The Federal Court is considering whether a report by the ACT Integrity Commission — which found Walter Sofronoff engaged in serious corrupt conduct — is protected by parliamentary privilege and therefore cannot be legally challenged.
Mr Sofronoff is contesting the validity of the report, which criticised his conduct during the 2023 inquiry into the failed prosecution of Bruce Lehrmann. The report particularly highlighted Mr Sofronoff’s contact with journalists, including sharing confidential materials with The Australian’s Janet Albrechtsen and providing advance copies of the final report to her and the ABC’s Elizabeth Byrne.
Mr Sofronoff argues that the Integrity Commission’s report is invalid due to jurisdictional error. However, the Speaker of the ACT Legislative Assembly, Mark Parton, has intervened in the proceedings as an amicus curiae (a party not directly involved in the case but with a vested interest).
Argument: Report Covered by Parliamentary Privilege
Representing the Speaker, barrister Alison Hammond told the court that once the report is submitted to the Speaker and tabled in the Assembly, it becomes part of parliamentary proceedings and is protected from legal scrutiny. She noted that individuals subject to adverse findings had the opportunity to seek judicial review before the report’s release.
“Once a report becomes a proceeding in parliament, legal challenges are no longer permitted,” Ms Hammond stated.
She added that the legislation underpinning the Integrity Commission establishes a direct connection between the commission’s reporting and the functioning of the ACT Legislative Assembly. If the court accepts this argument, it would likely dismiss Mr Sofronoff’s case, Justice Wendy Abraham noted.
Ms Hammond also argued that the court should exclude the commission’s report from evidence based on federal laws that limit the use of parliamentary proceedings in litigation.
Counterargument: Public Version of Report Not Protected
Mr Sofronoff’s barrister, Adam Pomerenke KC, contended that parliamentary privilege only applies to the copy of the report tabled in parliament — not to the version published online by the commission. He argued that the commission had a legal obligation to publish the report and that doing so prior to its tabling doesn’t fall under parliamentary privilege.
He likened the situation to a parliamentarian repeating their chamber statements outside of parliament, which is not protected by privilege.
Mr Pomerenke also rejected the notion that Mr Sofronoff could have pursued legal remedies earlier, saying non-disclosure restrictions created significant obstacles. Ms Hammond replied that such limitations could have been lifted through court order.
Justice Abraham has reserved her ruling on the matter.
Background: Fallout from the Lehrmann Case
The original inquiry, chaired by Mr Sofronoff, delivered scathing findings about then-ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold’s conduct during the Lehrmann case, which collapsed in 2022 due to a mistrial.
Mr Drumgold subsequently resigned and challenged aspects of the inquiry’s findings in the ACT Supreme Court, which ruled the report was affected by a perception of bias.
Meanwhile, Mr Lehrmann lost his defamation suit against Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson over the interview in which Brittany Higgins made her allegations public. His appeal is set to be heard in August.
