Former judges were once considered the bastion of integrity. The Sofronoff findings have upended that | Anthony Whealy
The consequences of this shameful episode are serious and cast doubt on the choice of former judges to lead important commissions or enquiries
For many years it has been customary to appoint experienced judges or former judges to head up royal commissions, boards of enquiries and the like. It has been thought that judges were well-equipped to control such hearings, often conducted in full public gaze, with fairness and equanimity.
Their training made them alert to possible conflicts of interest, the need for procedural fairness and the obligation to provide natural justice where it was required. One additional characteristic was the ability to deal fairly with the media, ensuring proper public coverage, while keeping parts of the media’s sometime capacity to sensationalise or act outside the boundaries of journalistic ethics under control.
These certainties have now been more than somewhat shattered by the recent report of the ACT Integrity Commission. This body investigated whether Walter Sofronoff, a former Queensland judge of great distinction, had engaged in corrupt conduct while acting as a board of inquiry into matters arising out of the Bruce Lehrmann trial. The Integrity Commission’s report concluded that he had indeed engaged in corrupt conduct, in fact serious corrupt conduct. Following the release of the report Sofronoff filed an application in the federal court to challenge the lawfulness of the report.
Anthony Whealy KC is the chair of the Centre for Public Integrity and former assistant commissioner to Icac
Law (Australia) | The Guardian
Recent Comments