"Secondly, why did the chair of the ACT investigation Walter Sofronoff send the report to Janet Albrechtsen,"

She also sent it to the ABC, who proceeded to do nothing with it until Albrechtsen wrote it up. I guess she assumed the ABC would want to keep it viewership informed. A rather foolish assumption.

The report also found that the police had done a thorough investigation which resulted in a sound case that there was insufficient evidence to charge Lehrmann.

Its rare that officials suffer consequences for their flouting of the law and rules. This is a rare example and one we can only hope will be repeated.

Dear mhaze,

Mate you probably need to park this one as you seem utterly out of your depth.

Firstly Walter Sofronoff is a he not a she.

Secondly he handed the report over to both the ABC and Albrechtsen before he handed it to the government who had commissioned the bloody thing.

"Guardian Australia has confirmed that Walter Sofronoff KC, the chair of the inquiry, provided copies of the report under embargo to the ABC and the Australian, under the condition that they not publish its contents until after it had been released by the ACT government. The findings were sensationally published by the Australian on Wednesday night."
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/03/inquiry-into-lehrmann-prosecution-sent-report-to-media-without-authorisation-act-government-says

He really should ever get to head an inquiry again.

At least Arndt admits that Sofronoff concluded that Drumgold was right to pursue the prosecution. But she completely misrepresents what he said about Heidi Yates. He did not “let her off the hook” because he was “constrained by the narrow terms of reference”. He applauded her behaviour as being “consistent with her statutory duty as well as with human decency”. Arndt also fails to mention that Sofronoff says Yates was subject to “unjustified public criticism” by people suffering “a general lack of understanding of what the law required her to do.” That’s you, Bettina.

The Sarah-Jane Parkinson case was indeed shocking, but Arndt seems to miss the most obvious reason why a woman “actually being punished for faking rape and violence” is an “exceedingly rare event” – that fake allegations of this nature are exceedingly rare events. Alas, we know that men actually committing rape and violence, and not getting punished for it, is far, far too common.

https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/0375553f-0395-46cc-9574-d54c74fa601a/aihw-fdv-5.pdf.aspx?inline=true#:~:text=The%20rate%20of%20finalised%20defendants,less%20than%201%20per%20100%2C000.

SteeleRedux

As mhaze points out it was given to other media outlets including the ABC, so it was hardly a case of selective leaking to a sympathetic journalist. Furthermore, The Australian sat on the report for a week before publishing, which supports its argument that it published only after another source leaked a copy. If it had no intention of honouring the embargo, it would have published immediately to be sure of having an exclusive scoop.

I think it is important to distinguish the issue of Drumgold’s conduct of the case - which was clearly a disgrace – from the matter of Lehrmann’s guilt or innocence, which only two people know for certain. Arndt is wrong to imply that Drumgold’s misconduct means the prosecution should not have proceeded. But both Higgins and Lehrmann have suffered significant damage from the way this story has unfolded; and one of them has also suffered massive injustice.

"He really should ever get to head an inquiry again."

Well I agree it was a job well done, but heading inquiries 'ever'. Well let's not get carried away. Typo? People in glass houses.....

Dear Rhian,

You claim: "As mhaze points out it was given to other media outlets including the ABC, so it was hardly a case of selective leaking to a sympathetic journalist."

Who were the other media outlets besides the ABC and Albrechtsen? I have read of no other.

The report has been officially released now and the ABC reports: "The government also said it was seeking advice as to whether the release of the report by the board of inquiry to select media organisations may have "constituted a breach of the Inquiries Act 1991 and if any further action is required"."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-07/act-government-publicly-releases-walter-sofronoff-inquiry-report/102696656

I'm not sure why the first instinct is to stick up for the Murdoch paper and what of the actions of the judge?

You claimed: "Furthermore, The Australian sat on the report for a week before publishing, which supports its argument that it published only after another source leaked a copy."

But Ardnt is is saying they sat on it for a day.

"Disgracefully, the ACT government had chosen to sit on the report since it was submitted last week but Sofronoff ensured it found its way into the hands of journalists at The Australian, Janet Albrechtsen and Stephen Rice – as well as the ABC, which did nothing with it for that first day."

So a day rather than a week.

Even Ardnt is wrong on this too as apparently the report was released to the two media outlets before it was handed to the government.

In my judgement the release by the judge specifically to Albrechtsen was as premeditated as hell. He would have known the ABC play by the rules far more than Murdoch papers and would have banked on the inevitable. Higgins has some powerful players working against her.

Dear mhaze,

Yes a typo. Should have been never.

'Corrupt judge Walter Sofronoff, who faces up to 6 months jail and owns a plane at Toowoomba airport, has gone into hiding

BY SHANE DOWLING ON AUGUST 7, 2023

Walter Sofronoff has gone into hiding after illegally leaking the ACT Inquiry Report to Bruce Lehrmann’s favourite propagandist at News Corp’s The Australian Janet Albrechtsen and the ABC even before he handed the Report to the ACT government.'

https://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2023/08/07/corrupt-judge-walter-sofronoff-who-faces-up-to-6-months-jail-and-owns-a-plane-at-toowoomba-airport-has-gone-into-hiding/