1 May 2023

Board of Inquiry terms of reference clarified to better probe DPP's actions in Lehrmann case

| Claire Fenwicke
Join the conversation
DPP Shane Drumgold walking to court

DPP Shane Drumgold (right) walking to the ACT Supreme Court during the trial against Bruce Lehrmann. Photo: Claire Fenwicke.

The Board of Inquiry into how the ACT’s criminal justice arms acted during the case against Bruce Lehrmann has been delayed. It was due to commence today (1 May).

The Terms of Reference have also been expanded at the request of the Board’s Chair, Walter Sofronoff KC.

A statement explained Chief Minister Andrew Barr and Attorney-General Shane Rattenbury agreed to amend the wording relating to the ACT’s Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Shane Drumgold SC to “clarify that the Board is inquiring into the Director of Public Prosecutions’ conduct in the preparation of the proceedings for the hearings and his conduct of the proceedings”.

The original wording stated Mr Sofronoff would consider “whether the Director of Public Prosecutions failed to act in accordance with his duties or acted in breach of his duties in making his decisions to commence, to continue and to discontinue criminal proceedings against Mr Lehrmann”.

This has now been separated into three separate arms of inquiry to investigate whether Mr Drumgold failed to act in accordance with his duties or acted in breach of his duties in:

  • “making his decisions to commence, to continue and to discontinue criminal proceedings against Mr Lehrmann”
  • “his conduct of the preparation of the proceedings for hearings”, and
  • “his conduct of the proceedings”.

Mr Drumgold’s conduct during the trial has come under fire by Mr Lehrmann, who made allegations of professional misconduct against the DPP to the ACT Bar Association.

This included accusations Mr Drumgold cared “more about his image” than running a “fair and proper” criminal trial.

READ ALSO ACT Government apologises to Ngambri as Territory’s traditional ownership is re-assessed

The Board of Inquiry’s start date has been pushed back by a week to 8 May, which the Board’s executive director said was “due to the volume of documents received”.

The due date of the inquiry’s report has also been revised from 30 June to 31 July in light of the mountains of evidence and the delayed start.

Previous preliminary hearings have indicated there was at least 100 GB of video recordings from the AFP, while the DPP’s office has submitted more than 100,000 documents as well.

Counsel assisting Erin Longbottom KC said the inquiry would also need to consider – among the police’s, DPP’s and Victims of Crime Commissioner’s conduct and motivations – the context of the trial during the Me Too movement, the circumstances around the leaked letter from the DPP to ACT Policing’s Chief Police Officer (which ultimately triggered the inquiry), and the definition of a victim in the context of the courtroom versus seeking victim support.

Once the inquiry’s report has been received, the ACT Government is required to respond to the Legislative Assembly. However, Cabinet will decide whether to release a full or interim response.

Mr Barr has indicated he expected to respond during the August sitting week, but this could now be pushed back to the September sitting period in light of the delay.

READ ALSO Community clubs bet on new revenue streams as ACT funding helps move away from pokies

Bruce Lehrmann was accused of sexually assaulting Brittany Higgins at Parliament House in 2019, which resulted in a trial at the ACT Supreme Court towards the end of 2022.

This resulted in a mistrial, and the case was eventually dropped by the DPP.

No findings have been made against Mr Lehrmann, and he has maintained his innocence.

On Friday (28 April), Mr Lehrmann was granted permission by the Federal Court of Australia to proceed with his defamation suits against two media publications and select journalists over reporting in 2021.

He is suing Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson in one proceeding, and News Life Media and journalist Samantha Maiden in another. The suits began earlier this year.

He lodged his suits outside the applicable one-year limitation period, but the court found it reasonable for him not to have commenced proceedings within the limitation period.

“Having reached the state of satisfaction it was not reasonable to commence defamation proceedings … the appropriate exercise of discretion is to extend the limitation period against all opponents up until the time proceedings were commenced,” Federal Court Justice Michael Lee said.

He has also filed a suit against the ABC over its airing of a National Press Club address by Ms Higgins about violence against women, which she gave alongside sexual assault survivor Grace Tame in February 2022.

Join the conversation

All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments

Sorry its not clear. The case was dropped but you’re still alleging an allergation. Does that mean that she can still press charges again 2 years from now?

Is this whole review only existing because he wasn’t found guilty? I see it hard to imagine a pathway where he is found guilty and this same review of the AFP taking place.

Sorry, gooterz, not a lot in your comment is clear.

Who is “alleging an allergation (sic)”? I see no mention of any allegation. There are two statements of fact – Bruce Lehrmann was “accused of sexually assaulting Brittany Higgins at Parliament House in 2019” and “This (accusation) resulted in a mistrial, and the case was eventually dropped by the DPP.”

Who is the “she” who can “still press charges 2 years from now”? Erin Longbottom KC, counsel assisting the inquiry, and Brittany Higgins are the only females mentioned – and neither has the “power” to press charges.

Where is there mention that a “review of the AFP” is taking place? As I read in the article the inquiry is into the conduct of the DPP (Shane Drumgold KC).

I believe there is a third party not yet stated in this case. We have the political and the secular stated, but not yet the religious.

@Keith Lewis
Given we have a secular legal system how is the “religious” a “party … in this case”?

An interesting and condescending choice of words

@Keith Lewis
Would you care to elaborate on the “… interesting and condescending choice of words”? As I read the article it just seemed to be a pretty factual report on the conduct of the inquiry. Happy for you to demonstrate otherwise.

It always amazes me seeing these clowns parading around in their wigs and gowns. A nice suit would be more appropriate these days.

Capital Retro6:15 pm 01 May 23

Only defendants wear suits.

BTW, great blogger name.

My whole point was that the clowns get over their egos and dress like the clients they represent. My opinion is formed by many years of dealing with their inflated opinions of their own importance in the court system. I’ve had many defendants who could only muster a jockstrap and gaiters for their court appearance.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.