Sofronoff knew ‘destructive’ potential of leaking confidential documents to Australian and ABC journalists, court hears | Australian Capital Territory

Walter Sofronoff was totally conscious of the “harmful” potential of leaking confidential paperwork referring to his inquiry into the prosecution of Bruce Lehrmann to journalists, the federal court docket has heard.Hearings continued on Tuesday into the previous Queensland choose’s authorized problem to findings by the Australian Capital Territory’s Integrity Fee that he had engaged in “critical corrupt conduct” by leaking paperwork referring to his investigation into the Lehrmann case to Janet Albrechtsen on the Australian and Elizabeth Byrne on the ABC.These leaked paperwork included notices despatched to then-ACT director of public prosecutions Shane Drumgold that the inquiry was contemplating making hostile findings in opposition to him.Scott Robertson SC, representing the ACT Integrity Fee, informed the court docket these paperwork have been disclosed to journalists understanding they posed a big threat to Drumgold’s profession. “It wasn’t an unintended disclosure, it was a understanding disclosure,” Robertson stated.A 2022 prison trial in opposition to Lehrmann, who was accused of raping Brittany Higgins within the ministerial workplace of Senator Linda Reynolds at Parliament Home in 2019, was deserted with no verdict due to juror misconduct, and prosecutors determined in opposition to a re-trial. Lehrmann denied the allegations.Sofronoff was appointed by the ACT authorities to find out whether or not the investigation into the trial had been affected by political affect or interference. His report dominated that out however made “critical findings of misconduct” in opposition to Drumgold, which have been partially overturned in March 2024.The Integrity Fee launched an investigation in Might 2024 to find out whether or not Sofronoff acted corruptly in leaking confidential paperwork, together with offering the inquiry’s ultimate report back to journalists earlier than its official public launch.The corruption watchdog’s report, generally known as the Juno report, stated Sofronoff claimed his conduct “complied with the necessities of the Inquiries Act” and that, in leaking the paperwork, he had “acted within the public curiosity to make sure the media have been adequately knowledgeable” about his inquiry and “able to remark precisely” about it.The fee discovered that Sofronoff “had not, the truth is, acted in good religion”, that his actions “undermined the integrity of the Board’s processes and the equity and probity of its proceedings to such an extent as to have been prone to have threatened public confidence within the integrity of that facet of public administration. It subsequently constituted critical corrupt conduct.”Sofronoff is difficult this discovering on the argument that the fee made a sequence of errors in its interpretation of laws, and that there was no proof to assist findings that he had acted dishonestly or not in good religion.Robertson stated Sofronoff clearly knew the fabric he was disseminating must be saved confidential and that events affected by it might count on him to not ship it to journalists.The non-publication order that Sofronoff issued in April 2023 over the fabric offered to his personal inquiry (as there was a threat that hostile findings could also be made on the time), confirmed he “fairly appropriately” believed that materials ought to be saved confidential, “but he acted inconsistent with that personal indication”, Robertson stated.Proof for that inconsistency included Sofronoff sending two subpoenaed statements referring to the investigation into Drumgold to Albrechtsen in a textual content message with the phrases “strictly confidential” connected, Robertson stated.skip previous e-newsletter promotionSign as much as Breaking Information AustraliaGet crucial information because it breaksPrivacy Discover: Newsletters could include information about charities, on-line adverts, and content material funded by exterior events. For extra info see our Privateness Coverage. We use Google reCaptcha to guard our web site and the Google Privateness Coverage and Phrases of Service apply.after e-newsletter promotionWhile various folks have been notified that Sofronoff’s inquiry was contemplating making hostile feedback in opposition to them, Sofronoff solely leaked the notices of potential hostile remark in opposition to Drumgold to Albrechtsen, the court docket heard.Severe hostile findings might, and on this case did, destroy Drumgold’s profession. The harmful potential of these paperwork couldn’t moderately have been misplaced on Sofronoff, Robertson stated, as he was “a person of in depth [legal] pedigree”.“As delicate and confidential paperwork go, it’s arduous to establish a extra critical instance. The general public launch of those paperwork and even using it as journalistic background is or was apt to undermine Mr Drumgold’s curiosity, that’s the factual context wherein the fee makes its related findings.”Robertson argued that if Justice Wendy Abraham have been to seek out that the information behind the fee’s discovering weren’t in error, she can be “most unlikely” to seek out error within the subsequent analysis of Sofronoff’s conduct as dishonest.Sofronoff’s barrister, Adam Pomerenke KC, stated there was a distinction between “disclosure” and “publication”, and that the suppression order solely associated to publication. Sofronoff was conscious of the phrases of his personal suppression order, however “knew that [material] wouldn’t be printed whereas this order was operative. That’s a distinct factor from being disclosed”.Justice Abraham queried the excellence, saying: “An individual offering an announcement [to the inquiry] wouldn’t count on that to be offered to a journalist with out their information, at this stage, with the order in place, would they? They might have the expectation that it might not be.”“I’m going to stay to that distinction between publication and disclosure, it’s a recognised distinction,” stated Pomerenke.The court docket reserved its judgement.