Board of Inquiry chair Walter Sofronoff KC has appealed against the ACT Integrity Commission’s findings. Photo: Screenshot.
Lawyers are debating whether or not the ACT Integrity Commission’s damming report on the chair of the Board of Inquiry is covered by parliamentary privilege.
Earlier this year, the Integrity Commission found Walter Sofronoff KC engaged in “serious corrupt conduct” during the inquiry.
He then applied for a judicial review against the findings in the Federal Court.
The commission has argued the report from its investigation, called Operation Juno, was covered by parliamentary privilege.
If so, it would mean the report is immune from legal challenges.
Barrister Alison Hammond, appearing for ACT Speaker Mark Parton, said the Operation Juno report was presented to Mr Parton in March 2025 before he tabled it in the ACT Legislative Assembly. It then had to be published online by law.
During a hearing on Tuesday (20 May), Ms Hammond argued that when the report was presented to the Speaker, it became a ‘proceeding in parliament’. This would mean it was covered by parliamentary privilege.
She argued that if a report was a ‘proceeding in parliament’, this meant a judicial review was “simply not available”.
Scott Robertson SC, appearing for the commission, said if Justice Wendy Abraham accepted Ms Hammond’s submissions, she should dismiss the proceedings.
Mr Sofronoff’s barrister, Adam Pomerenke KC, said his client’s case was that the commission acted outside its legal authority and the judicial review was confined to the strict questions of “legality”.
He said there had already been an admission of error in the report.
The commission’s report said some of Mr Sofronoff’s actions “could have” amounted to contempt of court, but Mr Pomerenke said it had since been conceded that this finding was not open or lawful.
He said the publication of the report online was what had caused the “real damage” to his client’s reputation and argued the online report could not be covered by parliamentary privilege.
“Doing it outside parliament means you’re not protected,” he argued.
In reply, Ms Hammond said it could not be said that the harm to Mr Sofronoff’s reputation was due to the report being on the commission’s website, when it was also on the assembly’s website.
Justice Abraham has reserved her decision, meaning it will be announced at a later date.
Mr Sofronoff headed the Board of Inquiry into the ACT Criminal Justice System, which was held in the wake of the aborted trial of Bruce Lehrmann for the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins in Parliament House in 2019.
After the inquiry ended, the Integrity Commission launched an investigation into allegations that Mr Sofronoff had given his report to two journalists before it was made public by ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr.
The commission’s report ultimately said giving the Board of Inquiry’s report to journalists before it had been publicly released contravened the requirement to provide it “exclusively” to Mr Barr to determine the timing and extent of publication.
In addition, the commission said Mr Sofronoff’s communications with The Australian journalist Janet Albrechtsen gave rise to an apprehension of bias that affected his findings about former top prosecutor Shane Drumgold SC.
Stacey Morales they say they've gone AWOL View