The top prosecutor who led the criminal trial against Bruce Lehrmann would never have been publicly humiliated by an inquiry if he hadn’t fired off a furious letter to police, falsely accusing them of conspiring against Brittany Higgins.
Shane Drumgold, the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions, was blasted in a 600-page report by former judge Walter Sofronoff as an incompetent liar who knowingly misled the Supreme Court.
The report, obtained by The Australian, was the result of a Board of Inquiry held in May which examined the conduct of federal police, prosecutors, and Victims of Crime Commissioner Heidi Yates throughout the prosecution of Mr Lehrmann.
The inquiry found that Mr Sofronoff noted police and Ms Yates largely behaved appropriately and fulfilled their roles property – but the findings against Mr Drumgold were so damning his career is potentially over, The Australian reported.
However, it appears as though Mr Drumgold was the architect of his own demise.
It was Mr Drumgold himself who called for the public probe to begin – in the form of a five-page letter to Chief Police Office Neil Gaughan on November 1, 2022.
The letter was sent a month before the case against Mr Lehrmann was dropped.
The Board of Inquiry was launched after ACT DPP Shane Drumgold (pictured) claimed there was political interference in the investigation into Mr Lehrmann
Featuring the office of the DPP’s letterhead, the letter began: ‘I want to raise serious concerns I hold with what I perceive as some quite clear investigator interference in the criminal justice process.’
He went on to detail observations of his interactions with police officers. He claimed they had ‘clearly adopted’ an opinion that Mr Lehrmann should not be charged, argued they had tried to persuade him against pursuing it, and accused them of ‘cherry-picking’ weaknesses in the case.
But the inquiry has reportedly now found that Mr Drumgold was making ‘baseless’ claims that there was a police conspiracy afoot.
And it was also found that he wrongly accused Mr Lehrmann’s defence barrister Steven Whybrow of essentially bad-mouthing him in secret meeting, which did not happen, The Australian reported.
In a statement on Thursday, Mr Drumgold said he still had not been given a copy of the report and therefore could not comment on its contents.
‘I have neither seen the report nor have I been informed of any content, so I am not in a position to respond,’ he said.
Mr Sofronoff found there was no evidence of anyone putting pressure on Ms Higgins (left) that could be described as ‘strong political forces’
Some of the ‘weaknesses’ Mr Drumgold referred to about the case were contained in a document written by Detective Superintendent Scott Moller, now known as the Moller report, which questioned Ms Higgins’ credibility.
Detective Moller stated in the report that he did not think there was enough evidence to prosecute Mr Lehrmann.
Mr Drumgold took issue with the contents of the report, and made an application not to disclose it to the defence under legal professional privilege – even though it was up to the police to claim such privelege.
Mr Drumgold told the inquiry that he believed disclosing the fact that police believed there were discrepancies in Ms Higgins’ allegations would be ‘crushing’ to her.
In his report, Mr Sofronoff reportedly said it was ‘not a proper basis for a prosecutor to resist disclosure of documents’ and said Mr Drumgold did not abide by the rule of thumb: ‘If in doubt, disclose’.
‘Mr Drumgold kept the defence in the dark about steps he was taking to deny them the documents,’ Mr Sofronoff said. ‘Criminal litigation is not a poker game in which a prosecutor can hide the cards.’
Mr Sofronoff said, had Mr Lehrmann’s defence team not persisted and gained access to the Moller report, any conviction could have been cast aside on the basis that it was a miscarriage of justice.
Bruce Lehrmann is pictured, left, outside the ACT Supreme Court with his defence barrister Steven Whybrow, right
Mr Drumgold’s letter to Chief Police Office Gaughan went on: ‘During the conduct of the trial, a number of disturbing events have occurred.’
He accused Ms Higgins’ ex-boss and former defence minister Linda Reynolds of ‘soliciting’ transcripts from Mr Lehrmann’s lawyer Steven Whybrow to ‘tailor’ her evidence.
Ms Reynolds, who was a witness for the prosecution, previously told the court she did ask Mr Whybrow for transcripts – he didn’t send them, but even if he had, she said she did not intend to use the information to change her evidence.
Ms Reynolds had told the court she asked for transcripts because: ‘I was curious to know what had been said but I was advised that it was not appropriate.’
In his letter, Mr Drumgold then said the conduct of ‘investigators has been equally concerning’ and accused them of ‘regularly conferencing’ with Mr Lehrmann’s legal team during breaks – which Mr Whybrow denied when questioned during the inquiry.
In his concluding paragraphs, Mr Drumgold asserted that Australian Federal Police officers ‘had a strong desire for this matter not to proceed to charge’ and said investigators had ‘clearly aligned with a successful defence’.
He said there was a ‘very clear campaign to pressure me to agree with the investigator’s desire not to charge, then during the trial itself, and finally attempting to influence any decision on a retrial’.
‘I am of the view that, at the conclusion of the trial, there should be a public inquiry into both political and police conduct in this matter,’ he wrote.
‘I further seek your support for an inquiry to be conducted at the conclusion of the trial process into the conduct of police investigators in the lead up to charge and beyond, during the trial process itself.’
The inquiry went ahead in May and Mr Drumgold was grilled about his conduct for about a week. The questioning was so severe that he dropped out altogether and never finished his cross-examination.
West Australian Senator Reynolds was a witness for the prosecution in the trial
But on his second-last day at the inquiry, he admitted that he no longer thought there was a police conspiracy afoot, saying he was ‘possibly mistaken’ – despite calling for an inquiry based on that very belief.
The revelation was brought about by his own lawyer, Mark Tedeschi, who asked: ‘So you would acknowledge your suspicions about the existence of political interference about the case going ahead were mistaken?’
Mr Drumgold replied: ‘I do accept that.’
Mr Tedeschi continued: ‘The suspicions that you had in November of last year at conclusion of the trial, when it was aborted, those suspicions have been allayed?
Mr Drumgold replied: ‘Yes, they have been.’
In his scathing report, Mr Sofronoff said he was ‘deeply disturbed’ by Mr Drumgold’s behaviour, likening him to Pontius Pilate – a Roman governor who gave in to demands to crucify Jesus, The Australian reported.
He also said the DPP made false representations to the ACT Chief Justice that were ‘untrue’ and ‘an invention of his own, adding that he was guilty of a ‘serious breach of duty’ by failing to disclose documents.
Mr Drumgold stepped aside from his role as DPP after the inquiry. He did not resign, but the revelations about Mr Sofronoff’s report have political commentators asking whether he could realistically carry on with the job.
Speaking with News Corp on Thursday, Mr Drumgold would not indicate whether he intends to formally step down.
The report was not released by the ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr, but was instead leaked on Wednesday night.
In a statement to Daily Mail Australia, a spokesperson from the ACT Government said it was ‘disappointed’ the report was released prematurely.
‘The release of information about the Inquiry outside of the government procedures has affected the Inquiry process and harmed people involved,’ the statement said.
‘It further contributes to the ongoing public discussion of the matter that has been very difficult for all of the individuals impacted.’
It confirmed the report was not leaked by the government, and did not authorise the release to any media outlets.
The government will likely release the report early next week.
Ms Higgins alleged her former colleague Mr Lehrmann raped her inside Parliament House in 2019 – which he strongly denies – and was tried in the ACT Supreme Court in October last year.
The first trial was vacated because a member of the jury brought banned research material into the court, and the second never went ahead because Mr Drumgold dropped the charge entirely – citing concerns over Ms Higgins’ mental health.
