Lehrmann inquiry head's leak 'transparent, not corrupt'
Walter Sofronoff KC has asked the Federal Court to toss a March finding by the ACT Integrity Commission that the former judge engaged in serious corrupt conduct.
The commission's probe stemmed from Mr Sofronoff's leaks to a journalist.
But the watchdog's adverse finding was a "serious offence against the administration of justice", Mr Sofronoff's barrister Adam Pomerenke KC said during a hearing on Monday.
Mr Sofronoff was not corrupt, malicious or dishonest, the barrister told Justice Wendy Abrahams.
Rather, he genuinely believed he was acting in the public interest by sending documents like witness statements to the media.
"Even if Mr Sofronoff was wrong in his view, the fact remains that he genuinely and honestly held it," Mr Pomerenke said.
"At worst it could be characterised as an erroneous attempt to ensure accuracy and transparency in the public discourse."
Mr Sofronoff chaired a board of inquiry into the ACT's criminal justice system after Lehrmann's controversy-plagued prosecution.
The former Liberal staffer was accused of raping then-colleague Brittany Higgins in a ministerial office at Parliament House in 2019.
A 2022 criminal trial was abandoned without a verdict due to juror misconduct.
Lehrmann lost a defamation lawsuit he brought over media reporting of Ms Higgins' allegations but has appealed a judge's finding the rape claim was true on the balance of probabilities.
The Sofronoff-led inquiry found the ACT's top prosecutor, Shane Drumgold, had lost objectivity over the Lehrmann case and knowingly lied about a note of his meeting with broadcaster Lisa Wilkinson.
Mr Drumgold resigned and launched a legal challenge to the findings in the ACT Supreme Court.
It found the majority of the inquiry's findings were not legally unreasonable, but it struck down an adverse finding about how Mr Drumgold cross-examined then-Liberal senator Linda Reynolds during Lehrmann's criminal trial.
In March, the ACT Integrity Commission also found the majority of the inquiry's findings were not legally unreasonable.
But it found Mr Sofronoff's behaviour during the inquiry gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and he might have been influenced by the publicly expressed views of journalist Janet Albrechtsen.
Mr Sofronoff repeatedly messaged the News Corp columnist and eventually provided her an advance copy of his probe's final report.
Mr Pomerenke told the Federal Court on Monday the ACT corruption body had admitted it made an error in finding Mr Sofronoff might have engaged in contempt.
The claimed contempt stemmed out of leaks to the media despite directions made to parties during the inquiry to suppress certain documents.
But the notion that the head of an inquiry could be in contempt of himself was "absurd and irrational", Mr Pomerenke said.
This concession was enough to toss the findings against his client, he told the court.
Any individual error could not be "disentangled" from the final finding that the former judge engaged in serious corrupt conduct, the barrister said.
The hearing continues.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
9 hours ago
- Sky News AU
'Just do it': Sky News host ‘sickened' after Abbie Chatfield signals for American incels to assassinate President Donald Trump
Influencer Abbie Chatfield is under fire for signalling to American incels to assassinate US President Donald Trump, leaving a Sky News host 'sickened' as a Senator calls on Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to condemn the 'vile rhetoric'. Chatfield asked Americans 'when are you going to do it?' in a TikTok video which is now deleted. "Why isn't it already done? You, every day there is another (gun finger hand gesture shown) happening right? Awful for your country, awful right?" Chatfield said. 'Why don't we re-direct this energy to something else, you know, there's all this incels that are going 'no one wants to f*** me', so they go and do (gun finger hand gesture shown). 'You know what would actually make people respect you a little bit and maybe want to f*** you, as if you did it, as if you did it. 'You would get heaps of fan mail. Oh my god, oh my god … just do it. Like you are doing it every day anyway. Like I don't f***ing get it … like what.' Sky News host Rowan Dean suggested her 'bizarre' rant incited young men to assassinate Trump. 'So, there is lots of hand gestures of a gun. She's not explicit, so I will make that very clear,' he said on Sky News' Outsiders on Sunday. 'But the implication that I read from that was that she was saying to American young men, who are incels, who struggle to find a girlfriend or whatever, to go and assassinate President Trump. 'That seemed to be the implication behind 'just do it' and this (gun finger hand gesture shown) and that. I may be wrong and there may be a completely other explanation to what she was saying. 'But as a viewer taking it as face value, that's how I read it, and it sickened me." Fellow Sky News host Rita Panahi called for Mr Albanese to be asked about the deleted video. 'Well, I would like the Prime Minister to be asked about this because he chose to go on her podcast,' she said. 'I can guarantee you if it was a Liberal prime minister who went on someone's podcast who then uttered anything approaching that, they would be questioned about it, they would be asked to disassociate or at least pass some sort of comment on the association with that person.' Mr Albanese sat down with Chatfield for a 90-minute interview on the It's a Lot with Abbie Chatfield , prior to the federal election this year. United Australia Party Senator Ralph Babet said the Prime Minister must 'immediately' condemn Chatfield's 'vile rhetoric'. '(She is) calling for the assassination of the sitting President of the United States - our most important security ally - is not just unhinged, it's stochastic terrorism,' he said on X. has reached out to Mr Albanese's office for comment.
Sky News AU
14 hours ago
- Sky News AU
‘From bad to worse': Sussan Ley leads Coalition to lowest point in 40 years
Sky News host Rita Panahi roasts Opposition Leader Sussan Ley for her 'mealy-mouthed' and 'nonsense' statement on the Liberal Party's policies and values. 'Things are only going from bad to worse with smaller Liberal Sussan Ley as leader,' Ms Panahi said. 'Sussan Ley has managed to lead the Coalition to its worst Newspoll result in 40 years. Yes, the Coalition's primary vote is sitting at 29 per cent, the lowest since Newspoll began comparing primary vote levels in 1985. 'The problem is Sussan Ley lacks both the ideological conviction and the political acumen to formulate strong center right policies that give Australians a clear choice.'
ABC News
15 hours ago
- ABC News
Has high immigration fallen out of favour in Australia?
If you've spent any time on social media in recent years, you would have seen people criticising Australia's high levels of immigration, for various reasons. But in recent months, we've seen some of the most severe criticisms of high immigration coming from people who work for the exact organisations that have been among the biggest supporters of high immigration for the past few decades. Have the political winds suddenly shifted? It raises many interesting questions. Let's revisit the pro-high immigration arguments from some of the political organisations in this country. Start with this fascinating article from 2008. It was written by Richard Allsop, a research fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), and published in the IPA Review in March 2008. Back then, think tanks such as the IPA were still feeling politically triumphant, given the hand they'd played in creating the modern Australia we're now living in. The IPA was confidently "free-market", and many of its members had long promoted a certain strain of liberalism called Classical Liberalism. For that 2008 article, Mr Allsop surveyed the history of Australia's migration intake, and Australia's use of trade tariffs, since federation in 1901. And he found the Liberal side of politics in Australia had always delivered higher immigration, and Labor governments had delivered lower tariffs: "Two of the most fundamental liberal freedoms are the free movement of people and goods across borders," he declared. "In Australian politics, individuals of liberal persuasion have always struggled to find one side of politics that has reliably supported both increased immigration and lower tariffs at the same time. "However, our two major political parties have had such a remarkably consistent record that one can confidently say: "This may seem counter-intuitive, but the lesson of history is clear. "When it comes to the movement of people and goods the Liberal Party is the party of social liberalism and the Labor Party is the party of economic liberalism. "Of course there have been exceptions — most notably the post-war migration expansion commenced under the Chifley Labor government — but this was certainly an exception to the general rule." Notice how Mr Allsop characterised high immigration as being about "social liberalism" rather than "economic liberalism". There's a linguistic game being played there, given the obvious ways in which employers and governments use immigration for economic purposes. In recent decades especially, our politicians have used higher rates of immigration to expand the pool of available labour for employers, to seek more taxpayers and more growth, to source cheap labour for our farmers, to boost education exports, and to delay population-aging, none of which are motivated by high philosophical principles. But let's get back to his broader argument. In that 2008 article, Mr Allsop said the immigration record of John Howard's Coalition government (1996-2007) had matched the historic pattern. "The Howard government, like all its Liberal predecessors, was a high immigration government, particularly in its latter years, topping 140,000 [permanent migrants] in its final full year 2006-07," he wrote. "It was under John Howard that, for the first time since federation, the overseas-born proportion of the population exceeded 24 per cent, and it was also under Howard that the non-European component of the overseas born went above 50 per cent for the first time. "And as well as increasing overall numbers, the Howard government progressively increased the refugee intake from 3,802 in 1999-2000 to 6,022 in 2005-06." He noted that the journalist George Megalogenis had "sagely" observed in 2006 that "the former Hansonite belt … think Howard is keeping out all the foreigners, when he is bringing them here at a rate Paul Keating never contemplated". And he finished his article by urging Australia's new Labor prime minister at the time, Kevin Rudd, to maintain Howard's record-high rate of immigration. "One hopes that the Rudd Government can overturn a century of Labor history and continue our current high immigration intake," he wrote. Now, the below graph does not come from Mr Allsop's article, but it shows the numbers he was talking about. Mr Allsop was focusing on Howard's boost to the permanent migration intake, and he said little about temporary migration. But by the time Howard left office in 2007, his government had lifted Australia's overall immigration intake (permanent and temporary migrants combined) to record levels. The main permanent and temporary work visa categories jumped from 162,000 in 1995-96 to over 439,000 in 2007-08. Fast forward four years. In 2012, another research fellow at the IPA, Chris Berg, then rehashed the analysis from Mr Allsop's 2008 article, for his own article. It is also worth reading. Mr Berg noted in his piece, approvingly, that the Labor governments of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard (that had followed Howard's government), had surprisingly broken Australia's old partisan cycle on immigration. "Rather than immediately shrinking the intake, Rudd continued the trend upwards — hugely," he wrote. "Even Julia Gillard's government — she of small Australia fame — has not appreciably reduced the number of migrants we take." Mr Berg also noted, with concern, that then-opposition and Liberal party leader Tony Abbott might cut immigration if he won the upcoming 2013 federal election. "If Tony Abbott becomes Prime Minister next year, he is going to have to make a decision: what to do about immigration?" he wrote. "Does he want to continue the Liberal legacy — a legacy of mass migration and population growth? Or, as he has at times unfortunately suggested, does he want to repudiate it?" he asked. Mr Berg was concerned about Mr Abbott's intentions for immigration because, a couple of years earlier, in the 2010 federal election campaign, Ms Gillard and Mr Abbott had both criticised the idea of a "Big Australia" (famously promoted by Kevin Rudd) and had started promoting the benefits of reducing or slowing migration. Free-market think tanks like the IPA and the Centre for Independent Studies (CIS), and the editorial writers at the Australian Financial Review, heavily criticised Gillard and Abbott for that anti-immigration stance. In 2011, a research fellow at the CIS, Jessica Brown, explained why Australia's government had little control over our country's population growth since we now have a "globalised workforce". "Rather than asking central planners to set firm targets or caps for particular types of skilled visas, we largely leave it to the market to decide," she wrote. "Governments don't like to admit this, but it is incredibly difficult for them to predict — let alone control — what net overseas migration will be from year to year." She continued: "Why don't politicians tell us the truth that short of some pretty radical policy changes, they really don't have much control over how fast our population grows? "The debate about population growth in the lead up to the last federal election, and the response from both sides of the political spectrum, suggests that it is far easier for politicians to talk about cutting population growth than it is for them to address some of the complex challenges brought about by population growth." Now jump to 2025. The composition of our population and migration program looks very different today compared to 80 years ago. The changes have been slow, but profound, and as each new wave of migrants has been welcomed to Australia, Australian culture and society has adapted and evolved. But in recent months, the IPA's new chief economist, Adam Creighton, has been writing extremely critically of Australia's high rate of immigration. It's been fascinating to watch. He recently finished his reporting stint as The Australian's Washington correspondent in the United States, where he observed the Biden and Trump administrations up close. In his new role as IPA chief economist, he still writes regularly for The Australian. And in one of his most-recent pieces, he laid into the Albanese government for Australia's currently very high net immigration. "The vast bulk of these new arrivals are from developing nations, where English isn't a first language nor Christianity a majority religion," he wrote. "A cynic could think the political class is seeking to destroy Australian culture. "In fact, I caused a fuss last week when I posted the response of the latest version of ChatGPT to a provocative question: 'If Australia's government wanted to covertly erase the nation's British/Irish/European heritage, would the immigration program look much like the one in existence today?' "The answer shocked me." He said the AI-platform responded with: 'If a government wanted to significantly alter the nation's cultural identity without provoking open resistance, it would likely follow this exact playbook – fast, opaque, technocratic and couched in neutral-sounding economic terms." Of course, that wasn't Mr Creighton saying those things. It was ChatGPT. He was simply telling you what ChatGPT said, when prompted. But he used that example to springboard into a larger discussion. "The seven million-plus illegal immigrants largely from developing countries that poured into the US during the Biden administration shocked many. Yet proportionately the influx into Australia has been greater, albeit legal," he warned. "Rather than paying Mexican drug cartels, our arrivals pay exorbitant fees to migration agents and increasingly unscrupulous, revenue maximising tertiary education providers whose qualifications typically provide work rights in Australia. "This country's laudable and world-beating tolerance for newcomers has allowed us to avoid the social breakdown extant in Europe. But this will fray. "Politicians and journalists, who overwhelmingly live in expensive suburbs, should realise the potential social mess that's being created in our outer suburbs." It is typically not the type of language you'd hear from an organisation that has traditionally been a cheerleader of high immigration. Although, it does match the tone of some of the institute's more recent output. Have the political winds shifted?
