NSW’s Top Prosecutor Accused of Providing False Evidence in Media Leak Inquiry
NSW s top prosecutor gave false – A recent parliamentary inquiry has concluded that New South Wales’ chief prosecutor, Sally Dowling, provided misleading testimony during an investigation into a media leak involving a young Indigenous offender. The findings, released on Tuesday, suggest that Dowling intentionally misrepresented her involvement in authorizing the disclosure of sensitive information to a radio station. As a result, the inquiry recommended that the attorney general, Michael Daley, launch a formal review to determine if Dowling should be removed from her position. However, Daley has dismissed the report as a “premeditated attempt to undermine the ODPP” and called it the most damaging report of his career.
Media Leak and Procedural Concerns
The inquiry centered on an October 2024 incident in which Dowling’s office shared details of a sentencing hearing with a young Indigenous individual to the radio station 2GB. While the child was not directly named in the broadcast, the story incorrectly described them as having performed a “welcome to country” ritual, a detail that sparked controversy. The committee found that Dowling had “falsely denied authorizing the leak” during her testimony, despite evidence showing she had allowed the story to be pitched. The report emphasized that the ODPP’s actions risked exposing the child’s identity and violated the principle of keeping court proceedings confidential for minors, a legal requirement in New South Wales.
“There is no genuine public interest in the ODPP proactively and secretly promoting the story,” the inquiry stated in its findings.
The incident highlighted concerns about the ODPP’s transparency and adherence to guidelines. The committee’s 4-3 majority ruled that the leak was “likely a breach of prosecution protocols,” as Dowling’s team had pitched the story without proper disclosure. This came after a police investigation into the child’s identification failed to find any wrongdoing, leaving the matter unresolved. The inquiry, initially meant to examine safeguards for children in court, shifted focus to this specific case, drawing criticism from legal experts and advocates.
Judge’s Allegations and the Context of the Leak
District court judge Penelope Wass, who had previously permitted a young Indigenous person to acknowledge country before sentencing, submitted a detailed 68-page statement to the inquiry. She accused Dowling of orchestrating the leak to “embarrass and defame” her and to challenge the independence of district court judges. Wass had been a vocal critic of the ODPP’s handling of sexual assault cases under Dowling’s leadership, which she argued had eroded public trust in the legal system.
Dowling, who appeared before the inquiry, admitted her office had shared the story with 2GB but insisted she had not given direct approval. She claimed she only learned about the media leak two days before her December 2025 testimony, contradicting the committee’s conclusion that she had been present during the decision-making process. The inquiry’s report noted this discrepancy, stating that Dowling’s “false evidence” included asserting she discovered the leak only in late 2025, despite being in the meeting where the story was decided to be pitched.
Media Manager’s Testimony and the External Adviser
The inquiry also heard testimony from Sally Killoran, the ODPP’s media manager, who described a meeting with Dowling and an external media adviser the day before the story aired. Killoran stated that she had discussed “proactively pitching” the story to the Daily Telegraph during the session, and the adviser had suggested that 2GB would be more receptive. She claimed no one raised objections to the plan, leading her to believe she had the go-ahead to share the information.
Dowling later told the inquiry that while she did not dispute Killoran’s “misunderstanding” of the process, she had not authorized the leak. However, the committee found that her testimony lacked consistency, as she had been present during the meeting where the decision was made. The external media adviser, who had proposed the 2GB strategy, did not appear before the inquiry or agree to be served with a summons, leaving their role unchallenged.
Dissenting Opinion and Broader Implications
Stephen Lawrence, the sole Labor member of the three-person committee to support the recommendations, voiced a dissenting opinion in the report. He argued that the ODPP had become “a central hub of public power” in the criminal justice system and that the inquiry exposed a “systemic failure to follow media comment guidelines.” Lawrence criticized the misuse of information, stating that the incident undermined public confidence in the ODPP’s ability to act independently. He called for stricter oversight to prevent similar leaks in the future.
The committee’s report also pointed to broader issues within the ODPP’s communication practices. It noted that Dowling had read emails and text messages about other matters during the meeting, suggesting she may have been preoccupied or had prior knowledge of the plan. This, combined with her testimony about discovering the leak only later, led the inquiry to conclude that her evidence was “not truthful” and that the ODPP had failed to uphold its responsibilities to protect vulnerable individuals.
Public Reaction and Legal Scrutiny
Since the report’s release, public debate has intensified over the role of the ODPP in balancing transparency with the rights of minors. Advocacy groups have praised the inquiry for exposing the potential misuse of power, while critics argue that the findings are politically motivated. The recommendation for a formal inquiry with compulsory powers has been seen as a critical step in holding Dowling accountable, though some question whether the evidence is sufficient to justify removal from office.
For Dowling, the outcome marks a significant setback. As the highest-ranking prosecutor in the state, her actions have been scrutinized for their impact on the integrity of the legal process. The inquiry’s focus on the 2024 incident, which involved an Indigenous child, has also reignited discussions about the treatment of young offenders and the disproportionate attention given to their cases in the media. With the attorney general now tasked with evaluating the report, the next phase of the investigation could determine the future of the ODPP’s leadership and its relationship with the media.
Legacy of the ODPP and the Road Ahead
The inquiry’s findings have placed Dowling’s tenure under renewed scrutiny. While she has denied authorizing the leak, the evidence presented suggests her office played a pivotal role in the incident. The report’s emphasis on procedural fairness and transparency has sparked calls for reform within the ODPP, with some legal experts advocating for clearer guidelines on when and how information about court proceedings can be shared.
As the attorney general considers the recommendations, the public awaits further action. The outcome of this process could set a precedent for how prosecutors are held accountable in cases of media leaks and influence the perception of the ODPP’s role in the justice system. For the Indigenous community, the incident underscores ongoing concerns about representation and the potential for their children to be exposed to public scrutiny during legal proceedings.
With the inquiry’s report highlighting a “failure to properly administer media guidelines,” the focus now shifts to whether Daley will take decisive steps to address the issue. The ODPP’s reputation, already under pressure from previous controversies, faces another challenge as the legal community and the public watch closely for the next developments.
