‘Seriously illogical’: New details after head of inquiry into Bruce Lehrmann’s prosecution launches appeal against accusations of ‘serious corrupt conduct’

Fresh details have come to light after the head of an inquiry into Bruce Lehrmann’s prosecution launched an appeal against accusations of ‘serious corrupt conduct’.

The head of an inquiry into the prosecution of Bruce Lehrmann claimed findings of “serious corrupt conduct” made against him by the ACT’s corruption watchdog were “seriously illogical, irrational and/or unreasonable”.

Former Queensland judge Walter Sofronoff KC led the 2023 Board of Inquiry into the prosecution of Mr Lehrmann.

The ACT Integrity Commission launched Operation Juno to investigate Mr Sofronoff’s contact with journalists during his inquiry, in particular his decision to send a copy of the Board’s report to two journalists prior to its official release by the ACT government.

The journalists were Janet Albrechtsen from The Australian and Elizabeth Byrne from the ABC.

The Commission in March found Mr Sofronoff had engaged in “serious corrupt conduct” during the Inquiry.

“The Commission has concluded that the conduct of Mr Sofronoff in making the impugned communications could constitute a criminal offence,” the Commission’s report stated.

Walter Sofronoff KC has launched an appeal following allegations of ‘serious corrupt conduct’ by the ACT Integrity Commission. Picture: NewsWire/Tertius Pickard

Mr Sofronoff has since filed an application to appeal the findings in the Federal Court of Australia.

Documents filed to the Federal Court on behalf of Mr Sofronoff, seen by NewsWire, 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.

The document argued Mr Sofronoff “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 therefore incapable of amounting to ‘serious corrupt conduct’”.

“Alternatively, the conclusion that the conduct of the Applicant amounted to ‘serious corrupt conduct’ … was seriously illogical, irrational and/or unreasonable in that the matters relied upon by the Commission are not capable of rationally supporting that conclusion.”

The application included declarations that the Operation Juno report is “affected by jurisdictional error” and that the “‘impugned conduct’ of the Applicant … does not amount to corrupt conduct”.

It also stated Mr Sofronoff “did not owe any obligation of procedural fairness to the Chief Minister, or any other person, in respect of the conduct” and that his conduct wasn’t in breach of procedural fairness owed to the Chief Minister or anyone else.

In response to findings by the Commission that Mr Sofronoff’s conduct “could” constitute a serious disciplinary offence, the application argued he was incapable as the offence only applied to employees, which he was not classified as in his role as head of the Inquiry.

Other findings by the Commission, including that Mr Sofronoff could not “be reasonably regarded as honest”, were dismissed as having “no evidence”. and were therefore “unreasonable”.

A hearing was ordered for May 20, as well as a final hearing on July 21 and 22, according to federal court documents.

The Integrity Commission’s report stated disclosures were “dishonestly concealed” from those involved in the Inquiry, “in particular Mr Drumgold (former Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold) and the Chief Minister, which prevented them taking protective legal action”.

“This impugned conduct constituted the exercise of Mr Sofronoff’s official functions in a way that was not impartial, significantly compromised the integrity of the Inquiry constituting a breach of public trust and, in respect of his communications with Ms Albrechtsen, gave rise to an apprehension of bias that affected his findings about Mr Drumgold,” the report stated.

“That conduct could have justified Mr Sofronoff’s removal from the Inquiry.”

A hearing was ordered for May 20, as well as a final hearing on July 21 and 22, according to federal court documents. Picture: Supplied.

The report noted Mr Sofronoff claimed his conduct “complied with the requirements of the Inquiries Act” and that he “acted in the public interest”.

“Mr Sofronoff claimed that his conduct complied with the requirements of the Inquiries Act, and that he had acted in the public interest to ensure the media were adequately informed about the issues being investigated by his Inquiry and in a position to comment accurately about them,” the report stated.

The Commission found Mr Sofronoff hadn’t acted in good faith and that his conduct “undermined the integrity of the Board’s processes and probity of its proceedings to such an extent as to have been likely to have threatened public confidence in the integrity of that aspect of public administration”.

“It therefore constituted serious corrupt conduct,” the report stated.

“No other adverse comment or opinion has been made against any other person or entity named in this report.”

Mr Lehrmann fronted a criminal trial in 2022 over the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins in 2019, however a mistrial was declared over juror misconduct.

A retrial was declined by former Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold over concerns for Ms Higgins’ health and the charge was dropped. Mr Lehrmann continues to deny the allegation.

In the wake of the mistrial, Mr Drumgold called for an inquiry into how the case was handled.

Damning findings were instead made about Mr Drumgold

Mr Lehrmann was found, on the balance of probabilities, to have raped Ms Higgins in a civil case last year.

Mr Lehrmann is appealing the ruling.

Originally published as ‘Seriously illogical’: New details after head of inquiry into Bruce Lehrmann’s prosecution launches appeal against accusations of ‘serious corrupt conduct’