Former barrister and “CityNews” legal columnist HUGH SELBY explains why Andrew Barr’s face-saving efforts to spin the Inquiries Act and threaten Commissioner Sofronoff will take him nowhere.

AS the witnesses came and went in Commissioner Walter Sofronoff’s livestreamed public hearings the likely findings became obvious.

They were obvious not only to those being questioned, but also to observers with any competent experience of investigations of sexual assault investigations, the preparation of materials to be used by the prosecution and defence at trial, and the proper running of both pre-trial applications and the trial by the parties.

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Shane Drumgold condemned himself, a succession of police officers performed admirably, the Victims of Crime Commissioner Heidi Yates was superbly presented, and Mr Lehrmann’s barrister showed his mastery of procedure.

The allegations made by the DPP had been the justification for setting up the inquiry. They were allegations without substance; moreover, that lack of substance, when taken together with the various procedural missteps and breaches of professional conduct rules entailed that the DPP could not keep his job.

All of this was obvious a couple of months ago.

We, the rate paying funders of this inquiry, waited for publication of the Sofronoff Inquiry report, due July 31.

No one, neither the inquiry nor the government, suggested that there would need to be any delay between the report going to the government and its release to us.

The first and only indication of a delay was the late announcement in “The Australian” on Friday, July 28, that Chief Minister Andrew Barr would not be releasing the report on Monday, July 31. We would all have to wait and wait.  That announcement was not by way of press release. It was to one newspaper.

The reasons given for that delay made no sense in practical terms. There was no issue, be that legal, factual or security concerns, requiring any delay.

A look at the Chief Minister’s reported comments on that Friday and the wording of sections 14, 14A and 14B in the Inquiries Act suggests a cobbling together of phrases from these sections without any thought as to any persuasive reasons for the delay.

The report was given to the government.  Apparently, “embargoed copies” were given to selected media. “CityNews” did not receive a copy.

Things either rush or get pulled into black holes and this “news vacuum” was an avoidable black hole  created by the government.

The broadsheet “Australian”, which has repeatedly claimed to have got its copy of the inquiry report, by a means other than an embargoed copy, rushed into several days of jubilant dismembering of the DPP.

The rest of the inquiry report with its useful recommendations for police and prosecutors was brushed aside.

The Liberal Opposition, roused from its long hibernation, attacked the government for keeping the report “secret”.

Stung by the recognition of having scored an own goal the chief minister chose as his best defence to attack his messenger directly.

The ABC reported that in response to questioning, Mr Barr said he had not ruled out seeking the advice of the ACT Integrity Commission on whether Mr Sofronoff had broken the law by giving the report to media.

“I think there is a degree of objectivity that is required in assessing whether this constitutes a breach,” he said.

“A reasonably straight reading of section 17 of the Act would clearly indicate that it is. The question of whether there are any mitigating circumstances remains to be seen.”

Conspiracy theorists will be beside themselves with joy. What better way, they will think, to protect Mr Barr  and his chosen DPP (now resigned) than to attack the evil commissioner for writing nasty words about the DPP.

We can leave the conspiracy people to talk to each other. Mr Barr has erred in his “reasonably straight reading of Section 17”.  His keen eyes missed the all important words in that section that prohibit publication “except in the exercise of a function under this Act”.

While the Act requires delivery of the report to the Chief Minister, there is nothing in the Act that prohibits the commissioner from providing embargoed copies to anyone he likes.

But that’s not all. The commissioner has the same protection and immunities as a judge of the Supreme Court in proceedings in that court (Section 16). The chief minister’s advisers had best share with him the sad tale of a Queensland Chief Magistrate who was prosecuted for the manner in which she exercised her powers. She was convicted. The case went all the way to the High Court where the judges asked both parties why no one had noticed that the chief magistrate had immunity. Conviction overturned.

If our beloved chief minister wants to ask the Integrity Commission for their opinion on Commissioner Sofronoff’s conduct that is part of the answer he will receive.  I doubt he’ll want to make that public.

Not everyone chooses to read “The Australian”. However, love them or hate them, their many articles forced the ACT government to release the full report on August 7. Let us give thanks where it is due: first to the commissioner and then to the “Oz”.

Still plenty of big hits on the Sofronoff B-side

Lehrmann inquiry head could face probe over report leak

Hugh Selby’s free podcasts on “Witness Essentials” and “Advocacy in court: preparation and performance” can be heard on the best known podcast sites.