Andrew L. Urban
The ACT Integrity Commission’s Operation Juno is an examination of Walter Sofronoff’s actions after he was appointed under the ACT Inquiries Act to investigate whether the aborted Bruce Lehrmann trial in 2023 had been affected by political influence or interference. Sofronoff’s lawyer says Juno’s report was a product of overreach and a “serious offence against the administration of justice”, The Australian reports.
Sofronoff on Monday (21/7/2025) began his Federal Court bid for a judicial review of the ACT Integrity Commission’s Operation Juno report, a document alleging “serious corrupt conduct” by Sofronoff when he probed former ACT director of public prosecutions Shane Drumgold’s handling of Lehrmann’s criminal trial for the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins.
James Dowling in The Australian reports that Adam Pomerenke KC, acting for Sofronoff, said in his opening address that the report was a product of overreach and a “serious offence against the administration of justice”.
“The commission must not include in an investigation report a finding that a person has engaged in corrupt conduct unless (it) is serious … or systemic,” Pomerenke said.
“This imposes a critical threshold or gateway which must be satisfied before any finding of corrupt conduct can be included in a report. A central element of Mr Sofronoff’s case is that the finding of serious corrupt conduct is affected by jurisdictional error, and therefore cannot stand.
“The (commission) was not authorised … to include in its report any finding of corrupt conduct at all.”
Commission conceded it was wrong
Pomerenke put forward three points in arguing Mr Sofronoff’s investigation had not reached the threshold to be declared corrupt. Firstly, he said, the commission had conceded it was wrong to suggest Mr Sofronoff had potentially engaged in contempt.
“It’s our submission that this admitted error can’t be disentangled from that conclusion,” he said. “The report says what it says, and it must rise or fall on the language that it uses.
“There is … a realistic possibility that the conclusion could have been different if the respondent had not wrongly found that Mr Sofronoff could have committed a serious offence of contempt.”
Secondly, Mr Pomerenke said, a cumulative series of errors about what constitutes corruption watered down the review’s findings.
“Each individual error that we’re able to (prove) … is bound up in the rolled-up conclusions of serious corrupt conduct, and cannot be disentangled,” he argued.
Thirdly, Pomerenke said, the commission misapprehended the definition of “integrity” it is bound to under ACT law. It had wrongly suggested integrity covered matters unrelated to the administration of law and government, he argued.
“The respondent found that integrity … means soundness or efficacy as distinct from probity of government or public administration … that’s not correct,” Pomerenke said.
“It seriously dilutes and distorts the very notion of corruption … It can include findings in its reports which stigmatise conduct as corrupt, even though it is disconnected from probity in government or public administration. The (Integrity Commission Act) on its proper construction doesn’t permit this basic misuse of language.”
Sofronoff filed his Federal Court application in March, arguing the commission’s findings were “seriously illogical, irrational and/or unreasonable” on multiple counts, and its report was riddled with jurisdictional error.
Sofronoff enjoyed a partial victory this month when judge Wendy Abraham overturned an argument by the commission that its report should be protected by parliamentary privilege and therefore immune to judicial review.