Photo credit: www.theguardian.com
Traditionally, appointing seasoned judges or former judges to lead royal commissions and inquiry boards has been viewed as a reliable practice. These judicial figures are believed to possess the necessary skills to manage public hearings fairly and impartially.
Their extensive training usually equips them to recognize potential conflicts of interest, uphold procedural fairness, and provide natural justice when necessary. Furthermore, judges often maintain a delicate balance with the media, ensuring responsible public reporting while mitigating the sensationalism that sometimes permeates journalistic practices.
However, these long-standing conventions have been notably challenged by the recent findings from the ACT Integrity Commission. This investigation scrutinized Walter Sofronoff, a distinguished former judge from Queensland, concerning allegations of corrupt conduct during his tenure as the head of an inquiry into events connected to the Bruce Lehrmann trial. The commission’s report concluded that Sofronoff had indeed engaged in corrupt activities, classifying them as serious breaches of conduct. In response, Sofronoff has initiated a federal court application to contest the legality of the report.
The context for this inquiry is widely recognized. Following the discontinuation of the Lehrmann trial, prosecutor Shane Drumgold expressed his concerns regarding various aspects of police and political interference in the case. His advocacy for the complainant has been apparent, but circumstances changed dramatically when Sofronoff was appointed to investigate, among other issues, whether Drumgold had violated his prosecutorial responsibilities.
Published on August 7, 2023, the Sofronoff report criticized Drumgold’s conduct on multiple fronts. This prompted Drumgold to launch legal action aimed at nullifying the report and its damaging conclusions. On March 4, 2024, acting Justice Stephen Kaye determined that Sofronoff’s actions, particularly his interactions with Australian newspaper journalist Janet Albrechtsen, established a reasonable appearance of bias, which effectively invalidated the adverse findings made against Drumgold.
Kaye’s conclusions unveiled alarming details, revealing that Sofronoff and Albrechtsen had engaged in 51 private phone conversations, totaling over six hours, regarding the case. Documents were shared with Albrechtsen at her request, and the two discussed various elements of the inquiry and the evidence involved. Albrechtsen’s stance was not one of support for Brittany Higgins; in fact, she had expressed criticism of Drumgold’s prosecutorial actions during the trial.
With this background, the ACT Integrity Commission launched its investigation. While not primarily focused on the potential bias within Sofronoff’s findings, the commission agreed that bias was indeed evident. Its main inquiry was to assess whether Sofronoff’s behaviors constituted corrupt conduct as defined under the ACT’s integrity statutes.
Ultimately, the commission’s findings were severe. It identified three specific areas of behavior that constituted corrupt conduct: first, Sofronoff’s unauthorized sharing of confidential information with Albrechtsen, which potentially contravened the Inquiries Act; second, his premature disclosure of the final report to journalists before its official release, violating the legislative provisions that grant the minister and assembly control over the timing and extent of publication; and third, the concealment of these disclosures from both Drumgold and the chief minister, preventing them from pursuing legal remedies against a flawed inquiry process.
This conduct signified a departure from impartiality in Sofronoff’s official duties, significantly compromising the integrity of the inquiry and breaching public trust. The commission resolved that such behavior could have warranted Sofronoff’s removal from the inquiry.
Despite Sofronoff’s justification that his media engagements aligned with statutory obligations and served the public interest by keeping the media informed, the commission dismissed these defenses. It determined that his actions undermined both the integrity of the inquiry and the fairness of its proceedings, ultimately risking public confidence in the administrative processes.
The initial findings by Sofronoff had tarnished Drumgold’s reputation. Should the Integrity Commission’s conclusions survive legal scrutiny, they threaten irreversible damage to a once-respected figure in the judiciary.
The repercussions of this entire saga are profound. They challenge the appropriateness of appointing former judges to oversee critical commissions, potentially eroding public trust in the judicial system. Although no negative findings were directed at the journalists involved, this incident has inevitably cast a shadow over the media’s role in the inquiry. Additionally, recent events involving the head of the national anti-corruption commission have highlighted ongoing issues with managing conflicts of interest, renewing concerns about systemic bias.
The implications are far-reaching.
It is essential to remember the numerous well-conducted public inquiries throughout history, which have yielded significant benefits for society. Many of these investigations have exemplified fairness and the principles of natural justice. These principles remain vital. The findings from the Integrity Commission serve as a crucial reminder to the judiciary, the media, and the public alike about the necessity of exercising diligence to ensure that justice prevails.
Sofronoff has indicated his intent to challenge the Integrity Commission’s conclusions, illustrating the high stakes involved for him.
The situation carries an irony; contentious legal disputes may continue to unfold from this high-profile case, indicating that the resolution is far from over.
Source
www.theguardian.com