The ACT's top prosecutor knowingly lied to a court, "preyed on a junior lawyer's inexperience" and acted like Pontius Pilate in pursuing Bruce Lehrmann, an inquiry has reportedly found.
In a 600-page report leaked to The Australian on Wednesday, board of inquiry chairman Walter Sofronoff KC reportedly describes being "deeply disturbed" by the actions of Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold SC.
The findings are ironic in that it was Mr Drumgold who demanded an inquiry into the case of Mr Lehrmann, who has always denied raping fellow former Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins at Parliament House in 2019.
The charge levelled at Mr Lehrmann was discontinued after his ACT Supreme Court trial was aborted because of juror misconduct.
Mr Drumgold later accused police of impropriety and raised fears of a political conspiracy to suppress Ms Higgins' allegation, only to stunningly backflip on his claims at the inquiry.
"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 reportedly concluded.
"The cost of a six-month public inquiry - in time and money, in lost work, and personal and professional consequences - has been huge."
The former Queensland judge reportedly found police had acted in good faith, though officers had made mistakes that caused Ms Higgins unnecessary pain.
He also examined the conduct of ACT Victims of Crime Commissioner Heidi Yates, reportedly concluding that, while it was "unfortunate" she had stood beside Ms Higgins during a public speech, she was acting out of "human decency" at the time.
Conviction would not have stood
In one of the inquiry's most damning findings, Mr Sofronoff reportedly wrote that Mr Drumgold dishonestly tried to prevent Mr Lehrmann lawfully obtaining material.
He made this finding in relation to Mr Drumgold's attempts to prevent the accused man's lawyers accessing police documents, in which investigators expressed concerns about the strength and reliability of the evidence against Mr Lehrmann.
While these documents were ultimately disclosed, Mr Drumgold earlier instructed a junior solicitor to prepare an affidavit that claimed the material was privileged.
This had "no factual basis", according to Mr Sofronoff, who found Mr Drumgold had "deliberately advanced a false claim of legal professional privilege and misled the court".
"Had the defence, by their professionalism and persistence, not obtained [the documents] despite the improper obstruction they faced, and had the documents come to light after a conviction, in my opinion the conviction would have been set aside on the ground of a miscarriage of justice," Mr Sofronoff found.
The chairman was scathing of Mr Drumgold's decision to involve a junior staffer.
"Quite apart from Mr Drumgold's misconduct in misleading the Supreme Court in a criminal case ... he egregiously abused his authority and betrayed the trust of his young staff member to whom he owed a duty to be a mentor and role model," Mr Sofronoff wrote, according to The Australian.
"Mr Drumgold preyed on the junior lawyer's inexperience."
Mr Sofronoff is also said to have slammed the top prosecutor for "shamefully" trying to shift blame onto another staffer when explaining how his office had released an explosive letter to the ACT's chief police officer.
The letter, which revealed Mr Drumgold's claims of impropriety, was sent to a journalist under freedom of information laws without any of the required consultation with relevant parties.
Logies note lie
During the inquiry, Mr Drumgold admitted having misled Chief Justice Lucy McCallum when controversy erupted in the wake of television presenter Lisa Wilkinson making a speech at last year's Logie awards.
Before Chief Justice McCallum delayed Mr Lehrmann's trial as a result of the speech, which she described as having "obliterated" the distinction between an allegation and proof of guilt, Mr Drumgold presented a file note to the court.
It purported to contain a contemporaneous account of Mr Drumgold warning Ms Wilkinson, days before the speech, about the dangers of pre-trial publicity.
He in fact wrote it only after Ms Wilkinson had delivered the speech, at a time it had become clear the upcoming trial was imperilled.
Mr Drumgold claimed the error was unintentional, but Mr Sofronoff decided otherwise.
"I do not accept that Mr Drumgold's misstatements about the nature of the note were a mere mistake that he made," Mr Sofronoff reportedly wrote in his report.
'Deeply disturbed'
Among other areas of criticism, Mr Sofronoff zeroed in on Mr Drumgold's treatment of Senator Linda Reynolds during Mr Lehrmann's trial.
The prosecutor accused Senator Reynolds, who employed Mr Lehrmann and Ms Higgins at the time in question, of being "politically invested" in the outcome of the trial and suggested impropriety on the politician's part.
He did so by putting to her that she had inappropriately sought trial transcripts and "arranged" for her partner to attend court and inform her about evidence.
Mr Sofronoff reportedly found there was a reasonable explanation in terms of the transcripts, and that the claims about the senator and her partner were "tantamount to an allegation of an attempt to pervert the course of justice".
The chairman concluded that Mr Drumgold had no basis upon which to make these suggestions to Senator Reynolds, and that the prosecutor had breached an ethical standard of legal practice.
"Mr Drumgold was examined about his understanding of this ethical principle," Mr Sofronoff reportedly wrote.
"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."
Speech decision 'bad'
One finding in Mr Drumgold's favour is that he was correct to ultimately discontinue the case against Mr Lehrmann because of fears about the impact a retrial would have on Ms Higgins' mental health.
However, Mr Sofronoff slammed the prosecutor for saying, during the announcement of this decision, that he still believed there were reasonable prospects of Mr Lehrmann being convicted.
He similarly criticised Mr Drumgold for praising Ms Higgins' "bravery, grace and dignity" while reading a prepared speech to reporters.
"The comments were improper and should not have been made," Mr Sofronoff found.
"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."
'Absolute good faith'
Mr Sofronoff found the police officers involved in the matter had worked "with great determination" and compiled "a sound case".
While they made mistakes, like conducting a second interview with Ms Higgins when it was unlikely to yield anything useful, Mr Sofronoff reportedly concluded none of the errors prejudiced the case.
He also said it was the Australian Federal Police as an organisation that should wear the blame for "confusion" about the legal threshold to charge suspects, with individual officers not at fault.
"The course of evidence demonstrated to me that the investigators and their immediate superior officers performed their duties in absolute good faith," Mr Sofronoff concluded.
Presence of Yates 'unfortunate'
Ms Yates, the Victims of Crime Commissioner, came under fire in relation to her role supporting Ms Higgins, though many of the initial criticisms were withdrawn.
Mr Sofronoff reportedly found these largely stemmed from a lack of understanding about how Ms Yates was legally entitled to support an alleged victim.
One issue that remained, however, was whether Ms Yates should have stood beside Ms Higgins in the moments after juror misconduct scuppered the trial.
On that day, Ms Higgins made a speech described by the inquiry chairman as "capable of impugning Mr Lehrmann's entitlement to a presumption of innocence".
"The commissioner's presence at Ms Higgins' [speech] was unfortunate because of the impression it made but it was due to no fault of her own," Mr Sofronoff reportedly wrote.
"Her attention was upon her duty to Ms Higgins.
"I have found that a combination of circumstances which were not of her making put her into a spot which implied that she was endorsing a speech by Ms Higgins.
"Her sole purpose at that time, consistently with her statutory duty as well as with human decency, was to ensure, so far as she could, the wellbeing of her client. It was natural and right for her to think and act this way."
Leak changes nothing for govt
The Australian's revelations of Mr Sofronoff's findings have done nothing to change the ACT government's position about releasing his report.
Chief Minister Andrew Barr has indicated it will likely be tabled in the ACT Legislative Assembly in late August, following "a proper cabinet process".
Asked whether it would now be released as a matter of urgency, a spokeswoman for Mr Barr responded by saying the "cabinet process" had begun.
"The report and the ACT government response will be released publicly once this process has been finalised," she said.
The spokeswoman also moved to quickly rule out the ACT cabinet as the source of the leaked report.
ACT Opposition Leader Elizabeth Lee called for an expedited release.
"Andrew Barr must publicly release the final report of the independent inquiry into the Lehrmann trial, in its entirety, immediately," she said on Thursday.
Mr Drumgold remains absent from his office, having taken leave in mid-May, as the government weighs up how to respond to Mr Sofronoff's findings.
