Walter Sofronoff has lost his bid against the ACT integrity commission’s finding he engaged in “serious corrupt conduct” by leaking his inquiry into the prosecution of Bruce Lehrmann to two journalists ahead of its official release.
On Thursday, Justice Wendy Abraham dismissed Sofronoff’s attempt to overturn the integrity body’s finding earlier this year in the federal court, upholding many of its conclusions.
Sofronoff had been appointed by the ACT government to determine whether the investigation into the aborted Lehrmann trial in 2023 had been affected by political influence or interference.
The ACT integrity commission’s report, known as the Juno report and released in March, found his conduct throughout the inquiry’s seven-month period fell within “several elements of the definition of ‘corrupt conduct’”.
Sign up: AU Breaking News email
Sofronoff’s own report in 2023 had ultimately ruled out political influence or interference, praised police conduct and found that the ACT director of public prosecutions, Shane Drumgold, had “at times … lost objectivity and did not act with fairness and detachment” during the trial.
But his disclosures to two reporters – Janet Albrechtsen at The Australian and Elizabeth Byrne at the ABC – and extensive communications with Albrechtsen showed Sofronoff had not acted in good faith and that his actions “undermined the integrity of the board’s processes”, the ACT integrity commission said in its March report.
Justice Abraham on Thursday ruled Sofronoff had not proved the commission’s findings of his “dishonesty, bad faith, and partiality” were without evidence. Sofronoff’s opposition to many of the integrity commission’s findings involved “a high level of generality” or failed to address key matters.
The ruling also dismissed Sofronoff’s argument that his partiality and dishonesty was not proven in his “covert” dealings with Albrechtsen.
“The applicant submitted that to be aware that Mr Drumgold and the chief minister might not share his trust of a journalist is not logically capable of supporting a finding of partiality,” the judgment said.
“The commission found that Mr Sofronoff chose to act in circumstances where he preferred the interests of two journalists, one journalist in particular, over the exercise of his functions, including the interests of Mr Drumgold and the chief minister. I accept that on a proper reading of the Juno report, that is capable of amounting to partiality.”
In March 2024, the ACT supreme court ruled Sofronoff’s findings against Drumgold were infected by a perception of bias due to his communications with Albrechtsen. It ruled that their communications gave the impression Sofronoff “might have been influenced by the views held and publicly expressed” by Albrechtsen.
The ACT supreme court later released a trove of emails and text messages showing Albrechtsen and Sofronoff had 273 interactions over the inquiry’s seven months, including 51 phone calls, text messages and emails. The pair also held a private lunch meeting in Brisbane.
The former judge also spent seven-and-a-half hours on the phone to The Australian during the inquiry, many of which were with Albrechtsen.
Sofronoff had handed his final report to Andrew Barr, the ACT chief minister, on 31 July 2023 at about 1.15pm, the commission’s report found. He then sent the report in a text message to Albrechtsen less than an hour later. Sofronoff had already given the columnist at the Australian draft copies of the report in the days before, which the commission described as “highly sensitive, confidential documents”.
Albrechtsen called Sofronoff on 2 August informing him she had received the final report from another source and intended to publish a story in The Australian the following day.
The commission said Sofronoff did not attempt to prevent her from publishing the story, other than to ask her to not publish a name that should have been redacted in the copy of the report she had.
In Thursday’s judgment, the court also dismissed Sofronoff’s claims that the integrity commission needed to prove his evidence was wrong.
“The submission appears to proceed on the premise that there needs to be some direct evidence to demonstrate his evidence was false, for otherwise there is no evidence to the contrary, and his evidence must be accepted. That approach is flawed,” the judge said.
Justice Abraham said the parties had until the end of next week to produce submissions on the cost of the case. Any competing orders would be decided on the papers.
