Walter Sofronoff had no ‘corrupt, dishonest or malicious motive' in leaking Lehrmann inquiry report, lawyer argues

The Guardian

21-07-2025

Former Queensland judge Walter Sofronoff sincerely believed he was acting for the public good when he leaked his report on the prosecution of Bruce Lehrmann to two journalists before it was made public, the federal court has heard.
Hearings began on Monday into Sofronoff's legal challenge to findings by the Australian Capital Territory's corruption watchdog that he had engaged in 'serious corrupt conduct' by leaking the report of his investigation into the Lehrmann case to Janet Albrechtsen at the Australian and Elizabeth Byrne at the ABC, ahead of its official release.
There was 'overwhelming evidence that Mr Sofronoff genuinely believed he was acting in the public good', and attempting to aid accuracy of media reportage, his counsel Adam Pomerenke KC told the court.
'Even if Mr Sofronoff was wrong in his view, the fact remains that he genuinely and honestly held it. This is not a corrupt, dishonest or malicious motive. At worst, it could be characterised as an erroneous attempt to ensure accuracy and transparency in public discourse. That cannot rationally be described as corrupt,' Pomerenke said.
Bruce Lehrmann was accused of raping Brittany Higgins in the ministerial office of senator Linda Reynolds at Parliament House in 2019. He denied those allegations. A 2022 criminal trial was aborted because of juror misconduct, and prosecutors decided against a re-trial.
Sofronoff was appointed by the ACT government to determine whether the investigation into the aborted Lehrmann trial had been affected by political influence or interference. His report ruled out political influence or interference but made 'serious findings of misconduct' against prosecutor Shane Drumgold, which were partially overturned in March 2024.
The ACT Integrity Commission launched an investigation in May 2024 to determine whether Sofronoff acted corruptly in leaking the confidential documents.
The commission's findings, known as the Juno report, said Sofronoff claimed his conduct 'complied with the requirements of the Inquiries Act' and that, in leaking the documents, he had 'acted in the public interest to ensure the media were adequately informed' about his inquiry and 'in a position to comment accurately' about it.
The commission found that Sofronoff 'had not, in fact, acted in good faith', that his actions 'undermined the integrity of the Board's processes and the fairness 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.'
Sofronoff rejected a characterisation by the ACT Integrity Commission in its findings that he had become 'a fellow traveller' of Albrechtson, Pomerenke told the court.
The phrase was first used to describe Sofronoff by Justice Stephen Kaye when finding in March 2024 that Sofronoff's extensive communications with Albrechtson had given rise to an impression of bias against prosecutor Shane Drumgold during the inquiry into the Lehrmann trial.
The concept of the 'fellow traveller' being redeployed in the context of the Juno report was 'simply unrecognisable'; it was 'a meaningless slogan' with no clear definition, and 'seriously problematic' when used in that way, Pomerenke told the court on Monday.
'What is it supposed to mean? Is it that Mr Sofronoff shared an actual opinion or belief [with Janet Albrechtson]? If so, what is the opinion or belief that he actually shared? None is identified. And how could that opinion or belief rationally lead Mr Sofronoff to sacrificing the public interest in pursuit of the unidentified opinion or belief that he held?'
Even if one vehemently disagreed with what Sofronoff did, it should not be described as corrupt, Pomerenke told the court.
Sofronoff is seeking to have the finding of the corruption watchdog overturned partly on the basis of what he claims are a series of errors – an argument that turns on the interpretation of what constitutes 'serious corrupt conduct' in the integrity commission act – and on a lack of evidence that he leaked the report with malicious intent, the court heard.
The ACT Integrity Commission failed in May in an attempt to have Sofronoff's challenge to the report nixed on the grounds that it was subject to parliamentary privilege.
The hearing continues.