Elizabeth Lee is leader of the Canberra Liberals.
A full week after he was provided with the report, Chief Minister Andrew Barr finally released the final report of Walter Sofronoff KC to the public, along with the ACT government’s interim response to the 10 recommendations made by Mr Sofronoff.
By that stage, much of the report, together with commentary surrounding the findings, had made its way into the public domain. It was, at the very least, foolish and naïve for Mr Barr to ever think that he could continue to sit on the report once it had made its way to the media. At worst, it was a deliberate decision to deflect the justified criticism of his government’s handling of this inquiry, and in particular, its response (or lack of response) to the explosive findings.
And whilst Mr Barr and Attorney-General Shane Rattenbury finally faced the media on Monday afternoon with the government’s formal response, they spent much of the media conference complaining about the actions of Mr Sofronoff and the media, rather than the extraordinary and very serious findings in the report. This is a pattern of behaviour by this government, and the Chief Minister and his Cabinet are very skilled at deflecting fault away from themselves on every justified criticism that comes their way. And on this issue, it’s Mr Sofronoff and the media that were the subjects of their wrath.
The board of inquiry was established to restore public confidence in the criminal justice system in the ACT. The terms of reference state this as the first sentence in its preamble. It was called for by many stakeholders, including the Canberra Liberals late last year, arising out of very serious allegations of conduct surrounding the prosecution of Mr Lehrmann, including of “political interference”. The catalyst that kicked it all off, of course, was the explosive letter the Director of Public Prosecutions, Shane Drumgold SC, sent to ACT Policing in November last year.
Mr Barr and Mr Rattenbury say that they accept eight out of the 10 recommendations and accept, in principle, the other two. Of course, as we have seen time and time again from this government, the proof will be in the implementation of these accepted recommendations.
But in the immediate aftermath, there are some serious questions that the government has to answer.
First, Mr Rattenbury said that after a “preliminary review”, he is satisfied there are no other prosecutions to be concerned about, and therefore he will not conduct a comprehensive review of other cases Mr Drumgold was involved in. Who conducted this review? What was the criterion? What evidence or material was considered? When was this review undertaken? Mr Rattenbury also made it clear that the “preliminary review” was limited to the cases in which Mr Drumgold was involved as Director of Public Prosecutions. Did he or anyone ask the question about Mr Drumgold’s involvement as Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, particularly looking at what delegations he held in that senior role? These are genuine questions that go to the heart of whether Mr Drumgold’s conduct was a one-off in this case or whether it is the tip of the iceberg, and are essential to restoring public confidence in the criminal justice system in the ACT.
Second, Mr Rattenbury confirmed that he was satisfied Mr Drumgold’s conduct met the threshold under section 28 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1990,which gives the Attorney-General the power to dismiss the Director of Public Prosecutions for, amongst other factors, “misbehaviour”. That being so, why are ACT taxpayers continuing to foot the almost $2,000 a day for Mr Drumgold’s salary for almost another month? We know this government has no qualms about paying two heads of departments their full salaries and entitlements for lengthy periods, but this is an extraordinary situation. Mr Rattenbury himself has admitted Mr Drumgold should be dismissed for misbehaviour, and yet he is sitting idly by, refusing to take leadership and decisive action in exercising his duty as Attorney-General.
If Mr Barr and Mr Rattenbury are serious about restoring public confidence in our criminal justice system, they must address these two concerns expeditiously.
Canberrans deserve to know that we have a robust and fair criminal justice system where access to a fair trial is a given. This is what the Canberra Liberals are committed to, and it is up to the Chief Minister and the Attorney-General to step up and demonstrate that they are too.
