ACT Opposition leader Elizabeth Lee has accused the government of trying to suppress the Sofronoff report, and claims that Chief Minister Andrew Barr and Attorney-General Shane Rattenbury’s lack of leadership have undermined Canberrans’ faith in the criminal justice system.

Ms Lee argued there was no reasonable justification for how long it took the government to release the report to the public. In an opinion piece in The Australian (the same paper that first reported on the report’s contents) yesterday, Ms Lee alleged that Mr Barr had wanted to hold back the report until a “time of his own choosing and spin it so none of the mud sticks to him”.

“There was definitely an air of making sure that they could release it in their own time,” Ms Lee said today.

Mr Barr said yesterday that the government had intended to release the report in a month’s time, as the Inquiries Act 1991 allowed, following proper cabinet process.

While Ms Lee acknowledged legislation gave the government up to a month to release the report, she believed Mr Barr had failed to consider the enormous public interest in it.

“For the Chief Minister of this jurisdiction to say he would sit on it for a month was an absolute slap in the face to the broader Canberra community,” she said.

“No-one is expecting the Attorney-General or the Chief Minister to digest a report of 800 pages and come up with a response immediately. But what they do expect from the Chief Minister and the Attorney-General is that they would be upfront and transparent and ensure that the handling of the release of the final report goes to the establishment of the inquiry in the first place: as an independent inquiry … and pay respect to the Canberra public in releasing it to everybody at the same time.”

The serious allegations of misconduct against Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Shane Drumgold were widely reported in the media on Wednesday evening (2 August), Ms Lee noted, but Messrs Barr and Rattenbury “continued to sit on the report”. The Chief Minister and Attorney-General “finally faced up to the media a full week after they received the report, and several days after it had been made public”.

Even then, Ms Lee claimed, the two ministers “spent most of the press conference trying to deflect blame and not addressing the very serious issues” outlined in the report.

In her Australian opinion piece, Ms Lee claimed the inquiry had “exposed the dark core of failing governance at the heart of the ACT, characterised by a lack of due process and falling confidence in its criminal justice system”.

The press conference, Ms Lee said today, raised more issues and questions that remain unanswered.

First, the Attorney-General confirmed that a preliminary review had been undertaken of the other prosecutions in which Shane Drumgold had been involved as DPP. Based on its findings, the government had decided that a more detailed examination was not warranted.

But, Ms Lee said, there was no detail: Who conducted the preliminary review? What were the criteria? Why was it only limited to Mr Drumgold’s time as DPP, not his earlier positions in the ACT Office of the DPP?

“We need to know whether this is a one-off in terms of those serious issues of misconduct, or if it’s the tip of the iceberg,” Ms Lee said.

Second, why had Mr Rattenbury not dismissed Mr Drumgold, as the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1990 empowered him so to do? Section 28 states that the Attorney-General may terminate the appointment of the DPP for misbehaviour, among other causes.

“That being the case, why on earth are ACT taxpayers continuing to be slugged almost $2,000 a day to pay Mr Drumgold’s salary for almost another month?” Ms Lee asked.

The ACT Bar Association, meanwhile, doubts whether Mr Drumgold will be able to practise law again. The Bar Council stated that it noted “with grave concern” the findings of misconduct against Mr Drumgold.

“These findings are patently serious and will receive careful consideration by the ACT Bar Council in the context of its role as the professional regulator of the ACT Bar,” its president, Marcus Hassall, said.

Once Mr Drumgold resigns on 1 September, he will no longer have capacity to practise as a barrister. He holds a restricted (government) practising certificate, valid until 30 June 2024, entitling him to practise as a barrister in the ACT but only whilst employed as or for the ACT DPP.

“Any application by Mr Drumgold for a new or unrestricted practising certificate will require the approval of the ACT Bar Council and will necessitate consideration of the findings contained in the Sofronoff Report,” Mr Hassall said.

Meanwhile, ACT Chief Police Officer Neil Gaughan welcomed the release of the report, and said that ACT Policing was willing to implement its recommendations.

The report found that the ACT police investigation was thorough, and that investigators and their immediate superior officers “performed their duties in absolute good faith, with great determination although faced with obstacles and put together a sound case”. While officers made some mistakes, these did not affect the substance of the investigation or prejudice the case.

Mr Gaughan said he was pleased Mr Sofronoff “recognised the professionalism and dedication of all ACT Policing officers involved in this investigation”.

The report recommended that police officers be trained on the threshold to charge and how it should be applied to evidence, on governance material, and the adjudication process; that ACT Policing develop a protocol about police witnesses being available to defendants’ lawyers; and that a new complaints mechanism involving the DPP and ACT Policing be set up.

“We will continue to work with the ACT government to contribute to the complete government response, and following this, to implement the recommendations,” Mr Gaughan said.

The Bar Association would assist in the implementation of recommendations, Mr Hassall said.

Mr Gaughan said ACT Policing and the Office of the DPP would finalise a guide on how officers apply the threshold to charge a person with a criminal offence; this was being developed before the Board of Inquiry proceedings. Police have also increased staffing for the Sexual Assault and Child Abuse Team, and enhanced training for officers conducting sexual violence-related investigations.

“I do not want the impact of this report to result in people not willing to come forward to police to report sexual assaults,” Mr Gaughan said.

“I want the ACT community to know – you will be listened to, you will be treated with respect, and you will be supported. Every complainant’s concerns, needs, and well-being will continue to be central focus in any police process or subsequent criminal justice proceeding.”