At the time, Sofronoff headed up an inquiry that made adverse findings against former ACT director of public prosecutions Shane Drumgold SC. Following Drumgold’s resignation, the ACT Supreme Court reviewed and dismissed Sofronoff’s findings.

In addition to the numerous exchanges between the pair, the corruption watchdog’s report concluded Sofronoff gave confidential material to Albrechtsen and provided the final report to her and an ABC journalist before it had been officially released.

Sofronoff’s substantive application before the Federal Court is seeking a finding that the report was affected by jurisdictional error, but the speaker of the ACT Legislative Assembly, Mark Parton, has drawn into question the existence of parliamentary privilege.

If Sofronoff fails in his objection to it, his case could be thrown out.

Appearing on Parton’s behalf, barrister Alison Hammond argued that under legislation, the report attracted parliamentary privilege as soon as the commission handed it to the speaker and was tabled in assembly. Only after it is handed over can it be published online.

VIEW ALL

Given all of Sofronoff’s grounds relate to a “direct attack” on the report’s contents, Hammond argued that adjudicating the case “would necessarily involve the court considering the correctness of the report and drawing conclusions on whether it was infected by error”.

Questioned on what avenues of objection would be open after reports are handed to the speaker, Hammond said the court would not be an option, but that the assembly “would be able to take action and express the view that the report was infected by error”.

Adam Pomerenke KC, appearing for Sofronoff, said that if the speaker was correct about the operation of parliamentary privilege, “this court is powerless to address” errors alleged by Sofronoff.

Further, he claimed parliamentary privilege would only attach to the copy of the report tabled in the assembly, and not the one published on the website and shared “to the real world” after the fact.

He added it was the report’s publication on the commission website that caused “real damage to Sofronoff”, and it was that point which he said “gives Sofronoff standing in these proceedings”.

Justice Wendy Abraham reserved her decision.