The drum roll on Shane Drumgold SC is both deafening and devastating.
Australia has a revered history of the application of the rule of law. But the recent findings of the Commission of Inquiry into the behaviour of Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Shane Drumgold have sent shock waves through Australia’s legal fraternity and society at large.
The findings after a lengthy inquiry, with many a witness, have found that the most senior of lawyers in the nation’s capital—the Australian Capital Territory’s DPP—lied to the Supreme Court and to its Chief Justice to boot in a criminal proceeding.
It doesn’t come much worse than that for our legal system shaking it to its very foundations.
On becoming an officer of the court, every lawyer swears an oath to engage in conduct of the highest integrity and especially where the judicial process is involved.
A practitioner cannot knowingly be a party to perjury before a court. High ethical standards are rightly demanded to ensure that the precious golden thread of the rule of law continues unbroken to ensure the fairest and most just of societies.
In that thread is the basic and most fundamental of requirements that the person who ultimately determines whether a citizen faces the life-changing consequences of a criminal trial acts with transparency and integrity. That is the role of a DPP.
The findings of Commissioner Walter Sofronoff KC are damning. On the evidence as presented, they appear well-founded.
To have a list of findings against you as long as the one Mr. Sofronoff delivered is surely devastating enough. But these findings emanate from an inquiry that the hapless DPP himself had requested.
Having requested the inquiry, the Commissioner, amongst other things, found that “Mr. Drumgold chose to call for a public inquiry to investigate his baseless complaints. Each allegation has been exposed to be baseless.” Ouch!
If that wasn’t enough, the Commissioner found that the DPP had “knowingly lied to the Chief Justice” and that he had “egregiously abused his authority.”
This was the man in charge of prosecuting countless of his fellow citizens. A man who, according to the findings, thought prosecuting was a game of bluff.
It is the fully accepted principle of prosecuting a matter that the prosecution, which has all the resources of the state at its disposal, has a duty to provide to the defence material and evidence which may, in fact, impede or weaken the prosecution case.
Justice Prevailed, but Concerns Remain
The Brittany Higgins rape allegations went viral, and every commentator had their say, including a highly inappropriate apology by the then-prime minister before the matter had even been litigated.An acceptance speech at the highly publicised Logie Awards foolishly strayed into the quagmire and was widely reported derailing not only the trial for some weeks but the recipient’s reputation as well.
And the person Australian society relied upon and employed to undertake a fair and balanced assessment of the evidence as to whether the matter ought to be prosecuted failed to live up to his oath of office.
Everyone will have their own guess at the motive for such unprofessional misconduct in the face of wall-to-wall media coverage.
The particular case has seen the accused no longer charged and the rightful beneficiary of the presumption of innocence, which should have occupied many a person’s mind before they opened their mouths.
For all intents and purposes, Australians can be pleased that the overall justice system has worked, even if drawn out and painful, whilst being exceptionally unedifying.
The longer-lasting concern which will raise many a lingering doubt and potential requests for review of convictions is: how widespread was this behaviour? Was this a one-off, or was it the standard practice? If the DPP in the Australian Capital Territory engaged in such unbecoming conduct as an officer of the court, how many others thought it was appropriate behaviour?
The real concern is how many people may have been wrongfully convicted because of similar conduct.
Australia’s legal history got off to an excellent start when the first litigation on Australian soil saw a convict successfully sue a ship’s captain for the disposal of his goods after discovering them missing on the arrival of the First Fleet all those years ago.
Equality of treatment before the law is a precious golden thread that has run through the veins of Australian society since its inception.
Those that practice in the courts have a sworn duty to uphold the highest of standards. The Sofronoff findings are a reminder of the standards demanded and expected to ensure a fair society.
If that isn’t sufficient motivation, a failure to so conduct oneself may well bring a shattering end to reputation and career.
