Hot potato … Early leak of ACT criminal justice report … Cossack insists he made no errors and didn’t breach the Act … Wants the chief minister to reflect and grovel … Weighty correspondence released … Flaws in the glass
Bingo. A pile of correspondence was released today (Thursday, August 31) by the Cossack and his lawyers at Gilshenan & Luton.
Both Barr and Rattenbury were incandescent over the early release of the Cossack’s findings on the role of the police and the DPP in the failed Bruce Lehrmann rape prosecution.
The Cossack had given the report to anti-Drumgold warrior Frau Albrechtsen of The Australian before the government received it – and briefed selected reptiles of the media during the inquiry.
Barr said that the government had been deprived of the opportunity to carefully review the report and make decisions before it was made public.
On August 7 it was reported that the chief minister was considering whether to refer the calamitous leak to the Territory’s Integrity Commission, run by former NSW judge Michael (Fatty) Adams.
“He [Sofronoff] breached his good faith to me by releasing that report ahead of getting it to who he was meant to under the legislation.”
And section 17: A member of the board must not divulge or communicate to any person any information acquired by the board, or permit access to a document provided for this Act.
Further, the inquiry chairman has not apologised to the government.
Sofronoff contends that he was entitled to give an advance copy under embargo to journalists and that Barr’s criticisms are wrong.
While the ACT government points to sections 14 and 17 of the Inquiries Act, Sofronoff points to sections 13:
“Except as otherwise provided by this Act, an inquiry must be conducted in such manner as the board determines.”
“In conducting an inquiry, a board – may do whatever it considers necessary or convenient for the fair and prompt conduct of the inquiry.”
The Cossack says it’s his report and he is free to discuss the hearings with the reptiles and give the report to any relevant person he chooses – before it is handed to the chief minister.
It a novel turn up for the books that reports commissioned by government and for government can be distributed on the say so of the report writer.
One keen eyed observer points to a hole in the arguement based on ss 13 and 18(c). Once the chairman of the board has signed off on the report his functions cease and there is no inquiry left to conduct and his entitlement over the distribution of the report no longest exists.
Another difficulty is that Frau Albrechtsen is not, strictly speaking, a journalist. She has some of the characteristiocs of a propagandist and shill.
Glen Cranny from Gilshenan & Luton adds:
“As we trust we have made clear, the statute makes the provision of documents to the public an essential function to be exercised by the board.”
Further, the Act:
“Contains no prohibition against the provision of a copy of the report on a confidential basis in the exercise of the functions conferred upon a member.”
In addition to all this, Sofronoff is independent so he can do the things he has done without fetter.
It’s important that the public has confidence in the findings of the report and to that end Sofronoff wants Barr to get legal advice and to consider …
“… whether the best course would be to make a public statement to the effect that, having taken advice, he accepts that Mr Sofronoff neither breached the terms of the statute nor did he act unethically and that Mr Barr is now satisfied that Mr Sofronoff performed his duties properly and fully”.
I.E. a grovel.
Sofronoff in his own letter to Barr and Rattenbury explained that he wanted the community to understand and have confidence in the work of the inquiry and this is why he took an open approach, selective as it was.
This could just as easily been achieved when the ACT government released the report publicly along with its response.
Instead, the board chairman gave the report to two journalists so that they could “swiftly and promptly write and broadcast stories that would have as their foundation a true appreciation of the result of the work of the commission”.
If a true appreciation of the work of the commission was the desirable aim, why not give it to all the main media organisations, at the same time.
The trouble arouse because he gave it to Frau Albrechtsen under embargo before giving it to the government. It was promptly published in Murdoch’s propaganda sheet.
Sofronoff told the chief minister and the AG:
“Ms Albrechtsen informed me by telephone that she had obtained a copy of the report from another source and that she regarded herself as being at liberty to write about its contents. I have no reason to believe that she was lying to me.”
It’s the oldest wheeze in the journalists’ book of slimy tricks – the magic identical report that strangely is not embargoed.