Login
Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
Former judge Walter Sofronoff KC has claimed jurisdictional error and a lack of evidence affected a finding he engaged in “corrupt conduct” while overseeing an inquiry into Bruce Lehrmann’s abandoned criminal trial, newly released court documents have revealed.
In his originating application, released to media on the afternoon of Thursday, 3 April, Sofronoff sought a declaration that findings made against him just over 12 months ago were affected by jurisdictional error and the impugned conduct did not amount to corruption.
“In the premise of grounds one to 11 of this originating application, the conduct of the applicant is incapable of amounting to ‘corrupt conduct’, and therefore incapable of amounting to ‘serious corrupt conduct’,” the originating application said.
Based on the criticisms of former ACT director of public prosecutions, Shane Drumgold SC, Sofronoff headed up an inquiry into the alleged “inappropriate interference” of “both political and police” in Lehrmann’s criminal trial on rape charges. The trial was abandoned, and no criminal findings were ever made.
While Sofronoff made “several serious findings of misconduct” against Drumgold, the ACT Supreme Court would go on to find Sofronoff had extensive communications with The Australian journalist Janet Albrechtsen, which may have “influenced” him.
At one point, while Drumgold was giving evidence into an allegation he directed a junior to create a false affidavit, Sofronoff texted Albrechtsen: “What a thing to do to young professionals.”
Last October, the ACT Bar Association dismissed complaints made against Drumgold.
It was also revealed that Sofronoff told Albrechtsen he would share an embargoed copy of his report. About an hour after it was sent to ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr, Sofronoff sent it to Albrechtsen.
In proceedings before the Federal Court, Sofronoff claimed the ACT Integrity Commission erred in its construction of the Inquiries Act as it applied to the giving of notices of adverse comment, draft versions of the report and final versions to a journalist.
The application said the “unchallenged evidence” of Sofronoff before the commission was he “subjectively considered that it was necessary or convenient for the fair and prompt conduct of the inquiry for him to engage with journalists”, as he did with Albrechtsen.
On the finding his conduct could constitute a “serious disciplinary offence”, Sofronoff claimed this was contrary to the Integrity Commission Act because it only applied to employees, and he was not an employee at the time he headed the inquiry.
Further or in the alternative, Sofronoff said it was “seriously illogical, irrational and/or unreasonable in that the matters relied on by the commission are incapable of rationally supporting a conclusion that conduct of the applicant constituted a serious disciplinary offence”.
This was a similar argument advanced for findings his conduct constituted a breach of trust and that he misused information.
As for findings that he was “deceitful and dishonest”, he demonstrated “a lack of fidelity and good faith”, and he could “not be reasonably regarded as honest”, Sofronoff said there was a lack of evidence.
Sofronoff is due to return to court in July.
We're evolving — and so should your insights. Heads up — Lawyers Weekly is going premium from 1 May for just $5 a month. Stay informed without missing a beat. More information coming soon.
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
Get breaking news
Naomi Neilson
