The Director of Public Prosecutions, Shane Drumgold, “knowingly lied” to the ACT Supreme Court over his purported warning to Lisa Wilkinson over her Logies speech, in accordance with a landmark inquiry.
The probe into Bruce Lehrmann’s trial, led by Walter Sofronoff KC, discovered proof of unethical conduct by Drumgold, together with his use of a be aware regarding a dialogue he held with Ms Wilkinson simply days earlier than her speech.
The bombshell findings are sure to finish Drumgold’s tenure as DPP.
The Sofronoff report did reveal that the choice to cost and prosecute Bruce Lehrmann was the proper plan of action.
That discovering shouldn’t be a mirrored image on the guilt or innocence of the previous Liberal staffer.
It is a discovering on the conduct of the police and the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions.
Mr Lehrmann stays an harmless man underneath the regulation, as he was by no means convicted earlier than the trial collapsed following an allegation of juror misconduct.
The Australian newspaper obtained a full copy of the 600 web page Sofronoff report on Wednesday night time.
It confirms the findings towards Mr Drumgold are so severe that Mr Sofronoff thought of whether or not he ought to invite the DPP to make a submission as as to if he was a match and correct particular person to carry that workplace.
Ultimately, he decided it was not in his phrases of reference.
It’s a surprising end result after Mr Drumgold successfully demanded the inquiry in a livid letter to ACT Chief Police Officer Neil Gaughan on November 1, 2022, which included what the inquiry described as “scandalous allegations” about political interference.
“The result has been a public inquiry, which was not justified by any of his allegations, that has caused lasting pain to many people and which has demonstrated his allegations to be not just incorrect, but wholly false and without any rational basis,” Mr Sofronoff finds.
He accuses him of failing to reveal materials to the defence when he should have performed so.
“Mr Drumgold kept the defence in the dark about steps he was taking to deny them the documents,” Mr Sofronoff stated.
“Criminal litigation is not a poker game in which a prosecutor can hide the cards.”
Mr Drumgold stays on depart from his job and has not returned to work since his bruising proof on the Sofronoff inquiry in May.
The inquiry finds the police “performed their duties in absolute good faith, with great determination although faced with obstacles, and put together a sound case”.
It doesn’t make antagonistic findings towards Victims of Crime Commissioner Heidi Yates.
Curse of the Logies
Ms Wilkinson’s Logies speech sparked a four-month delay to the trial, and the Chief Justice’s stern criticism of Ms Wilkinson contributed to a firestorm of antagonistic publicity.
The Channel 10 broadcaster in the end left The Project within the wake of the fallout and has not returned to the airwaves since late final yr.
Mr Drumgold at all times maintained he warned her concerning the hazard of constructing feedback which may endanger Mr Lehrmann’s rape trial.
Ms Wilkinson disagreed, and Mr Sofronoff discovered that he most well-liked her proof over the DPP’s.
Mr Drumgold even offered a be aware regarding a video convention with Ms Wilkinson to Chief Justice Lucy McCallum that recommended he did give a warning.
When requested if it had been written contemporaneously by a junior lawyer current, he informed the court docket this was the case.
In reality, it was up to date solely after Ms Wilkinson delivered her speech and the DPP was conscious of the looming controversy.
As such, The Australian reported on Wednesday night time that Mr Sofronoff has discovered Mr Drumgold “knowingly lied to the Chief Justice”.
“For the Chief Justice’s purposes, the note was not contemporaneous,’’ the report states.
“I reject that a prudent and experienced barrister would behave in that way or make a mistake of this calibre.
“This is a wholly untenable excuse for a barrister of the seniority and experience of Mr Drumgold.”
Mr Sofronoff rejected Mr Drumgold’s insistence this was an sincere mistake.
“He must have known that (Chief Justice) McCallum had found, as a matter of fact, that Ms Wilkinson had engaged in wilful defiance of his ‘appropriate’ warning and that her finding was based entirely on the proofing note,’’ the report states.
Mr Sofronoff writes that Ms Wilkinson was a very experienced broadcaster who should have been cautious about making such a speech given the proximity of the trial, but nevertheless, the DPP had a responsibility to the court.
“Instead, he did nothing and thereby left alive a threat to the trial,’’ he said.
“A postponement might have endangered Ms Higgins’ health, which Mr Drumgold knew was fragile. It imperilled Mr Lehrmann’s right to the presumption of innocence. It left Ms Wilkinson under the false impression that she was at liberty to give the speech.”
Disclosure
Mr Sofronoff finds the DPP deserted the “golden rule” of disclosure and the apply of skilled prosecutors that “if in doubt, disclose”.
The Sofronoff inquiry finds that Mr Drumgold repeatedly tried to make sure the so-called Moller Report stayed out of the palms of the defence, regardless of the actual fact they have been legally entitled to it.
“Mr Drumgold could not name a source (for the privilege claim) in his instructions to his staff member because, as Mr Drumgold admitted in his evidence, he himself was the source,’’ the report finds.
Mr Drumgold is accused of using “dishonest means to prevent a person he was prosecuting from lawfully obtaining material”.
Linda Reynolds
There is vindication too within the Sofronoff report for Senator Linda Reynolds.
The Sofronoff inquiry finds “there was not a single piece of evidence that anyone had applied pressure upon Ms Higgins that could legitimately be described as ‘strong political forces’”.
He doesn’t agree with Mr Drumgold’s claims that Ms Reynolds “arranged” for her accomplice to attend court docket, and that he had been discussing Ms Higgins’ proof together with her, suggesting the declare was “tantamount to an allegation of an attempt to pervert the course of justice”.
“Mr Drumgold was examined about his understanding of this ethical principle. His ignorance deeply disturbed me. He fails to understand the difference between putting forward to a witness an allegation of misconduct as a fact and asking a witness whether or not something is a fact,’’ the report states.
“Mr Drumgold had no basis upon which to put that suggestion, which was intended to impute impropriety in Senator Reynolds in the eyes of the jurors.”
“The suggestion that Senator Reynolds as well as her partner were engaging in potentially criminal conduct was an improper one and should not have been made,” Mr Sofronoff stated.
“Mr Drumgold’s comments were improper. They undermined the public’s confidence in the administration of justice and (it) was a failure in his duty as DPP,” Mr Sofronoff stated.
‘Improper’ feedback after trial
The report finds Mr Drumgold’s speech after the trial collapsed implied he “personally believed Ms Higgins’ complaint of rape was true and that, as a consequence, Mr Lehrmann was guilty”.
“The comments were improper and should not have been made,’’ the report states.
“It was not necessary for Mr Drumgold to express his views on the prospects of conviction at the time of discontinuance.
“Nor was it his function to identify himself with the complainant to a degree that he made a public statement of support.
“The motive for this was good; the decision was bad.”
News.com.au has contacted Shane Drumgold, his authorized consultant, Bruce Lehrmann and Lisa Wilkinson for remark.
Source: www.news.com.au
