Walter Sofronoff KC, the man who led the inquiry into the trial of Bruce Lehrmann, has hit back at criticism of his decision to provide an embargoed copy of his report to journalists as “baffling”.
The head of an independent inquiry has previously confirmed in writing that he provided an embargoed copy of his final report to two media outlets including one who received it before he provided it to the ACT government
This came after he was asked for a ‘please explain’ over the unauthorised disclosure by the ACT Government.
In the new correspondence, Mr Sofronoff has released all of the letters exchanged over the leak and urges the ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr to withdraw his criticisms.
Mr Sofronoff writes that although he provided an embargoed copy to two journalists that The Australian’s Janet Albrechtsen later contacted him to reveal she had another copy from another source and was at liberty to publish it.
“Ms Albrechtsen informed me by telephone that she had obtained a copy of my report from another source and that she regarded herself as being at liberty to write about its contents. I have no reason to believe that she was lying to me,‘’ he writes.
“I have not had my trust betrayed nor have I had any reason to be disappointed. The outcome of this process of professional engagement with journalists has been that, on the whole, stories about the inquiry have been on point and informative.”
On Thursday, the former Supreme Court judge released his correspondence with Mr Barr, outlining an exchange of letters where he urges the ACT Chief minister to immediately withdraw his criticism of him.
“We observed that these remarks were published without notice to Mr. Softronoff,” the letter states.
“And we also observe that Mr. Barr acknowledged he offered the views without having taken legal advice as to whether they were correct.”
“We are writing on Mr. Sofronoff’s instructions to point out respectfully, why Mr. Barr was wrong to say that.”
“We would respectfully invite Mr. Barr also to consider whether the best course would be to make a public statement to the effect that having taken advice he accepts Mr Sofronoff neither breached the terms of the statute, nor did he act unethically.
“That would put an end to the matter as far as Mr Sofronoff is concerned.”
It appears to follow an exchange of letters where Mr Sofronoff‘s legal team urges the ACT Government to release all of the letters including his criticism of the ACT chief minister and not a narrower selection of material.
On August 3, the ACT Chief Minister wrote to Mr Sofronoff KC regarding the disclosure of the report.
“Following advice from the ACT public service, we would appreciate your earliest possible response to the following questions,‘’ the letter states.
1. Did you provide copies of the report to anybody other than the ACT Chief Minister?
2. If so, to whom were those copies provided, when, and on what basis?
3. If copies were provided to anybody other than the Chief Minister, under what authority where those copies provided?
In response, Mr Sofronoff responded that on the same day confirming he had provided the report to two media outlets.
“I provided a copy of the report to Ms Janet Albrechtsen and to (the ABC‘s) Ms Elizabeth Byrne,’’ he wrote.
“Both those names are undoubtedly known to you. Each of them was given a copy upon an express agreement by them that the copy was embargoed until the government had published it.
“I furnished a copy of the report to Mr Leon Zwier, the solicitor for Ms Brittany Higgins. I gave it to him on his undertaking not to publish its contents to anybody, including his client.
“The copies were given to Ms Albrechtsen and to Mr Zwier on Sunday 31 July 2022. The copy was given to Ms Byrne yesterday.
“You have asked me “under what authority where (sic) those copies provided”.
The direct and succinct answer to that question is that I furnished those copies under my authority as chair of the inquiry.
Mr Sofronoff noted that “an inquiry must be conducted in such manner as the board determines” and that it ”may do whatever it considers necessary or convenient for the fair and prompt conduct of the inquiry.”
“You will observe that the furnishing of copies on this basis was limited to two journalists. Each of these were professionals who, I judged, would not take the serious step of betraying my trust by behaving unprofessionally,‘’ he wrote.
“The content of Ms Maiden’s story implies to me that she has been given the benefit of a disclosure of part of the report. I presume that if she had the whole of it, her story would have been of wider scope.
“Concerning Mr Zwier, I have striven not to involve either Ms Higgins or Mr Lehrmann in this investigation for obvious reasons. In addition, Ms Higgins is extremely unwell.
“He was at liberty to tell Ms Higgins what was needed to assure her that she need have no personal concerns. If any part of the report might be harmful in that way, I was confident that I could express myself in a different way so that I would cause no harm. Mr Zwier read the report and called me to say that he had no objection. I have no doubt at all that he did not breach his undertaking. ”