More Backflips than Cirque du Soleil

The Sofronoff Inquiry into the handling of Brittany Higgins’ failed rape accusations just keeps on delivering. On the fourth day of questioning, the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions was squirming harder and faster than ever. On Wednesday, he sensationally claimed that there was a “political conspiracy” to stop the case proceeding.

The very next day, he even more sensationally retracted the claim.

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold has made an extraordinary about-face, backing down from his earlier claims that there was a political conspiracy to make the Brittany Higgins matter “go away” […]

However on Thursday Mr Drumgold retracted those claims entirely.

One could be forgiven, though, for suspecting that Drumgold’s about-face was most likely motivated by the realisation that the accusation of political interference could just as easily be made the other way. In other words, that there was considerable political pressure to proceed with the case despite its obvious problems.

Mr Drumgold’s counsel, Mark Tedeschi KC, initially asked him if he was subject to any political interference, to which Mr Drumgold replied: “I’m certainly not subjected to any political interference.”

Walter Sofronoff KC, who is presiding over the inquiry, then interjected.

Mr Sofronoff: “So I take [that] sitting here now having had available to you material that you haven’t seen before, you would acknowledge that your suspicions about the existence of political interference to prevent the case properly going ahead were mistaken?”

Mr Drumgold: “I do accept that.”

Others involved with the case, though, were not so sure.

A small diary note written by a police superintendent has indicated there was political impetus to compel Mr Lehrmann’s prosecution.

The note, written by Detective Superintendent Scott Moller, related to a conversation he had had with Deputy Chief Police Office Chew about whether or not Mr Lehrmann would be prosecuted for allegedly raping Ms Higgins.

The note read: “Insufficient evidence to proceed. DCPO advised he had a meeting with DPP who stated they would recommend prosecution … If it was my choice, I wouldn’t proceed. But it not my choice. There is too much political interference.”

That interference would surely include the then-opposition and the media milking the accusation to heap pressure on the Morrison government, and Higgins’ boyfriend, David Sharaz, bragging that Labor Senator Katy Gallagher (who, as finance minister, oversaw a massive taxpayer-funded payout to Higgins) would probe and keep the story going in March at a Senate estimates hearing. Sharaz was recorded telling journalist Lisa Wilkinson that Higgins wanted to time her interview to coincide with a parliamentary sitting week. Gallagher also indicated to others that she had been “communicating with” Sharaz and was in regular communication with Higgins.

This is not the only backflip Drumgold has made at the inquiry.

Mr Drumgold once believed the police leaked Ms Higgins’ counselling notes to Mr Lehrmann’s defence lawyers in a bid to disprove her case. He has since retracted that accusation.

But Drumgold has questions to answer over why, exactly, he apparently ignored a great deal of police evidence that could be disastrous for the prosecution.

Mr Drumgold dismissed claims from Detective Superintendent Scott Moller that there was “little corroborative evidence” of sex between Brittany Higgins and Bruce Lehrmann […]

Mr Dumgold also spoke to the fact Ms Higgins went to the media before giving her evidence in chief to police, saying the evidence had unfairly inferred this would impact her credibility as a witness.

The Australian

Drumgold’s interactions with the media are also being examined by the inquiry.

The ACT’s top prosecutor has stood by his decision not to publicly clear broadcaster Lisa Wilkinson of contempt after a Logies victory speech delayed the trial of Bruce Lehrmann […]

He told the inquiry he advised her that any publicity could lead to a stay application. However, Mr Drumgold did not explicitly tell her not to make the remarks, believing her attempt to read out her pre-prepared remarks were “in the flavour” of bragging about her nomination.

“In hindsight it was not an unlikely hypothetical … I should have paid closer attention at the time,” he told the inquiry.

“I accept that I entirely misread the situation.”

The Australian

The Australian public might be excused for thinking that the same could be said about a great many things to do with this case.