Former judge Walter Sofronoff was unable to overturn the ACT Integrity Commission’s finding that he engaged in corrupt conduct while leading an inquiry into Bruce Lehrmann’s abandoned prosecution.
Justice Wendy Abraham of the Federal Court of Australia said Sofronoff did not establish jurisdictional error in the commission’s “Juno Report”, which concluded he engaged in “serious corrupt conduct” due to his communications with journalists during the 2023 inquiry.
The commission found Sofronoff gave confidential material to The Australian journalist Janet Albrechtsen and a copy of the final report to both her and ABC journalist Elizabeth Byrne before its official release.
In dismissing Sofronoff’s claims that he acted in the public interest to ensure media were adequately informed, the report found he instead undermined the inquiry processes, and the fairness and probity of the proceedings, “to such an extent as to have been likely to have threatened public confidence in the integrity of that aspect of public administration”.
All but one of Sofronoff’s 12 grounds of appeal were dismissed by Justice Abraham, including his claim that his conduct could not constitute a serious disciplinary offence because it only applied to employees.
He argued the finding was “illogical, irrational and/or unreasonable”.
Justice Abraham said the Inquiries Act does not distinguish between those who are employees and those who otherwise fall within the definition of public official. Further, the factual basis of the commission’s finding was the same in relation to Sofronoff’s termination.
Sofronoff also claimed there was no evidence for the commission’s finding that his conduct could not be “reasonably regarded as honest”, he demonstrated a “lack of fidelity and good faith”, he acted in conscious disregard of his statutory functions, and he was “deceitful” in not disclosing his actions with the journalists to the Chief Minister.
Referring to his “consistent and unwavering” evidence on state of mind, Sofronoff submitted the findings depended on making an anterior finding that he gave deliberately false evidence and he had “falsely stated that he had a particular state of mind when in truth he had another”.
He added it was “bizarre” for the commission to conclude he engaged in secret or covert behaviour because he “freely told” counsel assisting that he had provided Albrechtsen with the draft inquiry report, and told the entire inquiry team about it at a dinner in late July 2023.
In dismissing this ground, Justice Abraham said this failed to address the underlying factual findings made by the commission.
“It has not been established that there was no probative evidence supporting the findings of lack of honesty, good faith and impartiality.
“Further, I do not agree with the applicant’s submission that the commission made the findings divorced from the actual state of mind of the person who is in issue. The commission considered but did not accept Sofronoff’s evidence on various topics,” Justice Abraham said.
Ground two, which alleged the commission erred in concluding his conduct could constitute an offence of contempt contrary to the Inquiries Act, was admitted by the commission.
However, Justice Abraham said that the threshold of materiality must be met to establish this gave rise to jurisdictional error, and this was not done.
Justice Abraham said the Juno Report did not suggest the offence was relevant “in any way” to its consideration, and she was also not satisfied this error was material “because there was an entanglement in the conclusion, or the absence of reasoning as to serious corrupt conduct”.
Sofronoff submitted that he should at least be entitled to a declaration that the conduct could not have constituted an offence.
The commission opposed this and informed the court that a note would be added to its website reflecting the ground-two concessions. This has already occurred in the final inquiry report available on its website.
Given that the error was not material and Sofronoff has not established jurisdictional error, Justice Abraham said Sofronoff’s concerns could be sufficiently addressed by the approach the commission has and will take.
The case: Sofronoff v ACT Integrity Commission [2025] FCA 1565.
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
