Latest news with #ACTIntegrityCommission
Perth Now
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Perth Now
Bombshell claim about Sofronoff report
The ACT integrity watchdog has admitted that scathing findings made against the head of an inquiry into the prosecution of Bruce Lehrmann contained errors, a court has been told. Former Queensland judge Walter Sofronoff KC chaired the Board of Inquiry into the criminal prosecution of Mr Lehrmann. The ACT Integrity Commission investigated Mr Sofronoff's conduct during his inquiry, in particular his decision to send a copy of the board's report to journalists from The Australian and ABC prior to its official release by the ACT government. The Commission in March found Mr Sofronoff had engaged in 'serious corrupt conduct', however he is now seeking to have the Operation Juno report overturned by the Federal Court. During a hearing in the Federal Court on Tuesday, Justice Wendy Abraham was told that lawyers for the Speaker of the ACT Legislative Assembly had argued that the report was covered by parliamentary privilege. That would mean that the report would not be able to be tendered to the court and therefore he could not seek judicial review. Walter Sofronoff is seeking to overturn the ACT Integrity Commission's findings. NewsWire/Tertius Pickard. Credit: News Corp Australia 'It follows that if the speaker's submissions are accepted, the court should refuse to admit the Operation Juno report and it seems to follow inevitably that the court would therefore refuse to entertain the allegations that have been made in the amended originating application,' barrister Alison Hammond, appearing for the speaker, told the court on Tuesday. 'And it would appear that the result would be that the proceedings are dismissed.' Documents filed by his legal team 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. Mr Sofronoff said he '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 the findings were 'seriously illogical, irrational and/or unreasonable'. Adam Pomerenke KC, acting for Mr Sofronoff, told the court that it had been conceded by the ACT Integrity Commission that the report contained errors. 'Your Honour may see from the respondent's submissions that ground two of the application has been conceded - that is to say there is now an admission of error in the report and it's significant,' Mr Pomerenke said. 'It is an admission that the finding that Mr Sofronoff's conduct could have constituted a contempt of court was not open, was unlawful. 'If our learned friends are right about the operation of parliamentary privilege, this court is powerless to address that error which we say is of a jurisdictional kind.' Lawyers for Sofronoff say the report contained errors. NewsWire/Tertius Pickard. Credit: News Corp Australia He said it would be 'most surprising' if such a report - which contains 'admitted errors of a serious kind' - was immune from judicial review. The court heard it was argued that the report came under parliamentary privilege at the point when it was submitted to the speaker. And Ms Hammond argued that the findings could have been challenged before the report was handed over. Justice Abraham asked: 'These proceedings were filed on the 19th of March. If they had been filed on the 17th of March it wouldn't be a problem?' 'Yes, Your Honour. But there is a good reason for the bright-line distinction,' Ms Hammond replied. Justice Abraham will hand down her judgment on the parliamentary privilege matter at a later date.
News.com.au
20-05-2025
- Politics
- News.com.au
‘Admitted errors': Bombshell claim about Sofronoff report
The ACT integrity watchdog has admitted that scathing findings made against the head of an inquiry into the prosecution of Bruce Lehrmann contained errors, a court has been told. Former Queensland judge Walter Sofronoff KC chaired the Board of Inquiry into the criminal prosecution of Mr Lehrmann. The ACT Integrity Commission investigated Mr Sofronoff's conduct during his inquiry, in particular his decision to send a copy of the board's report to journalists from The Australian and ABC prior to its official release by the ACT government. The Commission in March found Mr Sofronoff had engaged in 'serious corrupt conduct', however he is now seeking to have the Operation Juno report overturned by the Federal Court. During a hearing in the Federal Court on Tuesday, Justice Wendy Abraham was told that lawyers for the Speaker of the ACT Legislative Assembly had argued that the report was covered by parliamentary privilege. That would mean that the report would not be able to be tendered to the court and therefore he could not seek judicial review. 'It follows that if the speaker's submissions are accepted, the court should refuse to admit the Operation Juno report and it seems to follow inevitably that the court would therefore refuse to entertain the allegations that have been made in the amended originating application,' barrister Alison Hammond, appearing for the speaker, told the court on Tuesday. 'And it would appear that the result would be that the proceedings are dismissed.' Documents filed by his legal team 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. Mr Sofronoff said he '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 the findings were 'seriously illogical, irrational and/or unreasonable'. Adam Pomerenke KC, acting for Mr Sofronoff, told the court that it had been conceded by the ACT Integrity Commission that the report contained errors. 'Your Honour may see from the respondent's submissions that ground two of the application has been conceded - that is to say there is now an admission of error in the report and it's significant,' Mr Pomerenke said. 'It is an admission that the finding that Mr Sofronoff's conduct could have constituted a contempt of court was not open, was unlawful. 'If our learned friends are right about the operation of parliamentary privilege, this court is powerless to address that error which we say is of a jurisdictional kind.' He said it would be 'most surprising' if such a report - which contains 'admitted errors of a serious kind' - was immune from judicial review. The court heard it was argued that the report came under parliamentary privilege at the point when it was submitted to the speaker. And Ms Hammond argued that the findings could have been challenged before the report was handed over. Justice Abraham asked: 'These proceedings were filed on the 19th of March. If they had been filed on the 17th of March it wouldn't be a problem?' 'Yes, Your Honour. But there is a good reason for the bright-line distinction,' Ms Hammond replied. Justice Abraham will hand down her judgment on the parliamentary privilege matter at a later date.
The Guardian
20-03-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Former judges were once considered the bastion of integrity. The Sofronoff findings have upended that
For many years it has been customary to appoint experienced judges or former judges to head up royal commissions, boards of enquiries and the like. It has been thought that judges were well-equipped to control such hearings, often conducted in full public gaze, with fairness and equanimity. Their training made them alert to possible conflicts of interest, the need for procedural fairness and the obligation to provide natural justice where it was required. One additional characteristic was the ability to deal fairly with the media, ensuring proper public coverage, while keeping parts of the media's sometime capacity to sensationalise or act outside the boundaries of journalistic ethics under control. These certainties have now been more than somewhat shattered by the recent report of the ACT Integrity Commission. This body investigated whether Walter Sofronoff, a former Queensland judge of great distinction, had engaged in corrupt conduct while acting as a board of inquiry into matters arising out of the Bruce Lehrmann trial. The Integrity Commission's report concluded that he had indeed engaged in corrupt conduct, in fact serious corrupt conduct. Following the release of the report Sofronoff filed an application in the federal court to challenge the lawfulness of the report. The background to the Integrity Commission's investigation is well known. After the aborted Lehrmann trial, the prosecutor Shane Drumgold raised concerns about various aspects of the police and political handling of the case. He was plainly a passionate advocate for the complainant in the trial. However, his complaint was turned on its head when Sofronoff was appointed to lead a board of inquiry to consider, among other more general issues, whether Drumgold had himself acted in breach of his duties as a prosecutor. The Sofronoff report was officially published by the ACT chief minister on 7 August 2023. It was scathing of Drumgold's behaviour in a number of respects. Drumgold then initiated proceedings to invalidate the report and overturn the adverse findings. On 4 March 2024 acting Justice Stephen Kaye found that the conduct of Sofronoff – in particular his interactions with an experienced lawyer and journalist from the Australian newspaper, Janet Albrechtsen – amounted to conduct giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. This finding effectively vitiated the legal validity of the adverse findings which had been made by Sofronoff. Kaye's findings revealed some startling assertions. Soffronoff and Albrechtsen had engaged in 51 private telephone conversations – over six hours in all – discussing the case; documents were supplied by Sofronoff to the journalist when requested, and views as to the inquiry and sometimes aspects of the evidence were discussed between them. It was clear that Albrechtsen was by no means an avid advocate for Brittany Higgins. For that matter, she was also shown to be highly critical of Drumgold as a prosecutor in the trial. Against this background, the ACT Integrity Commission began its investigation. It was not directly concerned with the issue as to whether the Sofronoff findings were infected by apprehended bias, although it agreed that they were. Rather its focus was on the sole question as to whether his behaviour constituted corrupt conduct within the definition of that phrase in the ACT integrity legislation. The findings were damning. The commission found that three categories of behaviour amounted to corrupt conduct. First, Sofronoff's disclosure of confidential material to the journalist, contrary to the obligations of the Inquiries Act, could amount to offences under that legislation. Secondly, his disclosure of the final report to journalists before it had been publicly released by the chief minister contravened provisions in the legislation, those provisions giving to the minister and the general assembly sole power and discretion to determine the extent and timing of publication. Thirdly, the disclosures were dishonestly concealed from both Drumgold and the chief minister, thus preventing them from taking legal action to injunct the flawed process. This impugned conduct constituted of the exercise of Sofronoff's official functions in a way that was not impartial, significantly compromised the inquiry and constituted a breach of public trust. In these circumstances, the commission concluded that this conduct could have justified Sofronoff's removal from the inquiry. The commission gave great attention to Sofronoff's arguments as to why he had been entitled to act as he did towards the media. He argued forcefully that his actions were always in accordance with statute and that he acted in the public interest to ensure the media were adequately informed about the issues being investigated and thereby placed in a position to comment accurately about them. However, the commission disagreed. It found he had not acted in good faith. His behaviour undermined the integrity of the board's processes and the fairness and propriety of its proceedings. It effectively threatened public confidence in the integrity of this aspect of public administration. Sofronoff's initial findings had condemned Drumgold's reputation. If the Integrity Commission's findings withstand legal challenge they will undoubtably and irreparably damage the standing of a once formidable jurist. The consequences of this shameful episode are serious. They cast doubt on the choice of former judges to lead important commissions or enquiries. They erode public confidence in the important role played by judges in the administration of justice. Although no adverse findings were made against the journalists involved in this matter, there is no doubt that a shadow has been cast over the media's role in this affair. In addition, we have recently seen the head of the national anti-corruption commission publicly castigated for seriously failing to handle a basic but important conflict of interest in relation to the robodebt affair, manifesting once again a reasonable apprehension of bias. None of this is satisfactory. We need to remind ourselves that there have been many well conducted public enquiries over the years with important and beneficial consequences for the community. In many of those enquiries, fairness and the provision of natural justice have been well on display. These are precious commodities. The Integrity Commission's findings must remind us – the judiciary, the media and the public – that great care and caution need to be exercised to ensure that justice is done for all. Sofronoff has now stated he will endeavour to challenge the Integrity Commission's findings. From his perspective, there is much at stake here. The irony is that, once again, contentious litigation may continue to spin out of this notorious affair. Sadly, the game is not yet over. Anthony Whealy KC is the chair of the Centre for Public Integrity and former assistant commissioner to Icac
The Guardian
19-03-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Afternoon Update: Lehrmann inquiry head's ‘corrupt conduct'; chilling footage of Sydney school murderer; and stranded astronauts return home
Good afternoon, everyone. The ACT Integrity Commission has found Walter Sofronoff engaged in 'serious corrupt conduct' after reviewing his inquiry into the prosecution of Bruce Lehrmann for the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins. The investigation probed whether Sofronoff acted corruptly by leaking his final report on the Lehrmann trial to select journalists – Janet Albrechtsen at The Australian and the ABC's Elizabeth Byrne – before its official release. The commission's report found Sofronoff's sharing of confidential documents with journalists was 'contrary to the obligations of confidentiality prescribed by the Inquiries Act' and 'could have amounted to offences against the Inquiries Act'. 'The disclosures were dishonestly concealed from persons involved in the inquiry, in particular [prosecutor Shane] Drumgold and the [ACT] chief minister, which prevented them taking protective legal action,' the report said. Chilling footage shows ex-boyfriend waiting outside bathroom with hammer before murdering Lilie James Sydney nurse charged over alleged threats to Israeli patients to argue video can't be used in evidence GPs say they need more prescribing powers for ADHD medicines US judge blocks Trump's ban on trans people serving in the military Trump releases thousands of pages on JFK assassination Bestselling Australian Bad Guys author Aaron Blabey signs eight-figure deal for seven new books Meet Rum'un, the new mascot of Tasmania's long-awaited AFL team, who growls like Nosferatu, poos out footballs and is made from recycled school kit. 'What a ride. I see a capsule full of grins, ear to ear.' Nicholas Hague, onboard the SpaceX Dragon capsule that rescued two Nasa astronauts, Suni Williams (pictured) and Butch Wilmore, who were stuck on the International Space Station, described the moment they arrived back on Earth. Sign up to Afternoon Update Our Australian afternoon update breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion The Canadian prime minister, Mark Carney, characterised the radar deal as part of a broader effort to assert Canadian sovereignty over the Arctic as US priorities shift. Australia is a leader in 'over-the-horizon' radar, an advanced system that allows for continuous threat-tracking over a vast area. From 'funky and rich' to the texture of 'wet paper', this supermarket taste test of salamis ranged from solid sandwich fillers to pretty enough for a platter. Nicholas Jordan reveals which meats made the cut … Today's starter word is: POLL. You have five goes to get the longest word including the starter word. Play Wordiply. If you would like to receive this Afternoon Update to your email inbox every weekday, sign up here, or start your day with a curated breakdown of the key stories you need to know with our Morning Mail newsletter. You can follow the latest in US politics by signing up for This Week in Trumpland.
The Guardian
19-03-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Lehrmann inquiry head Walter Sofronoff engaged in ‘serious corrupt conduct' , review finds
Former Queensland judge Walter Sofronoff engaged in 'serious corrupt conduct', the ACT Integrity Commission has found, after reviewing his inquiry into the prosecution of Bruce Lehrmann. The commission released a report on Wednesday into Sofronoff's conduct as a Board of Inquiry into the prosecution. It found that 'Sofronoff's conduct fell within several elements of the definition of 'corrupt conduct'', through his disclosures to two journalists: Janet Albrechtsen at The Australian newspaper and Elizabeth Byrne at the ABC. The report found that '[Sofronoff's] disclosure of confidential material to journalists contrary to the obligations of confidentiality prescribed by the Inquiries Act could have amounted to offences against the Inquiries Act'. 'The disclosures were dishonestly concealed from persons involved in the Inquiry, in particular [prosecutor Shane] Drumgold and the [ACT] chief minister, which prevented them taking protective legal action.' The report said 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. 'However, the commission concludes that he had not, in fact, acted in good faith and that his conduct, amounting to corrupt conduct within the meaning of the IC Act, 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.' More details to follow
