Lehrmann inquiry head Walter Sofronoff loses bid to overturn ‘serious corrupt conduct’ finding | Australia news

Walter Sofronoff lost his bid against the ACT Integrity Commission’s finding that he had engaged in “serious corrupt conduct” by leaking its investigation into the trial of Bruce Lehrmann to two journalists before it was officially released.

On Thursday, Judge Wendy Abraham He rejected Sofronoff’s attempt overturned the integrity agency’s findings in federal court earlier this year, upholding most of its conclusions.

Sofronoff was appointed by the ACT government to determine whether the investigation into the Lehrmann case, which was annulled in 2023, was influenced by political influence or interference.

The ACT integrity commission’s report, known as the Juno report and published in March, found his conduct over the seven-month period of the investigation fell under “various elements of the definition of ‘corrupt conduct'”.

_{Sign up: AÜ Breaking News email}

Sofronoff’s own report in 2023 ultimately ruled out political influence or interference, praised police conduct and found that ACT director of public inquiries Shane Drumgold had “at times … lost objectivity and failed to act with fairness and impartiality” during the hearing.

But the ACT integrity commission said in its March report that her comments to two reporters – Australia’s Janet Albrechtsen and the ABC’s Elizabeth Byrne – and extensive communications with Albrechtsen showed Sofronoff did not act in good faith and her actions “undermined the integrity of the board’s processes”.

Judge Abraham ruled Thursday that Sofronoff did not prove that the commission’s findings of “dishonesty, bad faith and bias” were without evidence. Sofronoff’s disagreement with many of the integrity commission’s findings contained a “high level of generality” or failed to address important issues.

The ruling also rejected Sofronoff’s claim that his bias and dishonesty in his “secret” dealings with Albrechtsen had not been proven.

“The applicant argued that being aware that Mr Drumgold and the prime minister may not share his trust in a journalist could not logically support a finding of bias,” the decision said.

“The Commission found that Mr Sofronoff chose to act in situations where he favored the interests of two journalists, particularly one journalist, over the fulfillment of their duties, including the interests of Mr Drumgold and the prime minister. I accept that, if the Juno report is read correctly, this could amount to bias.”

In March 2024, the ACT supreme court ruled that Sofronoff’s findings against Drumgold were influenced by perceived bias due to his communications with Albrechtsen. The court ruled that their communications gave the impression that Sofronoff may have been influenced by Albrechtsen’s “views that he held and expressed publicly.”

The ACT supreme court later released a series of emails and text messages showing Albrechtsen and Sofronoff had 273 interactions, including 51 phone calls, text messages and emails, over the seven months of the investigation. The two also held a private lunch meeting in Brisbane.

The former judge also spent seven-and-a-half hours on the phone with the Australian during the investigation, most of which was with Albrechtsen.

According to the commission report, Sofronoff delivered his final report to ACT premier Andrew Barr at around 1.15pm on July 31, 2023. He then sent the report to Albrechtsen via text message less than an hour later. Sofronoff had earlier given the columnist Australian draft copies of the report, which the commission described as “highly sensitive, confidential documents”.

Albrechtsen called Sofronoff on August 2 to inform him that he had received the final report from another source and planned to publish a story in Australia the next day.

The commission said Sofronoff did not try to stop her from publishing the story, other than asking her not to publish a name that should have been redacted in her copy of the report.

In Thursday’s decision, the court also rejected Sofronoff’s arguments that he had to prove that the integrity commission’s evidence was false.

“The submission appears to be based on the assumption that there must be direct evidence to show that his evidence is false, otherwise there can be no evidence to the contrary and his evidence must be accepted. This approach is flawed,” the judge said.

Judge Abraham said the parties should make their submissions regarding the cost of the case by the end of next week. Any competing orders would be decided on paper.