The Higgins-Lehrmann case may now spawn an investigation into the investigation into the investigation

The Brittany Higgins-Bruce Lehrmann legal fiasco has assumed a life of its own, spreading like a conflagration and either destroying or tainting nearly everyone it touches.

Lehrmann was tried in the ACT Supreme Court in October after pleading not guilty to sexually assaulting his former colleague in the Parliament House office of their then-boss, former Coalition minister Linda Reynolds, following a night of drinking with friends in March 2019. But a mistrial was declared due to juror misconduct and prosecutors later dropped the charges against him.

Almost from the moment the allegations became public many hoped they would be the impetus to force the federal parliament to reform its toxic workplace culture. Instead, they turned into a surreal blend of courtroom drama, social crusade and celebrity hype, replete with compensation demands and defamation threats or writs involving the main two players, and others including Reynolds.

Now the ACT government’s attempt to get to the bottom of the circumstances surrounding Lehrmann’s aborted prosecution appears to have blown up in its face, exposing a failure of governance, a lack of due process as well as unexpectedly collaterally damaging both the man who initiated the court case and the man appointed to investigate why the trial failed.

The ACT’s Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold resigned last week after the investigation inquiry report was leaked. It backed his decision to prosecute Lehrmann but found he had failed in key areas and lied to the court. Drumgold disputed many of the findings, saying he accepted his conduct was less than perfect, but his decisions were made in good faith under intense and sometimes crippling pressure.

Drumgold’s behaviour was disgraceful. But he does have a point claiming he had been denied natural justice after the chair of the inquiry, Walter Sofronoff, KC, a former Queensland solicitor-general, chose to provide copies of his unreleased report under embargo to The Australian newspaper and the ABC before the ACT government had a chance to even look at it.

The ACT government had planned to table the report and its response later this month, but Sofronoff’s alarming behaviour in handing over copies of the document forced its premature release yesterday. “The release of the report, which was not communicated to or approved by the government, and possible other communication with journalists through the inquiry process, has interfered with the due process that should have been afforded to impacted parties,” the ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr and Attorney-General Shane Rattenbury said in a joint statement.

They said another investigation would seek advice on whether Sofronoff’s premature release of his report may have constituted a breach of the Inquiries Act 1991 and if any further action is required. Section 17 of the act makes it a criminal offence to disclose information or documents in certain situations and carries a maximum penalty of six months’ jail.