Lawyers deny journalist received preferential treatment by Walter Sofronoff during inquiry into Bruce Lehrmann prosecution

The ACT’s former top prosecutor Shane Drumgold is seeking to have findings from an inquiry into the prosecution of Bruce Lehrmann over the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins overturned.  ()

Lawyers for the chair who led an inquiry into the prosecution of Bruce Lehrmann, Walter Sofronoff, have denied he gave preferential treatment to The Australian journalist, Janet Albrechtsen during the inquiry.

A judicial review challenging Mr Sofronoff’s findings continued for a second day in the ACT Supreme Court on Wednesday as the ACT’s former top prosecutor seeks to have adverse findings against him dismissed.

Those allegations included that he misled two junior solicitors and made false statements to the ACT’s chief police officer.

Mr Lehrmann’s trial over the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins was abandoned due to juror misconduct, and there have been no findings against him.

Mr Drumgold is asking the court to dismiss the findings of the report on the basis that inquiry chair Walter Sofronoff was apprehended by bias.

He resigned as director of public prosecutions in 2023 after Mr Sofronoff’s report was published, though he disputes some of the findings.

Janet Albrechtsen simply ‘asked more questions’, lawyer says

Lawyers for Mr Drumgold made the argument that Mr Sofronoff’s mind had been “poisoned” by Albrechtsen’s reporting, which they claimed was adverse towards Mr Drumgold and favoured Mr Lehrmann.

They presented Telstra phone records to the court on Tuesday that showed Mr Sofronoff and Albrechtsen phoned each other for a total of 11 hours and 27 minutes over the course of the inquiry, between February 9 and August 2 last year.

Those hours constituted about 85 per cent of Mr Sofronoff’s total time on the phone with journalists.

A string of text messages and emails, including from four separate personal email accounts belonging to Mr Sofronoff, were also presented as evidence.

But Mr Sofronoff’s barrister, Brendan Lim, denied Albrechtsen received preferential treatment over other journalists.

He told the court Mr Sofronoff had publicly declared he was “happy” to engage with any journalists who approached him with questions.

“Albrechtsen was the most persistent of the journalists and that didn’t reflect preferential treatment on his part,” Mr Lim told the court.

“The fact that Ms Albrechtsen had more questions than other journalists is in fact besides the point.”

Nothing to support claims reporting ‘infected’ findings

Lawyers for the ACT government, which is also defending the findings of the report, conceded that Acting Justice Stephen Kaye may find Mr Sofronoff was “unwise” in his communication with Albrechtsen.

“We do accept that the plaintiff makes a strong point in relation to the secrecy of those communications,” ACT government barrister Kate Eastman told the court.

“Your honour may make some finding that Ms Albrechtsen’s conduct was in some ways improper,” she said.

But Ms Eastman told the court there was no way to prove Albrechtsen had injected bias into Mr Sofronoff’s findings.

“Even if he had read the articles, there’s nothing to support quite a serious allegation that Mr Sofronoff was infected by the articles,”she told the court.

She added that at least ten of the articles relied upon by Mr Drumgold’s lawyer to prove his mind had been “poisoned” hadn’t been written by Albrechtsen.

Ms Eastman also pushed back against allegations Mr Sofronoff was wrong to have made up his mind about Mr Drumgold before he had given evidence as a witness to the inquiry.

She argued it was natural the inquiry chair would have formed preliminary views about Mr Drumgold because he had taken part in private interviews and provided the inquiry with a statement in the months leading up to the public hearings.

Police lawyers say nothing suspicious about text message between journalist and chair

Lawyers for six ACT police officers, who have joined the proceedings as defendants, addressed a text message Mr Sofronoff sent to Albrechtsen in the lead up to the inquiry.

That text message read: “what a thing to do to two young professionals under your mentorship” and referred to previous evidence given to the inquiry by two witnesses who were junior staffers working under Mr Drumgold when he was the DPP.

Mr Drumgold’s lawyers argued that text showed Mr Sofronoff had already made up his mind about his findings about Mr Drumgold without hearing all of his evidence.

But barrister for ACT Policing Justin Greggery argued the text message itself was uncontroversial and “communication of not very much at all”.

“It’s an uncontentious preliminary view,” he told the court.

Mr Greggery argued Mr Drumgold’s actions in relation to his treatment of the junior lawyers was not challenged in the course of the inquiry.

Denied natural justice, court hears

Lawyers for Mr Drumgold are also challenging the report’s findings on a separate ground — that he was not afforded natural justice because he was denied the opportunity to respond to damning allegations made about his conduct.

The inquiry report found that Mr Drumgold preyed on the inexperience of junior lawyers, because they would not question his request for them to craft an affidavit that claimed a police report was not able to be publicly disclosed because it was protected by legal professional privilege.

It also found he “knowingly lied” to ACT Chief Police Officer (CPO) Neil Gaughan about why a letter he wrote — that impugned the reputations of named police officers and Senator Linda Reynolds — was made public via a freedom of information request from the media without first notifying the CPO of its release.

Mr Drumgold’s lawyer argued an absence of Mr Drumgold’s response to the findings constituted a denial of natural justice.

The court heard Mr Drumgold was unwell while giving evidence during the inquiry and was granted medical leave after appearing as a witness.

But lawyers for the ACT government said Mr Drumgold was given fair notice of potential adverse findings against him on at least two occasions, on June 9 and July 9 last year.

The review will continue tomorrow.