The ACT Integrity Commission is considering investigating corruption allegations regarding the conduct of Walter Sofronoff, the commissioner who led the Board of Inquiry into the accusations from police and prosecutors about the conduct of each other during Lehrmann’s high-profile, 2022 rape trial.  

After weeks of public testimony, Commissioner Sofronoff’s 600-page report was presented to the chief minister in late July.

However, the former Queensland judge also provided a copy to two journalists at separate media outlets without the knowledge or permission of the territory government, which resulted in widespread reporting of the negative findings against the chief prosecutor involved. The report was provided on the basis of an embargo until it was made public.

In August, Chief Minister Andrew Barr said he was extremely disappointed about the leak and described it as a lapse in judgment by Mr Sofronoff.

The Integrity Commission’s assessments relate to disclosures made by Commissioner Sofronoff to media representatives during the course of the Board of Inquiry, the release of his report to media representatives before the report was released by the chief minister and communications with media that were disclosed in recent litigation in the ACT Supreme Court.

Integrity Commissioner Michael Adams says: “Given the extraordinary and ongoing public discourse about the conduct of the Board of Inquiry and the recent judgment in the Supreme Court in Drumgold v Board of Inquiry and Ors (No. 3), I have determined that it is in the public interest to disclose that the commission is assessing whether the issues call for investigation.

“I see no reputational damage arising from this making this announcement, noting that it involves no adverse findings of any kind.”

Commissioner Adams said Acting Integrity Commissioner Mr John McMillan had been appointed to assess aspects of the matter.

The commission’s general policy was to neither confirm nor deny the referral or investigation of corruption allegations unless the circumstances were exceptional. However, in this case, the issues were especially important, their subject matter had already been widely publicised and the need for the Integrity Commission to assess and, if necessary, investigate them was apparent.

No further public comment would be made while the assessment process was undertaken.