Former Queensland decide Walter Sofronoff sincerely believed he was performing for the general public good when he leaked his report on the prosecution of Bruce Lehrmann to 2 journalists earlier than it was made public, the federal court docket has heard.
Hearings started on Monday into Sofronoff’s authorized problem to findings by the Australian Capital Territory’s corruption watchdog that he had engaged in “severe corrupt conduct” by leaking the report of his investigation into the Lehrmann case to Janet Albrechtsen on the Australian and Elizabeth Byrne on the ABC, forward of its official launch.
There was “overwhelming proof that Mr Sofronoff genuinely believed he was performing within the public good”, and trying to help accuracy of media reportage, his counsel Adam Pomerenke KC informed the court docket.
“Even when Mr Sofronoff was unsuitable in his view, the actual fact stays that he genuinely and actually held it. This isn’t a corrupt, dishonest or malicious motive. At worst, it could possibly be characterised as an faulty try to make sure accuracy and transparency in public discourse. That can’t rationally be described as corrupt,” Pomerenke stated.
Bruce Lehrmann was accused of raping Brittany Higgins within the ministerial workplace of senator Linda Reynolds at Parliament Home in 2019. He denied these allegations. A 2022 felony trial was aborted due to juror misconduct, and prosecutors determined towards a re-trial.
Sofronoff was appointed by the ACT authorities to find out whether or not the investigation into the aborted Lehrmann trial had been affected by political affect or interference. His report dominated out political affect or interference however made “severe findings of misconduct” towards prosecutor Shane Drumgold, which had been partially overturned in March 2024.
The ACT Integrity Fee launched an investigation in Could 2024 to find out whether or not Sofronoff acted corruptly in leaking the confidential paperwork.
The fee’s findings, generally known as the Juno report, stated Sofronoff claimed his conduct “complied with the necessities of the Inquiries Act” and that, in leaking the paperwork, he had “acted within the public curiosity to make sure the media had been adequately knowledgeable” about his inquiry and “ready to remark precisely” about it.
The fee discovered that Sofronoff “had not, actually, acted in good religion”, that his actions “undermined the integrity of the Board’s processes and the equity and probity of its proceedings to such an extent as to have been more likely to have threatened public confidence within the integrity of that facet of public administration. It due to this fact constituted severe corrupt conduct.”
Sofronoff rejected a characterisation by the ACT Integrity Fee in its findings that he had change into “a fellow traveller” of Albrechtson, Pomerenke informed the court docket.
The phrase was first used to explain Sofronoff by Justice Stephen Kaye when discovering in March 2024 that Sofronoff’s in depth communications with Albrechtson had given rise to an impression of bias towards prosecutor Shane Drumgold in the course of the inquiry into the Lehrmann trial.
The idea of the “fellow traveller” being redeployed within the context of the Juno report was “merely unrecognisable”; it was “a meaningless slogan” with no clear definition, and “significantly problematic” when utilized in that method, Pomerenke informed the court docket on Monday.
skip previous e-newsletter promotion
Signal as much as Afternoon Replace
Our Australian afternoon replace breaks down the important thing tales of the day, telling you what’s taking place and why it issues
Privateness Discover: Newsletters might include data about charities, on-line adverts, and content material funded by outdoors events. For extra info see our Privateness Coverage. We use Google reCaptcha to guard our web site and the Google Privateness Coverage and Phrases of Service apply.
after e-newsletter promotion
“What’s it speculated to imply? Is it that Mr Sofronoff shared an precise opinion or perception [with Janet Albrechtson]? If that’s the case, what’s the opinion or perception that he truly shared? None is recognized. And the way may that opinion or perception rationally lead Mr Sofronoff to sacrificing the general public curiosity in pursuit of the unidentified opinion or perception that he held?”
Even when one vehemently disagreed with what Sofronoff did, it shouldn’t be described as corrupt, Pomerenke informed the court docket.
Sofronoff is in search of to have the discovering of the corruption watchdog overturned partly on the premise of what he claims are a sequence of errors – an argument that activates the interpretation of what constitutes “severe corrupt conduct” within the integrity fee act – and on a scarcity of proof that he leaked the report with malicious intent, the court docket heard.
The ACT Integrity Fee failed in Could in an try and have Sofronoff’s problem to the report nixed on the grounds that it was topic to parliamentary privilege.
The listening to continues.
