Judicial findings have significantly undermined the credibility of Walter Sofronoff’s inquiry into the Lehrmann trial, raising serious questions about bias, process and the influence of media on judicial conduct.

One must excuse a jot of sympathy for Walter Sofronoff, KC, whose review of the Bruce Lehrmann rape trial is now confirmed to have been seriously corrupt under ACT anti-corruption laws. The original corruption finding was made by the ACT Integrity Commissioner, Michael Adams, was challenged in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, and now, on further appeal, in the Federal Court.

Not a single judge has found him to be an innocent victim, who should get a medal instead. Nor have any found any significant defects in the reasoning for such devastating findings.

Each step up the appeals system adds to the gravity, and the credibility of the findings against Sofronoff, and places a slur on his reputation as a top Queensland judge prior to his retirement. He could further appeal to the High Court, but he would need special leave to appeal, and his legal and evidentiary arguments have so far failed to garner judicial support at any point. They begin by assuming his bona fides – as they must – before slipping into a tone of disbelief and coming to a different conclusion.

The finding that he was seriously corrupt does not mean that he accepted bribes, robbed passers-by or stole nappies from clotheslines. It does not even necessarily mean that he committed any crime, or did something that, had he been a public servant, might have had him disciplined. Essentially the allegation is that he did not conduct an important investigation in a fair-minded and balanced way, and that, in effect, he knew or ought to have known this. And that once he had arrived at a report, he put it so immediately into the public domain so that the Chief Minister would have no discretion or freedom of action to consider it. This “first sight” principle was put explicitly and stressed in the Inquiries Act, to the point of creating an offence if it were done otherwise.

It would be nice to be able to smirk and say I told you so, because I did when it seemed to me that Sofronoff was being unfair from very early in his inquiry. He seemed to have formed an opinion about the facts almost before he began to take evidence, and the way that most of the evidence was called and presented suggested to me that the inquiry team was already drafting the report for him. His fall guy seemed to be the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions, Shane Drumgold, who was cross-examined into a cocked hat by counsel assisting the commission until Drumgold hardly seemed to know whether he was up or down.

Senior counsel assisting then left the inquiry, soon to take up a position on the Federal Court. Her functions were taken over by junior barristers. That seemed to suit Sofronoff, because his interest in most of the other evidence, particularly about the actual police investigation and its adequacy, was perfunctory at best, and held ultimately to be deserving of little criticism. Those who suggested otherwise soon learnt of limits in testing his patience.

The fundamental problem, it seemed, was that a “woke” ACT system, and particularly a woke ACT prosecutor had been determined to push forward the prosecution even though most, perhaps all the investigating detectives had thought the case very weak.

Just where or how it occurred to Sofronoff that the fundamental problem was Drumgold and his determination to use the system to vindicate the victim is not quite clear. Some of Australia’s most conservative judges, and not a few defence barristers, have been complaining that........

© Pearls and Irritations