It’s drummed into starry-eyed cadet journalists that judges are one step removed from god. They sit on high behind oak-panelled benches and enact a sacred duty to protect the rule of law and its process. You don’t try to chat to them during trials, you don’t send them notes or emails or get their mobile numbers. You bow when they approach the bench and you bow when they leave. You don’t have coughing fits, you don’t live-tweet or take photos, and you ensure your phone is on silent. Don’t piss them off, because they can get you chucked out of court in a heartbeat.
And then there’s Walter Sofronoff KC.
Drip, drip, drip
Sofronoff is a legal mind of some renown. He served as president of the Queensland Court of Appeal from 2017 to 2022 and as Queensland solicitor general from 2004 to 2014. So when a scandal oxygenated by Rupert Murdoch’s The Australian erupted over the ACT DPP’s criminal prosecution (ultimately aborted) of Bruce Lehrmann who’d been accused of raping Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins, Sofronoff’s impressive legal pedigree made him the perfect choice to conduct an investigation.
Until it wasn’t. The ACT Integrity Commission has found Sofronoff engaged in “serious corrupt conduct” by leaking his report into the prosecution of Lehrmann to two journalists before ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr could digest the report or decide when and if it should be made public. One of those journalists, News Corps’ Janet Albrechtsen, was in constant phone, text and email contact with him during proceedings and was simultaneously a high-profile critic of one of the parties who was a subject of the inquiry. Any alarm bells going off?
The whiz of Oz
According to ACT Integrity Commissioner Michael Adams KC:
“Mr Sofronoff’s corrupt conduct has significantly undermined the integrity of the board’s processes and the fairness and probity of its proceedings. The commission has concluded that this is likely to have threatened public confidence in the integrity of that aspect of public administration constituted by the Inquiries Act as well as the particular assessments and judgments made in the board’s report concerning the administration of criminal justice. Accordingly, the corrupt conduct is serious.”
The commission found that less than an hour after handing his final report to Barr on July 31, 2023, Sofronoff sent it in a text message to Albrechtsen, who he’d earlier supplied with working drafts and witness statements. In fact, Sofronoff had been in contact with her regularly — a journalist who’d gone to print multiple times with publicly scathing criticism of the ACT DPP Shane Drumgold and his role in instituting criminal proceedings. On August 2, 2023, Sofronoff also gave a copy of the report to ABC journalist Elizabeth Byrne.
Suddenly his damning findings claiming misconduct against Drumgold were front-page news in The Australian and also published by the ABC, before the government that commissioned the inquiry had a chance to decide if it wanted to release them publicly and before Drumgold could assess or contest the findings.
Prey tell, sir
Sofronoff claimed Drumgold had “preyed” on inexperienced lawyers, acting in a way that was “grossly unethical”. How those tables have turned. The ACT Integrity Commission found in relation to Sofronoff’s behaviour:
“The disclosures were dishonestly concealed from persons involved in the Inquiry, in particular Mr Drumgold and the chief minister, which prevented them taking protective legal action … not impartial … significantly compromised the integrity of the inquiry constituting a breach of public trust and in respect of his communications with Ms Albrechtsen gave rise to an apprehension of bias that affected his findings about Mr Drumgold.”
The commissioner warned the disclosure of confidential material to journalists could have amounted to offences against sections 17 and 36 of the Inquiries Act.
Dr Denis Muller, senior research fellow at the centre for advancing journalism at the University of Melbourne, says it’s up to police or the DPP to decide if they prosecute.
“This is an extremely rare event. That the judge of a state Supreme Court would conduct themselves in a manner that leads an integrity commission to observe the conduct could constitute a criminal offence is really quite remarkable … The media and the courts are meant to be at arm’s length from one another. There is no precedent for a media organisation inserting itself into the legal process the way The Australian has done.”
Lawyers for Sofronoff said he had filed an application in the Federal Court challenging “the lawfulness” of the commission’s report.
Anti-hero
Sofronoff’s fall from grace is as dramatic as it gets. He became a News Corp hero while running a six-month commission of inquiry into the failures of Queensland Health’s forensic DNA laboratory. His report recommended a retrospective review of “thousands” of Queensland crimes, including murder and sexual assault cases, dating back more than a decade.
The commission of inquiry was triggered by an investigation from News Corp’s star Queensland reporter Hedley Thomas. In his final report, Sofronoff praised Thomas for his “professional skill and determination”. Thus was born a relationship of mutual admiration. Thomas later introduced Sofronoff to Albrechtsen, noting: “Janet has done her homework and expressed great confidence in your appointment.”
While journalists are told that judges are unapproachable, they also internalise the lesson that flattery will get you everywhere. In private texts, Albrechtsen praised Sofronoff’s work, particularly on the presumption of innocence. If you were teaching a journalism course on the potential time bombs buried in cultivating sources, the Albrechtsen approach would be a chapter on its own.
Road to ruins
But come what may, Albrechtsen’s publication, The Australian, always supports its hero. In an editorial on the commission’s findings against Sofronoff it concluded that the ACT legal system just can’t handle outside scrutiny.
There were no findings made against the journalists in the Integrity Commission report but the list of ruined careers and derailed lives is long and getting longer.
Sofronoff’s legal career may be under a cloud and Drumgold forced to resign, but it is Higgins who has suffered most — a young woman with shattered political aspirations who hoped the legal system would protect her, now forever known as the rape survivor who sought justice but unleashed a firestorm that never ends.
You can hear more on the Sofronoff case on Nicole Chvastek and Denis Muller’s podcast Truth, Lies and the Media on https://shows.acast.com/truth-lies-and-media
and Spotify
It never ends! Sexually assaulted? Go to the police? Expect justice through legal processes? Etc.. Or just shut up and hope some counsellor, or time, or death itself will end the pain. Too dramatic, you ask. It’s more than seventy years and it still hurts.
Not too dramatic Alison. Nothing’s changed in 70 years. I feel your pain.
Well said Alison. Apparently survivors of sexual assault take on average 30 years to be able to talk about it. Hopefully that is changing. I can say from experience that talking about having been raped is pivotal no matter how much time has elapsed.
Time to call back your trust and mojo Alison, its never too late!
Not sure where you live, however try this man as a s5tarting piont; I’ve had the pleasure of meeting him from former studies and he’s excellent!
https://www.themindninja.com.au/about
A sworn officer of the court refused to answer my question, when I asked her if she would recommend her daughter report a rape.
By her refusal to answer, she did answer, which means that she would not advise her daughter to report a rape, and, I agree with her.
The process of court is degrading and destructive of the victim’s psyche, reputation and her/his life forever into the future.
Not too dramatic Alison. Nothing’s changed in 70 years. I feel your pain.
Of course, in any real world the Oz would have sacked Albrechtsen for her conduct, but Rupert’s people understand the power that they have. In a real world, if Sofronoff has any crime to answer there would be no question at all that he should be charged and if found guilty, a very sever penalty should be sought as this is the most egregious of corrupt acts from a person in a role which is EXPECTED to be beyond reproach.
Is anyone surprised at the Oz’s approach here. No-one.
And to add insult to injury, the demand for a Royal Commission into Murdoch has collapsed.
Sofronoff should stand trial; Shane Drumgold should be compensated for the smear campaign against him and we should be told who is financing Bruce Lehrmann’s legal cases.
How many more careers will be destroyed as this saga plays out?
Britanny Higgins has been subjected to the most extreme public ridicule for daring to speak out and this shows how rotten the politics has become in Australia.
Exactly!
As far as I’m concerned, Newscorp should be subjected to a Royal Commission, stripped of its social license and wound up!
It’s not journalism, it’s a propaganda machine for disinformation, lies, false flag events, shock and awe as well as subterfuge.
Please no Royal commissions, enough of the recommendation procedures, a judicial enquiry where prison terms are handed out for corruption and criminal acts.
If you haven’t read Grace Tame’s comment on Newscorpse written in response to our Albo being a bit negative towards Grace’s T Shirt worn on Australia day, it is worth a read.
It was published in Crikey.
Murdoch has been damaging our country and it’s method of being Australian for over 50 years and it basically is a propaganda mouthpiece.
You are right Phil.In normal circumstances a journalist like Albrechtsen would have been sacked years ago.
Surely by now University lecturers in journalism have based their lectures on Albrechtsens reporting style by using her work as classic examples of biased reporting.
In my day journalists were taught to
be impartial,to report on actual proven facts and to behave with honesty and integrity.
Is it any wonder we have lost faith in the press when we have allowed Murdoch and his cohorts to continue to produce biased opinionated reporting,full of disinformation designed to shock
You all know, right? That if we ALL just stop buying that paper…?
Journalist members of the Media and Arts Alliance are required to observe its journalist Code of Ethics. Impartiality is a cornerstone of the code yet the MEAA does f all to protect the reputation of the profession
I’m curious re what sackable offence Albrechtsen committed?
Although legally qualified (which should’ve rated mention here, it likely to have amplified the value of her flattery and enabled a more collegial relationship to develop in the course of their 269 communications across 4 months) Albrechtsen was acting purely in her role as a journalist.
A bit like The Atlantic’s Jeff Goldberg who did little to cease comms he was mistakenly receiving from Hegseth et al on Signal just now – why wouldn’t Albrechtsen bleed as much inside info as she possibly could from Sovronoff to get that scoop every journalist dreams of?
Ingrid, in this case Albrechtsen was writing articles which were clearly biased, to support Lehrmann and to criticise Drumgold and Higgins. There was no attempt at journalistic impartiality. In addition she clearly “flattered” the judge in a completely inappropriate way to achieve information, which is at least unethical and may be illegal. She then released a report which was confidential and for which the person under investigation (Drumgold) and his lawyer should have had the right to reply before it became public knowledge. There are components of “due process” which should be followed to protect all members of our society.
In the case of the Atlantic, Goldberg simply reported the facts – the details of the Yemen attack were being put out on an unsafe app, and the people involved were not screening or checking who was on the app, i.e. all national security rules were being broken. To then make it worse, all of the Trump admin members then denied that anything wrong had been done, so that Goldberg released all of the details. I am sure he would have done the same if it had been the Biden administration. He was not trying to get information in an illegal way and I think acted ethically in reporting the “facts”. He was of course “lucky” but good journalists are often lucky by recognizing a story when others dismiss the issue.
There is invariably an unseen influence in any nefarious act that has political implications and this immediately gives rise to claims of a conspiracy theory. But it is interesting that almost immediately after the Higgins rape in the offices of Parliament House was publicised, every effort was applied to discredit Higgins, protect her parliamentary superior and impede the investigation work and subsequent prosecution process of Mr. Drumgold. Goodness, it was even possible (fortuitously) for a court official to find a jury member in possession of forbidden material which justified a mistrial. And now it is found that a reporter from the Murdoch press gets a copy of a confidential report before the authorising agency does. Something is rotten in the nation and it usually starts from the head.
Well said Steve – I always believed the mistrial to be in the defenses interest. My heart goes out to Brittany & her husband. I hope they have found a way to manage that situation with the dismissiveness it deserves and use it to grow stronger as individuals & as a family. I wish them the best life. I feel eternally grateful to Grace Tame for her apparent support to this wonderful young woman who was subjected to such a shocking backlash by the government who were supposed to be protecting her.
Agree with you, Steve. Too many vested interests and ‘mistakes’. And what ever happened to the witness who scuttled the trial?
The Australian is simply UNaustralian
You’d think that in a proper justice system there could be a case made that Albrechtsen and Sofronoff had engaged in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. I am not a lawyer but it stinks. Not surprising that The Oz would disagree with the findings.
Exactly! One law for me, another for the ‘other’.
“Judges are one step from God” who are meant to be neutral!
Sacred duty, yes!
Humans are flawed and are unfortunately biased, as well as capable of poor judgement and poor choices in addition to corruption i.e., Andrew Fraser (dualisms).
A sword of Damocles indeed.
Knew of this story a while ago via this website which is dedicated to Jurisprudence https://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/ here in Australia, and in case you haven’t noticed most of the policy failures we are dealing with here in this country are as a result of a lawyer. a commercial lawyer John Howard.
Do I need to say anymore?
Justice is blind!
It’s almost beyond question that if a lawyer had leaked something that was intended to be the subject of consideration by the government before release, the lawyer would lose the lawyer’s ticket to practice and probably face prosecution. Unless the lawyer happens to be a former judge.
Why do these idiots wear mops on their heads?
Ha ha – it’s actually to distinguish them from us humanly folk!
The robes and wigs are also meant to denote an anonymity and impartiality of the profession.
Perhaps a pedantic point to make – but bowing to the judge when you enter and leave a court room is actually done to show respect for the court and not the judge as such. It’s not compulsory.