logo
Bombshell claim about Sofronoff report

Bombshell claim about Sofronoff report

Perth Now20-05-2025
The ACT integrity watchdog has admitted that scathing findings made against the head of an inquiry into the prosecution of Bruce Lehrmann contained errors, a court has been told.
Former Queensland judge Walter Sofronoff KC chaired the Board of Inquiry into the criminal prosecution of Mr Lehrmann.
The ACT Integrity Commission investigated Mr Sofronoff's conduct during his inquiry, in particular his decision to send a copy of the board's report to journalists from The Australian and ABC prior to its official release by the ACT government.
The Commission in March found Mr Sofronoff had engaged in 'serious corrupt conduct', however he is now seeking to have the Operation Juno report overturned by the Federal Court.
During a hearing in the Federal Court on Tuesday, Justice Wendy Abraham was told that lawyers for the Speaker of the ACT Legislative Assembly had argued that the report was covered by parliamentary privilege.
That would mean that the report would not be able to be tendered to the court and therefore he could not seek judicial review. Walter Sofronoff is seeking to overturn the ACT Integrity Commission's findings. NewsWire/Tertius Pickard. Credit: News Corp Australia
'It follows that if the speaker's submissions are accepted, the court should refuse to admit the Operation Juno report and it seems to follow inevitably that the court would therefore refuse to entertain the allegations that have been made in the amended originating application,' barrister Alison Hammond, appearing for the speaker, told the court on Tuesday.
'And it would appear that the result would be that the proceedings are dismissed.'
Documents filed by his legal team claim Mr Sofronoff was given the ability to do 'whatever (he) considers necessary or convenient for the fair and prompt conduct of the inquiry' as head of the inquiry.
Mr Sofronoff said he 'subjectively considered that it was necessary or convenient for the fair and prompt conduct of the inquiry for him to engage with journalists'.
The documents also claim the retired judge's actions were 'incapable of amounting to corrupt conduct' and the findings were 'seriously illogical, irrational and/or unreasonable'.
Adam Pomerenke KC, acting for Mr Sofronoff, told the court that it had been conceded by the ACT Integrity Commission that the report contained errors.
'Your Honour may see from the respondent's submissions that ground two of the application has been conceded - that is to say there is now an admission of error in the report and it's significant,' Mr Pomerenke said.
'It is an admission that the finding that Mr Sofronoff's conduct could have constituted a contempt of court was not open, was unlawful.
'If our learned friends are right about the operation of parliamentary privilege, this court is powerless to address that error which we say is of a jurisdictional kind.' Lawyers for Sofronoff say the report contained errors. NewsWire/Tertius Pickard. Credit: News Corp Australia
He said it would be 'most surprising' if such a report - which contains 'admitted errors of a serious kind' - was immune from judicial review.
The court heard it was argued that the report came under parliamentary privilege at the point when it was submitted to the speaker.
And Ms Hammond argued that the findings could have been challenged before the report was handed over.
Justice Abraham asked: 'These proceedings were filed on the 19th of March. If they had been filed on the 17th of March it wouldn't be a problem?'
'Yes, Your Honour. But there is a good reason for the bright-line distinction,' Ms Hammond replied.
Justice Abraham will hand down her judgment on the parliamentary privilege matter at a later date.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How Mark Latham could be kicked out of NSW Parliament
How Mark Latham could be kicked out of NSW Parliament

Sydney Morning Herald

time6 hours ago

  • Sydney Morning Herald

How Mark Latham could be kicked out of NSW Parliament

It may not be lurid allegations of emotional and physical abuse levelled against him by his long-term girlfriend that ends Mark Latham's political career. The maverick MP has another looming disaster that could see him removed from NSW Parliament. Latham denies the accusations made by Nathalie Matthews. Separately, he has a significant legal bill hanging over his head that, if he cannot pay, it will probably force him into bankruptcy and out of parliament. It is a live risk for Latham that could materialise this year. Under the NSW Constitution Act 1902, any member of either house of parliament who 'becomes bankrupt or takes the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors' must have their seat declared vacant. If Latham does not have the means to pay $140,000 plus legal costs, which already exceed half a million dollars in total, the one-time federal Labor leader will be disqualified from office. His possible bankruptcy stems from the ex-NSW One Nation leader defaming Sydney MP Alex Greenwich in a highly graphic and offensive tweet (which the Herald chooses not to repeat). In a decision last year, the Federal Court awarded Greenwich $140,000 in damages over the post on Twitter, now X, in March 2023. Greenwich's barrister, Dr Matt Collins, KC, told the court that the tweet, which described sexual activity in graphic and offensive terms, was a 'vile, homophobic attack' on the openly gay Greenwich. Loading Federal Court Justice David O'Callaghan this year ordered Latham to pay Greenwich's legal costs of the defamation case on the ordinary basis, which results in the successful party recouping about 70 per cent of their bills. The independent Sydney MP's costs have been estimated at more than $600,000. And it does not end there for Latham.

How Mark Latham could be kicked out of NSW Parliament
How Mark Latham could be kicked out of NSW Parliament

The Age

time6 hours ago

  • The Age

How Mark Latham could be kicked out of NSW Parliament

It may not be lurid allegations of emotional and physical abuse levelled against him by his long-term girlfriend that ends Mark Latham's political career. The maverick MP has another looming disaster that could see him removed from NSW Parliament. Latham denies the accusations made by Nathalie Matthews. Separately, he has a significant legal bill hanging over his head that, if he cannot pay, it will probably force him into bankruptcy and out of parliament. It is a live risk for Latham that could materialise this year. Under the NSW Constitution Act 1902, any member of either house of parliament who 'becomes bankrupt or takes the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors' must have their seat declared vacant. If Latham does not have the means to pay $140,000 plus legal costs, which already exceed half a million dollars in total, the one-time federal Labor leader will be disqualified from office. His possible bankruptcy stems from the ex-NSW One Nation leader defaming Sydney MP Alex Greenwich in a highly graphic and offensive tweet (which the Herald chooses not to repeat). In a decision last year, the Federal Court awarded Greenwich $140,000 in damages over the post on Twitter, now X, in March 2023. Greenwich's barrister, Dr Matt Collins, KC, told the court that the tweet, which described sexual activity in graphic and offensive terms, was a 'vile, homophobic attack' on the openly gay Greenwich. Loading Federal Court Justice David O'Callaghan this year ordered Latham to pay Greenwich's legal costs of the defamation case on the ordinary basis, which results in the successful party recouping about 70 per cent of their bills. The independent Sydney MP's costs have been estimated at more than $600,000. And it does not end there for Latham.

Four Sydney teenagers sentenced after 2024 violent home invasion in Canberra
Four Sydney teenagers sentenced after 2024 violent home invasion in Canberra

ABC News

time6 hours ago

  • ABC News

Four Sydney teenagers sentenced after 2024 violent home invasion in Canberra

One of four young Sydney men involved in a violent home invasion in Canberra last year told police he thought he was going on a camping trip. The four have been sentenced in the ACT Supreme Court today for aggravated burglary, intentionally causing grievous bodily harm and assault causing actual bodily harm, after they went into the home stabbing a woman four times and attacking her partner. The victims said the offenders were yelling, "Where is the money, where is the money?" The woman said she screamed: "There's nothing here". The group then fled, leaving the victims with serious injuries. Both were rushed to hospital. Police gradually identified members of the group which included 19-year-olds Lytrell Eneliko, Jacob Crichton and Raven Pauga, and a 17-year-old boy. One of the men was linked to a car leased to a family member, and there was CCTV footage both from the home and a fast-food outlet, with forensic evidence identifying DNA from one of the offenders on wrappers dumped near the scene of the crime. Police were also able to identify one victim because he was wearing part of a school uniform. Acting Justice Rebecca Christensen said no clear motive had been established for the crime, although police believed it could have been drug debt related. All four pleaded guilty. The court heard Raven Pauga told an undercover police officer: "S*** went south. "We just said f**k it. "We all agreed to do it." Acting Justice Christensen said the motive may not have been clear, but it was a "pre-meditated, targeted entry". "The number of offenders is particularly aggravating," she said. But she said it was not a professional job. Acting Justice Christensen said there were various levels of remorse and she was guarded about the rehabilitation prospects for the three older offenders. The court heard the offenders had grown up in Mr Druitt, Sydney, where the sister of Pauga said "being tough was not a choice, it was a necessity". Acting Justice Christensen said Pauga said he'd been involved because he thought there would be some financial reward and he planned to give the money to his family. The youngest of the group, who is still only 17, said he thought they were going on a camping trip, and couldn't work out why they went to the house. He said he regretted the offending and apologised saying he no longer associated with the others. Before sentencing the group Acting Justice Christensen said she would suspend each sentence, to give each a long period of supervision in the community. Eneliko was sentenced to five years jail, to be suspended after 30 months. Crichton and Pauga were given four year sentences to be suspended after 20 months. All except the 17-year-old boy, have been in custody since they were arrested. The 17-year-old was sentenced to three and a half years in jail, but his sentence has been fully suspended.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store