The fallout from the Bruce Lehrmann/Brittany Higgins scandal just keeps on falling out. As various legal cases continue to grind through the courts, a high-ranking lawyer has had a major win in his bid to clear his name. At issue is the Star Chamber-like attempt by the ACT political establishment to punish anyone who dared challenge the narrative.
Walter Sofronoff KC will be allowed to fight the findings of a corruption probe into his investigation of the criminal prosecution of Bruce Lehrmann despite the ACT government arguing the report should be protected by parliamentary privilege.
Judge Wendy Abraham on Wednesday indicated she had not been convinced that the tabling of the ACT Integrity Commission’s report in the territory parliament was sufficient to grant it parliamentary privilege and therefore make it immune to judicial review.
Mr Sofronoff, a former Queensland solicitor-general, is seeking a judicial review in the Federal Court of the findings from the Commission’s probe of his investigation into former ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold’s handling of Mr Lehrmann’s criminal trial for the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins.
Such is the state of ‘justice’ in the Australian Capital Territory: for the ‘crime’ of pointing out how deeply a prosecutor compromised himself in the pursuit of an ideological goal, including lying to a judge, the messenger is to be shot with no opportunity to speak in his own defence.
Remember that Drumgold challenged Sofronoff’s final report into his conduct as ACT director of public prosecutions in the ACT Supreme Court.
Yet the ACT government is saying Sofronoff cannot challenge in a court of law the ACT Integrity Commission’s final report about Sofronoff […]
In other words, a bunch of politicians are telling a citizen facing serious findings of corrupt conduct by a quasi-judicial body that those findings can’t be challenged in a real court of law. End of story.
Only in the ACT.
As the saying goes: who watches the watchers? In this case, it appears that the watchers are answerable only to themselves and have full power to mark their own homework. The ACT political-legal establishment is, it seems, a law unto itself.
Their conduct has wider ramifications, far beyond this one case.
The commission’s contentions are deeply troubling and flawed. If accepted, it would insulate the national, state and territory integrity bodies – which all follow a similar structure of having their reports tabled in their respective parliament – from supervision by the courts […]
This case is more than just about Sofronoff.
It’s about every person who may interact with the government in the future. If “tabling reports prevents judicial review” becomes a magic formula, where could it be applied next? If the commission’s argument is upheld and it is shielded from judicial review, parliaments will need to limit the extraordinary powers granted to integrity bodies.
Judicial review is one of the bedrock safeguards in Australia. An independent judiciary supervising the legal limits of anti-corruption bodies and government agencies is key to maintaining integrity in our system of government. Without judicial review of their functions, integrity bodies will be permitted to exercise their rights in a manner untethered to their statutory obligations. This will impact on the rights of all citizens and allow integrity bodies to act with no integrity.
Integrity? Canberra?
Surely you jest.
