Shane Drumgold’s Furious Email He Sent To Police A Month Before Bruce Lehrmann’s Trial Failed

The senior prosecutor who led the criminal trial of Bruce Lehrmann would never have been publicly humiliated by an investigation had he not sent an irate letter to the police falsely accusing them of conspiring against Brittany Higgins.

Shane Drumgold, ACT’s director of prosecutions, was branded an incompetent liar who knowingly misled the Supreme Court in a 600-page report by former Judge Walter Sofronoff.

The report, obtained by The Australian, was the result of a commission of inquiry held in May that investigated the conduct of federal police, prosecutors and Crime Victims Commissioner Heidi Yates during the prosecution of Mr. Lehrmann.

The inquiry found Mr Sofronoff noted that police and Ms Yates were largely behaving appropriately and fulfilling their ownership roles – but the findings against Mr Drumgold were so damning that his career may be over, the Australian reported.

However, it seems that Mr. Drumgold was the architect of his own downfall.

It was Mr Drumgold himself who called for the start of the public inquiry – in the form of a five-page letter to Chief of Police Neil Gaughan on 1 November 2022.

The letter was sent a month before the case against Mr. Lehrmann was dropped.

On the letterhead of the DPP’s office, the letter began: “I want to express my serious concerns about what I see as a fairly obvious interference by investigators in the criminal justice process.”

He went on to make detailed observations of his interactions with police officers. He claimed that they had ‘clearly taken an opinion’ that Mr Lehrmann should not be charged, argued that they had tried to convince him not to pursue that, and accused them of ‘cherry-picking’ weaknesses in the case.

But the inquiry has now reportedly revealed that Mr Drumgold made ‘unfounded’ claims that a police plot was underway.

And it was also found that he falsely accused Lehrmann’s lawyer Steven Whybrow of essentially badmouthing him at a secret meeting, which did not happen, The Australian reported.

In a statement on Thursday, Mr Drumgold said he had still not received a copy of the report and was therefore unable to comment on its contents.

“I have not seen the report nor was I informed of its contents, so I am not in a position to comment,” he said.

Some of the ‘weaknesses’ referred to by Mr Drumgold in the case were contained in a document written by Superintendent Scott Moller, now known as the Moller Report, which questioned Ms Higgins’s credibility.

Detective Moller stated in the report that he did not believe there was enough evidence to prosecute Mr. Lehrmann.

Mr Drumgold disagreed with the contents of the report and requested that it not be disclosed to the defense under lawyer’s professional secrecy – even though it was for the police to claim such privilege.

Mr Drumgold told the inquiry that he believed revealing that police believed there were discrepancies in Ms Higgins’ allegations would be ‘crushing’ for her.

In his report, Mr Sofronoff reportedly said it was “not a good basis for a prosecutor to oppose disclosure of documents” and said Mr Drumgold did not adhere to the rule of thumb: “When in doubt, disclose” .

“Mr. Drumgold kept the defense in the dark about steps he took to deny them the documents,” Mr. Sofronoff said. “Criminal justice is not a poker game where a prosecutor can hide the cards.”

Mr Sofronoff said that if Mr Lehrmann’s defense team had not persevered and been given access to the Moller report, any conviction could have been overturned as a miscarriage of justice.

Mr Drumgold’s letter to Chief of Police Gaughan continued: ‘A number of disturbing events occurred during the trial.’

He accused Ms Higgins’ ex-boss and former Defense Secretary Linda Reynolds of ‘asking’ transcripts from Mr Lehrmann’s lawyer, Steven Whybrow, to ‘tailor’ her evidence.

Ms Reynolds, who testified for the prosecution, previously told the court she asked Mr Whybrow for transcripts – he didn’t send them, but even if he did, she said she had no intention of using the information to alter her evidence.

Ms Reynolds had told the court she had asked for transcripts because, “I was curious what had been said, but I was told it was not appropriate.”

In his letter, Mr. Drumgold went on to say that the behavior of “investigators was equally concerning” and accused them of “consulting regularly” with Mr. Lehrmann during breaks – what Mr. Whybrow denied when questioned during the investigation.

In his closing paragraphs, Mr. Drumgold said Australian Federal Police officers had “a strong desire that this case should not lead to charges” and said investigators were “clearly aligned with a successful defence.”

He said there was a “very clear campaign to pressure me into agreeing with the investigator’s desire not to charge, then during the trial itself, and finally to try to make any decision about a new trial to influence”.

“I believe there should be a public inquiry into both political and police conduct in this case at the end of the trial,” he wrote.

“I further ask for your support for an investigation to be conducted at the end of the trial process into the behavior of police detectives leading up to the indictment and afterwards, during the trial itself.”

The investigation continued into May and Mr Drumgold was reprimanded for his behavior for about a week. The interrogation was so rigorous that he dropped out altogether and never finished his cross-examination.

But on his penultimate day at the inquiry, he admitted he no longer believed there was a police conspiracy going on, saying he was ‘possibly mistaken’ – despite calling on that belief to an investigation.

The revelation was brought about by his own attorney, Mark Tedeschi, who asked, “So you acknowledge that your suspicions about the existence of political interference in the continuation of the case were incorrect?”

Mr. Drumgold replied, “I’ll accept that.”

Mr Tedeschi continued: ‘The suspicions you had in November last year at the end of the trial, when it was cut short, have those suspicions been dispelled?

Mr Drumgold replied, ‘Yes, they have been.’

In his scathing report, Mr Sofronoff said he was ‘deeply disturbed’ by Mr Drumgold’s behaviour, comparing him to Pontius Pilate – a Roman governor who gave in to demands to crucify Jesus, The Australian reported.
He also said the DPP made false statements to the ACT Chief Justice that were ‘untrue’ and ‘an invention of his own’, adding that he was guilty of a ‘serious dereliction of duty’ by failing to disclose documents.

Mr Drumgold resigned from his role as DPP following the investigation. He did not resign, but the revelations about Mr Sofronoff’s report have led political commentators to question whether he can realistically continue in his job.

Speaking to News Corp on Thursday, Mr Drumgold declined to indicate whether he intends to formally step down.

The report was not released by ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr, but was instead leaked Wednesday night.

In a statement to Daily Mail Australia, an ACT government spokesman said he was ‘disappointed’ that the report was released prematurely.

“Releasing information about the investigation outside of government procedures has influenced the investigation process and harmed those involved,” the statement said.

“It further adds to the ongoing public discussion of the issue, which has been very difficult for all affected individuals.”

It confirmed that the report had not been leaked by the government and did not authorize its release to media outlets.

The government is likely to publish the report early next week.

Ms Higgins alleged that her former colleague, Mr Lehrmann, raped her in Parliament House in 2019 – which he strongly denies – and was tried in the ACT Supreme Court in October last year.

The first trial was halted because a member of the jury brought banned investigative material to court, and the second trial never took place because Mr Drumgold dropped the charges entirely – citing concerns about Ms Higgins’ mental health.