Walter Sofronoff fights against corruption findings during inquiry into Bruce Lehrmann’s prosecution

The lawyers rejected the proposals that a corrupt motivation could lead an old judgment to Bruce Lehrmann’s prosecution of journalists to send copies of a report early, and argued that the “worst” was a “wrong initiative to provide accuracy in public discourse.

Former Queensland judge Walter Sofronoff KC directed the 2023 Investigation Board to the alleged prosecution of Mr. Lehrmann’s allegedly claimed by Brittany Higgins.

During this investigation, the investigation was later initiated by the ACT Integrity Commission before the official release of ABC by the ACT government of Elizabeth Byrne and Australia, especially ABC’s Elizabeth Byrne and Australia.

In March, the Commission found that Mr. Sofronoff did “serious corruption behaviors ;; However, the Commission is trying to have the Juno Operation Report overturned by the Federal Court.

Lawyer Adam Pomerenk SC argued that it was “overwhelming evidence, Sofronoff believed that he had acted in the good of the people to report the right media to report to reporters – an important part of his role investigating a public interest.

Therefore, their behavior cannot have a corrupt, honest or malicious motion, regardless of what reasonable people do not agree with Mr. Sofronoff’s views.

“In my respectful presentation, Mr Soffronoff’s views can not be exposed to a rationally corrupt or malicious motivation.

“A person can be wrong without negligent, much less corrupt, honest or malicious.”

Mr. Sofronoff said that even if he was “wrong ,, he really had his opinion.

“The worst can be described as a faulty initiative to ensure accuracy and transparency in public discourse, and the attempt to accurate and transparency in public discourse cannot be defined as corruption in my respectful submission,” he said.

“Even if Mr. Soffronoff does not strongly participate in his actions, he does not allow this language to be abused by defining the language as corrupted.”

This fell to the sixth appeal of Mr. Sofronoff, who claimed that the commission’s behavior was influenced by the judicial error that the commission finds “violating public confidence”.

In addition, Mr. Pomerenk argued that a mistake that Mr. Sofronoff started to despise by the Commission was a kr serious crime against justice administration ve and that he could not “leave” the result of serious corruption behavior.

He also claimed that the Juno report could not be saved by restructuring ”.

“Our submission is given this circulation, the result of serious corruption behavior is affected by the judicial error, because the material… (A) If the defendant had not found that the defendant could commit a serious crime of contempt, he said, the result may be different.”

“And as I said, if this is right… serious corruption behaviors cannot stop.”

Returning to other reasons for appeal, if any of the first 11 reasons are established, each error claimed that they could not “leave” on the 12th ground for the discovery of corrupt behavior, as each error is “dependent on the collected result of serious corruption.

“Your honor cannot take a single mistake alone, Mr. Mr Pomerenk said.

“Every additional mistake we have created beyond the privilege on the ground concludes that there is a judicial error that gives Mr. Sofronoff the right to relax.”

He also argued that “integrity” is a “fundamental abuse of language” and the “deterioration of the concept of corruption in the interpretation of“ integrity or as a meaning of meaning solidity or activity, unlike the possibility of government or public administration.

Pomeranke, “This is not true in our respectful presentation: the concept of corruption in the heart of a serious diligence and disrupting the concept of corruption,” he said.

“Upon the defendant’s approach, even if it is broken from the possibility of government or public administration, it may include findings that stamped behaviors as corrupt.”

The documents filed by the retired judge’s legal team claimed that as the chairman of the investigation, he said that he was given the ability to do everything necessary or appropriate for the execution of the investigation and the ability to do everything he thought was appropriate, and he thought that the investigation was necessary or appropriate for the “fair and fast execution”.

The documents also claim that Mr. Sofronoff’s actions cannot “be exposed to corrupt behaviors” and that the findings are “seriously irrational, irrational and/or irrational”.

The Federal Court found that Mr. Lehrmann’s balance of possibilities on Higgins raped the civilian standard.

A criminal case was canceled due to the abuse of the jury and a charges against him.

Mr. Lehrmann always rejected the claim and objected to the finding of the Federal Court.