Unresolved issues hang by a thread following the blockbuster report from the ACT Integrity Commission on Walter Sofronoff and his clandestine doings.Unresolved issues hang by a thread following the blockbuster report from the ACT Integrity Commission on Walter Sofronoff and his clandestine doings.
The ACT government has been remarkably stum about the commission’s “serious corruption” findings. After all, it gave Walter lavish resources to conduct a free range pursuit of Shane Drumgold, yet we don’t know if the Molonglo regime actually stands by Justice Adams’ verdict of corruption and criminality.
There’s nothing on the government website about the latest from the Integrity Commission that unstitches Walt and his biased, flawed report issued on July 31, 2023.
There is however, plenty of information and associated documents still there about Sofronoff’s findings about Drumgold.
Of course, the leak of the Board of Inquiry report was all the government needed to make the precipitous decision on August 4, 2023 that Shane Drumgold’s position as DPP was untenable.
Happily, now Drumgold is ensconced at Frederick Jordan Chambers in Martin Place.
It would be interesting to know if the government forked up for the Cossack’s legal costs for the defence of his conduct in the Supreme Court proceedings of Drumgold v Board of Inquiry?
It certainly threw a lot of money at defending the report at the judicial review hearing, including briefing Kate Eastman SC from Sydney.
Maybe, there are grounds to recover the money paid to Walter for the corrupted inquiry into the Bruce Lehrmann prosecution.
Given that the Barr-Barr government has been looking the other way and not taking responsibility for this catastrophe on its watch, it’s unlikely to have referred the Cossack’s corruption to the Queensland Legal Services Commission or taken the finding of criminal conduct any further [see para 124 of the Integrity report].
The miserable wretch who has to type editorials for The Australian must have consumed more than the usual amount of mind-altering powders.
How else is it possible to read that the Integrity Commission was itself biased against the “eminent former Queensland judge”; that justice in the ACT is flawed and now “on trial”; that Sofronoff acted in the public interest by leaking his report because it ensured it wasn’t covered up from public view.
No mention of the dozens and dozens of clandestine billets doux between Walt and Planet Janet and the prompt delivery to her of whatever privileged document she wanted.
Other leakages
Traffic around the Federales is that there was an early “leak” about Sia Lagos’ two year extension – announced by Mortimer CJ on May 7.
Apparently staff close to the Principal Registrar and CEO were yapping about it in a pub near the court well before the tenure was unveiled.
As a result Sia’s devotees are scrambling to ensure their positions survive the CEO’s departure two years hence, on May 14, 2027.
Sources close to the inner workings at the Palace of Justice are hoping an outsider would be appointed as her replacement – at least someone whose vision is not impaired by cataracts.
Disciplinary fallout from Gaza comments
There continues to be back and forth about the Nicholas Poynder affair.
Last month we had the unhappy duty to report that the NSW Bar Council birched barrister Poynder for his Tweets critical of the IDF and supportive on Hamas.
The finding was one of unprofessional conduct.
In any event, for unrelated reasons, Poynder relocated his practice to the Hermit Kingdom of Tasmania.
Following the birching, Sydney barrister Michele Fraser took up Poynder’s cause, telling members of the bar council that their decision was “reprehensible”.
She contended that the council’s statement of reasons conflated antisemitism with anti-Zionism and further, while the councillors also claimed the posts were aimed at marketing Poynder’s services as a barrister.
Their reasoning suggested that members of the bar should not “target” Zionists and the Zionist lobby – “generally seen as the movement supporting the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Israel … However defined, this group would include (at least a subset of) Jewish people in Israel and in Australia”.
Ms Fraser suggests on that reasoning, “Nazism was a movement of German people supporting the German state, so that criticism of Nazis would cause serious offence to German people living in Germany and Australia”.
“Or closer to home, criticism of the majority of Australians who opposed the Voice as racist would cause serious offence to Australians living here or overseas.”
In relation to Poynder’s alleged marketing on social media, this related to a link to his webpage identifying him as a barrister – “a profession,” Ms Fraser said, “that might be expected to be vigilant in the protection of human rights and defence of free speech”.
This is quite apart from the plausible case of genocide in Gaza, identified by the International Court of Justice.
Fraser ends her letter with a provocation:
“I urge the Bar Association to rescind the resolution imposing a reprimand on Mr Poynder. If not, I invite the Bar Association to impose a reprimand on me because I share Mr Poynder’s views.”
In a response, no doubt drafted by an underground Mandarin, bar president, Ruth Higgins SC replied:
“The Bar Council is not able to comment on, or provide any information in relation to, any disciplinary matter which the council may have considered under the Legal Profession Uniform law (NSW).”