Walter Sofronoff KC was the chair of the Board of Inquiry. Photo: Screenshot.
The ACT Integrity Commission’s investigation into Walter Sofronoff KC found he engaged in “serious corrupt conduct” during the Board of Inquiry.
Mr Sofronoff headed the Board of Inquiry into the ACT Criminal Justice System, which was held in the wake of the aborted trial of Bruce Lehrmann for the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins in Parliament House in 2019.
The inquiry’s report criticised the actions of former ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold SC, who resigned after the findings made his position untenable.
After the inquiry ended, the Integrity Commission launched an investigation, called Operation Juno, into allegations that Mr Sofronoff had given his report to two journalists before it was made public by ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr.
On Tuesday (18 March), the commission handed its report from the investigation to the Speaker of the ACT Legislative Assembly.
“The commission has concluded that certain aspects of Mr Sofronoff’s conduct as Board of an Inquiry instituted under the Inquiries Act 1991 amounted to serious corrupt conduct as defined in the Integrity Commission Act 2018,” Commissioner Michael Adams KC said.
The commission’s report, which runs for 70 pages, concludes by saying Mr Sofronoff’s “corrupt conduct” significantly undermined the integrity of the Board of Inquiry’s processes and the fairness and probity of its proceedings.
“The commission has concluded that this is likely to have threatened public confidence in the integrity of that aspect of public administration constituted by the Inquiries Act as well as the particular assessments and judgements made in the board’s report concerning the administration of criminal justice,” it says.
“Accordingly, the corrupt conduct is serious.”
Former ACT DPP Shane Drumgold SC (right) arrives at the Board of Inquiry hearings. Photo: Albert McKnight.
The commission’s report said Mr Sofronoff’s disclosure of confidential material to journalists “could have” amounted to offences against the Inquiries Act.
It also said giving the Board of Inquiry’s report to journalists before it had been publicly released contravened the requirement to provide it “exclusively” to Mr Barr to determine the timing and extent of publication.
“The disclosures were dishonestly concealed from persons involved in the inquiry, in particular Mr Drumgold and the chief minister, which prevented them taking protective legal action,” it says.
In addition, the commission said Mr Sofronoff’s communications with The Australian journalist Janet Albrechtsen gave rise to an apprehension of bias that affected his findings about Mr Drumgold.
The above conduct could have justified his removal from the inquiry, it said.
Mr Sofronoff claimed he had complied with the Inquiries Act and acted in the public interest to ensure that the media were adequately informed about the issues being investigated and in a position to comment accurately about them.
“However, the commission concludes that he had not, in fact, acted in good faith,” the commission said.
Chief Minister Andrew Barr was given the Board of Inquiry’s final report about an hour before a journalist. Photo: Michelle Kroll.
The commission said on 15 July 2023, Mr Sofrnoff told Ms Abrechtsen he would provide her with an embargoed copy of his report after she asked him for it.
On 31 July 2023, Mr Sofronoff gave his report from the inquiry to Mr Barr at about 1:15 pm and then to Ms Albrechtsen at about 2:12 pm. At about 8 pm on 2 August 2023, he also sent it to a journalist at the ABC.
The commission said Mr Sofronoff’s provision of the report to Ms Albrechtsen was part of “a pattern of conduct”, as he had also given her numerous documents. These included witness statements that were subject to a non-publication order and legal professional privilege, as well as draft versions of his report.
“The covert disclosure of the confidential material to Ms Albrechtsen amounted to a serious breach in the probity of Mr Sofronoff’s exercise of his functions as board, both in itself and in the failure to accord Mr Drumgold (at least) natural justice,” the commission said.
“Here, the report destroyed at least one professional and personal reputation by findings that were, in significant part, vitiated by jurisdictional error and, with the benefit of hindsight, ought never to have been published.”
Janet Albrechtsen’s communications with Mr Sofronoff came under scrutiny. Photo: Janet Albrechtsen Twitter/X.
The commission also said Mr Sofronoff’s communication with Ms Albrechtsen showed that, over time, “he lost sight of the important public function he was discharging”.
“Parallel to the known board processes, Mr Sofronoff was engaging privately with Ms Albrechtsen, a journalist, who was not a participant in the inquiry and who was known to have strong views about issues that would certainly be the subject of the report to government,” it said.
An ACT Government spokesperson said, “We appreciate this has been a lengthy and detailed investigation and the findings speak for themselves”.
They said the Board of Inquiry’s findings faced a separate legal challenge in the ACT Supreme Court, which concluded that findings adverse to Mr Drumgold were tainted by an apprehended bias.
“However, the court declined to find that six of seven serious findings in the Board of Inquiry report were ‘legally unreasonable”,” the spokesperson said.
The Supreme Court judgement and the Operation Juno findings will be attached to the formal online government record of the inquiry.
Mr Drumgold was also contacted about the commission’s report.
“I welcome the findings of the ACT Integrity Commission and thank the commission for the thorough and professional manner in which this inquiry was conducted,” he said.
Read the commission’s report for Operation Juno.
The trial of Mr Lehrmann ended due to juror misconduct, and he denied the allegations.
Original Article published by Albert McKnight on Riotact.
