Latest news with #BrittanyHiggins
News.com.au
5 hours ago
- Politics
- News.com.au
Walter Sofronoff ‘unwise' but not ‘dishonest' when leaking documents to journalists during Bruce Lehrmann inquiry
A former judge who leaked details of an inquiry into Bruce Lehrmann's prosecution to reporters may have been 'unwise' but wasn't dishonest, lawyers have argued in a bid to overturn findings of 'serious corrupt conduct'. Former Queensland judge Walter Sofronoff KC led the 2023 board of inquiry into the prosecution of Mr Lehrmann over the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins. A subsequent investigation into Mr Sofronoff's conduct during that inquiry, in particular his decision to send a copy of the board's report to two journalists – ABC's Elizabeth Byrne and The Australian's Janet Albrechtsen – prior to its official release by the ACT government, was launched by the ACT Integrity Commission. He also leaked documents, including witness statements subject to a non-publication order, drafts of the report, and notices of adverse findings about former director of public prosecutions Shane Drumgold – and two of Mr Drumgold's responses to those – to Albrechtsen. The commission in March found that Mr Sofronoff had engaged in 'serious corrupt conduct'; however, he is seeking to have the commission's Operation Juno report overturned by the Federal Court. Scott Robertson SC, acting for the ACT Integrity Commission, said Mr Sofronoff had intentionally, and secretly, disclosed confidential material in reports without informing those he knew would have an interest, namely Mr Drumgold and the Chief Minister. He said Mr Sofronoff acted 'inconsistent' with the knowledge that certain material should be kept confidential other than to the board and relevant parties, including by giving Albrechtsen documents within the scope of a non-publication order with a note to say it was 'strictly confidential'. Mr Robertson also referred to adverse comments about Mr Drumgold given to Albrechtsen, including a 'very serious' finding that was, and proved to be, 'apt to destroy Mr Drumgold's career'. 'As sensitive and confidential documents go, it's hard to identify a more serious example,' Mr Robertson said. He used the examples to throw out arguments the commission had 'no evidence' to support findings that Mr Sofronoff acted dishonestly in making disclosures to Albrechtsen during the inquiry as well as giving the final report to Albrechtsen and Byrne after he handed it to the Chief Minister. However barrister Adam Pomerenke SC claimed that while Mr Sofronoff's actions could be considered 'unwise', Mr Robertson had not established the 'leap' to dishonesty. '(Mr Robertson) has not demonstrated dishonesty, and there is a difference between unwisdom and dishonesty,' Mr Pomerenke told the court. 'There is no evidence that Mr Sofronoff knew that Mr Drumgold or anyone else had an interest, a legal interest, in the nondisclosure of this material.' Justice Wendy Abraham suggested to Mr Sofronoff's lawyers that Mr Drumgold would've expected material from the inquiry to be kept private and not shared with those outside the board while the inquiry was ongoing. However, Mr Pomerenke held firm that there was a stark distinction between publication and disclosure. 'Even if (Mr Sofronoff) had by inference knowledge of a desire or an expectation on the part of Mr Drumgold, or even the Chief Minister, (that) the material not be disclosed, what is it that makes it actually dishonest to disclose it on condition it be kept confidential?' Mr Pomerenke said. 'It can be unwise … it's that leap (to dishonesty) that's not established.' Mr Drumgold resigned from the DPP in 2023 following the inquiry into Mr Lehrmann's prosecution. Mr Pomerenke on Monday argued that Mr Sofronoff genuinely believed he was acting in the public's interest to ensure accurate media reporting by sending out the report to the two journalists – an essential part of his role investigating a matter of public interest — and couldn't have had a corrupt, malicious or dishonest motive. He also denied that Mr Sofronoff preferred the interests of journalists over Mr Drumgold and the Chief Minister. 'From the way it was put in the Juno report itself, there is no evidence or suggestion of conscious preferment of the personal interests of the journalists over Mr Drumgold or the Chief Minister … Mr Sofronoff's state of mind is uniformly that Mr Sofronoff thought he was acting in the public interest,' Mr Pomerenke told the court. Mr Robertson rejected suggestions the former judge acted within the bounds of his role, and in the interest of accuracy in public discourse, when sending out the final report to the journalists. He argued that Mr Sofronoff ceased to be the board of inquiry upon delivering the report to the Chief Minister, and he'd therefore committed an unjustifiable 'plain breach' of his nondisclosure responsibilities. The Federal Court has found that Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities. A criminal trial was aborted due to juror misconduct and a charge against him was dropped. Mr Lehrmann has always denied the allegation and is appealing the Federal Court's finding.
Daily Mail
a day ago
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Former judge's excuse for leaking confidential material from Bruce Lehrmann inquiry
A former judge's decision to leak confidential material from an inquiry into Bruce Lehrmann 's criminal prosecution was an attempt at transparency not an act of corruption, his lawyers say. Walter Sofronoff KC has asked the Federal Court to toss a March finding by the ACT Integrity Commission that the former judge engaged in serious corrupt conduct. The commission's probe stemmed from Mr Sofronoff's leaks to a journalist. But the watchdog's adverse finding was a 'serious offence against the administration of justice', Mr Sofronoff's barrister Adam Pomerenke KC said during a hearing on Monday. Mr Sofronoff was not corrupt, malicious or dishonest, the barrister told Justice Wendy Abrahams. Rather, he genuinely believed he was acting in the public interest by sending documents like witness statements to the media. 'Even if Mr Sofronoff was wrong in his view, the fact remains that he genuinely and honestly held it,' Mr Pomerenke said. 'At worst it could be characterised as an erroneous attempt to ensure accuracy and transparency in the public discourse.' Mr Sofronoff chaired a board of inquiry into the ACT's criminal justice system after Lehrmann's controversy-plagued prosecution. The former Liberal staffer was accused of raping then-colleague Brittany Higgins in a ministerial office at Parliament House in 2019. A 2022 criminal trial was abandoned without a verdict due to juror misconduct. Lehrmann lost a defamation lawsuit he brought over media reporting of Ms Higgins' allegations but has appealed a judge's finding the rape claim was true on the balance of probabilities. The Sofronoff-led inquiry found the ACT's top prosecutor, Shane Drumgold, had lost objectivity over the Lehrmann case and knowingly lied about a note of his meeting with broadcaster Lisa Wilkinson. Mr Drumgold resigned and launched a legal challenge to the findings in the ACT Supreme Court. It found the majority of the inquiry's findings were not legally unreasonable, but it struck down an adverse finding about how Mr Drumgold cross-examined then-Liberal senator Linda Reynolds during Lehrmann's criminal trial. In March, the ACT Integrity Commission also found the majority of the inquiry's findings were not legally unreasonable. But it found Mr Sofronoff's behaviour during the inquiry gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and he might have been influenced by the publicly expressed views of journalist Janet Albrechtsen. Mr Sofronoff repeatedly messaged the News Corp columnist and eventually provided her an advance copy of his probe's final report. Mr Pomerenke told the Federal Court on Monday the ACT corruption body had admitted it made an error in finding Mr Sofronoff might have engaged in contempt. The claimed contempt stemmed out of leaks to the media despite directions made to parties during the inquiry to suppress certain documents. But the notion that the head of an inquiry could be in contempt of himself was 'absurd and irrational', Mr Pomerenke said. This concession was enough to toss the findings against his client, he told the court. Any individual error could not be 'disentangled' from the final finding that the former judge engaged in serious corrupt conduct, the barrister said.
The Guardian
a day ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Walter Sofronoff had no ‘corrupt, dishonest or malicious motive' in leaking Lehrmann inquiry report, lawyer argues
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.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Lehrmann inquiry head's leak 'transparent, not corrupt'
A former judge's decision to leak confidential material from an inquiry into Bruce Lehrmann's criminal prosecution was an attempt at transparency not an act of corruption, his lawyers say. Walter Sofronoff KC has asked the Federal Court to toss a March finding by the ACT Integrity Commission that the former judge engaged in serious corrupt conduct. The commission's probe stemmed from Mr Sofronoff's leaks to a journalist. But the watchdog's adverse finding was a "serious offence against the administration of justice", Mr Sofronoff's barrister Adam Pomerenke KC said during a hearing on Monday. Mr Sofronoff was not corrupt, malicious or dishonest, the barrister told Justice Wendy Abrahams. Rather, he genuinely believed he was acting in the public interest by sending documents like witness statements to the media. "Even if Mr Sofronoff was wrong in his view, the fact remains that he genuinely and honestly held it," Mr Pomerenke said. "At worst it could be characterised as an erroneous attempt to ensure accuracy and transparency in the public discourse." Mr Sofronoff chaired a board of inquiry into the ACT's criminal justice system after Lehrmann's controversy-plagued prosecution. The former Liberal staffer was accused of raping then-colleague Brittany Higgins in a ministerial office at Parliament House in 2019. A 2022 criminal trial was abandoned without a verdict due to juror misconduct. Lehrmann lost a defamation lawsuit he brought over media reporting of Ms Higgins' allegations but has appealed a judge's finding the rape claim was true on the balance of probabilities. The Sofronoff-led inquiry found the ACT's top prosecutor, Shane Drumgold, had lost objectivity over the Lehrmann case and knowingly lied about a note of his meeting with broadcaster Lisa Wilkinson. Mr Drumgold resigned and launched a legal challenge to the findings in the ACT Supreme Court. It found the majority of the inquiry's findings were not legally unreasonable, but it struck down an adverse finding about how Mr Drumgold cross-examined then-Liberal senator Linda Reynolds during Lehrmann's criminal trial. In March, the ACT Integrity Commission also found the majority of the inquiry's findings were not legally unreasonable. But it found Mr Sofronoff's behaviour during the inquiry gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and he might have been influenced by the publicly expressed views of journalist Janet Albrechtsen. Mr Sofronoff repeatedly messaged the News Corp columnist and eventually provided her an advance copy of his probe's final report. Mr Pomerenke told the Federal Court on Monday the ACT corruption body had admitted it made an error in finding Mr Sofronoff might have engaged in contempt. The claimed contempt stemmed out of leaks to the media despite directions made to parties during the inquiry to suppress certain documents. But the notion that the head of an inquiry could be in contempt of himself was "absurd and irrational", Mr Pomerenke said. This concession was enough to toss the findings against his client, he told the court. Any individual error could not be "disentangled" from the final finding that the former judge engaged in serious corrupt conduct, the barrister said. The hearing continues.
News.com.au
a day ago
- Politics
- News.com.au
Walter Sofronoff fights against corruption findings during inquiry into Bruce Lehrmann's prosecution
Lawyers have rejected suggestions a corrupt motive could've driven a former judge to prematurely send out copies of a report into the prosecution of Bruce Lehrmann to journalists, arguing 'at worst' it was an 'erroneous attempt' to ensure accuracy in public discourse. Former Queensland judge Walter Sofronoff KC led the 2023 board of inquiry into Mr Lehrmann's prosecution over the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins. A subsequent investigation into Mr Sofronoff's conduct during that inquiry, in particular his decision to send a copy of the board's report to two journalists – ABC's Elizabeth Byrne and The Australian's Janet Albrechtsen – prior to its official release by the ACT government, was launched by the ACT Integrity Commission. The commission in March found Mr Sofronoff had engaged in 'serious corrupt conduct'; however, he is seeking to have the commission's Operation Juno report overturned by the Federal Court. Barrister Adam Pomerenke SC argued there was 'overwhelming evidence' Mr Sofronoff genuinely believed he was acting in the good of the public to ensure accurate media reporting by sending out the report to the journalists – an essential part of his role investigating a matter of public interest. Therefore, his conduct couldn't amount to having a corrupt, dishonest, or malicious motive, regardless of whether reasonable people disagreed with Mr Sofronoff's views. 'In my respectful submission those views of Mr Soffronoff are not rationally capable of amounting to a corrupt dishonest or malicious motive,' Mr Pomerenke told the court. 'A person can be wrong without being negligent, much less corrupt, dishonest or malicious.' He said even if Mr Sofronoff was 'wrong', he genuinely and honestly held his view. 'At worst, it could be characterised as an erroneous attempt to ensure accuracy and transparency in public discourse, and an attempt at accuracy and transparency in public discourse cannot rationally, in my respectful submission, be described as corrupt,' Mr Pomerenke said. 'Even if one vehemently disagrees with what Mr Soffronoff did, that statute does not authorise a misuse of language by describing it as corrupt.' This fell under Mr Sofronoff's sixth ground of appeal, which claims the commission's finding that his conduct was a 'breach of public trust' is affected by jurisdictional error. Further, Mr Pomerenke argued an error by the commission in finding Mr Sofronoff had engaged in contempt was a 'serious offence against the administration of justice' and cannot be 'disentangled' from the conclusion of serious corrupt conduct. He also claimed the Juno report couldn't be 'saved by reconstruction'. 'Our submission is given this entanglement, the conclusion of serious corrupt conduct is affected by jurisdictional error because its material …(there's a) realistic possibility that the conclusion could have been different if the respondent had not wrongly found that Mr Sofronoff could have committed a serious offence of contempt,' Mr Pomerenke said. 'And as I say if this is the right … serious corrupt conduct cannot stand.' Turning to the other grounds of appeal, he claimed if any of the first 11 grounds were established, they couldn't be 'disentangled' from the 12th ground relating to the finding of corrupt conduct itself, as each error was 'bound up in the rolled up conclusion of serious corrupt conduct'. 'Your Honour can't have regard to one error in isolation,' Mr Pomerenke said. 'Each additional error we establish beyond the concession in ground two fortifies that conclusion that … there was jurisdictional error, entitling Mr Sofronoff to relief.' He also argued there was a 'basic misuse of language' and a 'distortion' of the concept of corruption by the commission in interpreting 'integrity' as meaning soundness or efficacy as distinct from probity of government or public administration. 'In our respectful submission that's not correct: it seriously dilutes and distorts the very notion of corruption, which has probity at its heart,' Mr Pomeranke said. 'On the respondent's approach, it can include findings in its reports which stigmatise conduct as corrupt even though it is disconnected from probity in government or public administration.' Documents filed by the retired judge's legal team claim that 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, and he considered it necessary or convenient to engage with journalists 'for the fair and prompt conduct of the inquiry'. The documents also claim Mr Sofronoff's actions were 'incapable of amounting to corrupt conduct' and the findings were 'seriously illogical, irrational and/or unreasonable'. The Federal Court has found that Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities. A criminal trial was aborted due to juror misconduct and a charge against him was dropped. Mr Lehrmann has always denied the allegation and is appealing the Federal Court's finding.
