Bruce Lehrmann trial inquiry exposes criminal justice agencies possibly out of their depth

The inquiry into the Parliament House rape trial has offered rare insights into the inner workings of our criminal justice agencies, and revealed fractures in their relationships.

Each twist and turn had viewers transfixed, with live-streamed proceedings apparently bad for productivity at law offices across the ACT as staff used any spare moment to watch along.

You could hardly blame them, with Canberra's cloistered legal community at the centre of the nation's attention during what inquiry chairman Walter Sofronoff KC described as the most publicised case since that of Lindy Chamberlain.

But as fascinating as the inquiry's public hearings were, interested observers would probably have felt at stages as if they were watching a movie they had seen before.

It was a common theme of the inquiry for big claims to be made, or harsh criticisms offered, only for the person pointing the finger to hurriedly back down or make major concessions.

With aspects of the evidence accordingly now consigned to the scrapheap, the number of questions left for Mr Sofronoff to answer has dwindled.

We've long known the overarching questions, with the ACT government setting terms of reference that required inquiries into the conduct of police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Victims of Crime Commissioner.

But given the way the inquiry has unfolded, a question never explicitly asked looms large as Mr Sofronoff writes his final report ahead of a July 31 deadline.

With many allegations of sinister motives now gone, were the problems associated with the high-profile case simply the product of our criminal justice agencies being out of their depth?

The first person to publicly call for the inquiry was ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold SC, who led the case against former Liberal Party staffer Bruce Lehrmann.

His call was revealed days after he discontinued the charge levelled at Mr Lehrmann, who has always denied raping Brittany Higgins when the pair worked for Senator Linda Reynolds.

In a letter to ACT chief police officer Neil Gaughan, Mr Drumgold accused investigators of inappropriate interference and called for a public inquiry into "political and police conduct".

Ironically, when the inquiry eventuated, the top prosecutor found himself on the receiving end of the most comprehensive demolition of any witness called to give oral evidence.

Mr Drumgold, who has since taken leave from his post, found himself under fire for misrepresenting a document in court, not doing enough to stop an infamous speech that delayed the trial, and making unnecessary comments at a press conference.

But the most damaging blow of all came after Mr Drumgold detailed his suspicions there had been a political conspiracy involving former Coalition government ministers.

He hypothesised that politicians had pressured police to make Me Lehrmann's criminal matter "go away".

But the day after he detailed those grave fears on the witness stand, Mr Drumgold revealed he no longer held them.

The unfortunate misconception was amplified by the fact he had not made it entirely clear the previous day that he had in fact abandoned those fears before he even spoke of them.

By then, the integrity of others had been unfairly questioned and unnecessary damage had been done.

Whether Mr Drumgold survives his errors is unclear, with a permanent departure looking increasingly likely.

Mr Drumgold now believes police were reluctant to charge Mr Lehrmann because of a "skills deficit" that has long had them applying the wrong legal test when deciding whether a case should proceed to court.

While police and prosecutors now agree charging Mr Lehrmann was the right call, there is continued confusion among investigators about the threshold they must reach before laying a criminal charge in the ACT.

Asked to provide their understanding of this issue to the inquiry, 16 Australian Federal Police officers, as senior as Commissioner Reece Kershaw, gave a variety of answers. One did not even give a response.

It is an alarming situation that makes one wonder how many cases have been finalised without a charge in circumstances where they should have proceeded.

The different views of the charging threshold are likely to have contributed to some investigators holding what Mr Drumgold has described as "passionate" views about the case of Mr Lehrmann.

They were so strong Detective Leading Senior Constable Trent Madders is said to have felt physically sick when he was told his bosses had decided to lay a charge, while defence barrister Steven Whybrow SC claims Detective Inspector Marcus Boorman told him he would resign if Mr Lehrmann was found guilty.

There is also the issue of ACT Policing treating its sexual assault and child abuse team as "a training ground for budding detectives", who are being left to learn on the job and run investigations with minimal supervision.

Barely any members of this team have completed specialist sexual assault investigation training.

Senior police have also needed to walk back allegations, with Detective Superintendent Scott Moller and Commander Michael Chew abandoning scathing criticism of Victims of Crime Commissioner Heidi Yates.

The inexperience of investigators was once again a factor in this regard, with some officers said to have been "intimidated" by Ms Yates when senior police now admit the victims' advocate actually helped them.

Detective Superintendent Moller attributed this to his subordinates misunderstanding Ms Yates' role because of the police rank structure and her title of commissioner.

Mr Sofronoff's recommendations will hopefully create the sort of positive change that will restore some of the confidence people are likely to have just in the ACT's criminal justice agencies during this very public post-mortem.

As things stand, it would be hard to argue with a complainant who is reluctant to report a case to a police force that is lacking in experience and at odds both internally, and with the Director of Public Prosecutions, on the crucial question of when to lay a criminal charge.

Mr Sofronoff has already foreshadowed recommending that police leaders articulate the correct test for charging and ensure all officers know what it is.

Some would also be understandably hesitant to trust the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions after its leader was forced into a series of damaging concessions in connection with the highest-profile rape case in Australian history.

MORE COURT AND CRIME NEWS:

Few court cases will ever be so closely analysed.

The same certainly did not happen with the three ACT Supreme Court rape trials that were running in neighbouring courtrooms during Mr Lehrmann's case.

But getting it right in those cases, and the ones that will follow, is no less important than it was in this one.

If our criminal justice agencies were il-equipped to handle an extraordinary case, what is to say they are fit for purpose generally?

The lessons learned will be vital to improve the justice system for everyone.