‘Admitted errors’: Bombshell claim about Sofronoff report

Lawyers for Walter Sofronoff say the integrity watchdog had now conceded that a report into his handling of the Bruce Lehrmann probe contained errors, a court has been told.

The ACT integrity watchdog has admitted that scathing findings made against the head of an inquiry into the prosecution of Bruce Lehrmann contained errors, a court has been told.

Former Queensland judge Walter Sofronoff KC chaired the Board of Inquiry into the criminal prosecution of Mr Lehrmann.

The ACT Integrity Commission investigated Mr Sofronoff’s conduct during his inquiry, in particular his decision to send a copy of the board’s report to journalists from The Australian and ABC prior to its official release by the ACT government.

The Commission in March found Mr Sofronoff had engaged in “serious corrupt conduct”, however he is now seeking to have the Operation Juno report overturned by the Federal Court.

During a hearing in the Federal Court on Tuesday, Justice Wendy Abraham was told that lawyers for the Speaker of the ACT Legislative Assembly had argued that the report was covered by parliamentary privilege.

That would mean that the report would not be able to be tendered to the court and therefore he could not seek judicial review.

Walter Sofronoff is seeking to overturn the ACT Integrity Commission’s findings. Picture: NewsWire/Tertius Pickard.

“It follows that if the speaker’s submissions are accepted, the court should refuse to admit the Operation Juno report and it seems to follow inevitably that the court would therefore refuse to entertain the allegations that have been made in the amended originating application,” barrister Alison Hammond, appearing for the speaker, told the court on Tuesday.

“And it would appear that the result would be that the proceedings are dismissed.”

Documents filed by his legal team claim Mr Sofronoff was given the ability to do “whatever (he) considers necessary or convenient for the fair and prompt conduct of the inquiry” as head of the inquiry.

Mr Sofronoff said he “subjectively considered that it was necessary or convenient for the fair and prompt conduct of the inquiry for him to engage with journalists”.

The documents also claim the retired judge’s actions were “incapable of amounting to corrupt conduct” and the findings were “seriously illogical, irrational and/or unreasonable”.

Adam Pomerenke KC, acting for Mr Sofronoff, told the court that it had been conceded by the ACT Integrity Commission that the report contained errors.

“Your Honour may see from the respondent’s submissions that ground two of the application has been conceded - that is to say there is now an admission of error in the report and it’s significant,” Mr Pomerenke said.

“It is an admission that the finding that Mr Sofronoff’s conduct could have constituted a contempt of court was not open, was unlawful.

“If our learned friends are right about the operation of parliamentary privilege, this court is powerless to address that error which we say is of a jurisdictional kind.”

Lawyers for Sofronoff say the report contained errors. Picture: NewsWire/Tertius Pickard.

He said it would be “most surprising” if such a report - which contains “admitted errors of a serious kind” - was immune from judicial review.

The court heard it was argued that the report came under parliamentary privilege at the point when it was submitted to the speaker.

And Ms Hammond argued that the findings could have been challenged before the report was handed over.

Justice Abraham asked: “These proceedings were filed on the 19th of March. If they had been filed on the 17th of March it wouldn’t be a problem?”

“Yes, Your Honour. But there is a good reason for the bright-line distinction,” Ms Hammond replied.

Justice Abraham will hand down her judgment on the parliamentary privilege matter at a later date.

Originally published as ‘Admitted errors’: Bombshell claim about Sofronoff report