mr Drumgold’s barrister, Dan O’Gorman SC, told the court in his opening submission.

Walter Sofronoff and Shane Drumgold.

Mr O’Gorman said Albrecht­sen “published a number of articles from November 2022 that were adverse to Mr Drumgold”.

“They cast him in a negative light by impugning his character and credibility,” he said. “While doing that, she was also casting Mr Lehmann … in a favourable way.”

Mr Drumgold contends that Albrechtsen and Mr Sofronoff engaged in a closer relationship than Mr Sofronoff did with other journalists covering the inquiry.

Mr O’Gorman told the court Mr Sofronoff sent Albrechtsen important inquiry documents he did not share with other reporters, including a draft document of the final report, which included his track changes.

In one text message sent to Albrechtsen on May 6, 2023 – two days before Mr Drumgold entered the witness box for the Sofronoff inquiry – Mr Sofronoff wrote: “What a thing to do to two young professionals under your mentorship.” In his final report, he found that Mr Drumgold “preyed on a junior lawyer’s inexperience”.

“In our submission, this (message) is particularly concerning, because here he is expressing an adverse opinion against Mr Drumgold before Mr Drumgold even approaches the witness box,” Mr O’Gorman said. “And he’s doing this to a journalist.”

Mr O’Gorman on Tuesday submitted that Mr Sofronoff’s finding that Mr Drumgold failed in his duties as chief prosecutor when handling Ms Higgins’ counselling notes during the trial was “legally unreasonable”.

In the lead-up to Mr Lehrmann’s criminal trial, police investigating Ms Higgins’ allegations accidentally sent her private counselling notes to Mr Lehrmann’s then lawyer, John Korn.

While Mr Korn says he did not read the notes, Mr Drumgold, worried the notes would be read by the defence, did.

“The question of issue was whether Mr Drumgold was obliged, having skim-read the notes, to make or facilitate application to provide the content of the notes to the defence or in effect withdraw from the case,” Mr O’Gorman told the court. “It’s ­really difficult to see what he was to do, short of withdrawing.”

Additionally, Mr O’Gorman objected to Mr Sofronoff’s finding that Mr Drumgold engaged in “grossly unethical” conduct when suggesting to Liberal senator Linda Reynolds while she was under cross-examination that she was “politically invested” in the outcome of the trial. He said it was “ludicrous” to suggest Senator Reynolds wasn’t politically invested in the matter because she was a minister of the government and the former boss of both Ms Higgins and Mr Lehrmann.

The hearing continues.