News · NSW criminal justice
The parliamentary report into Sally Dowling SC.
On 7 July 2026 a New South Wales upper house committee tabled a report that made adverse findings against the state's Director of Public Prosecutions, Sally Dowling SC. The majority found that her office leaked a story about a District Court judge to talkback radio, and that Ms Dowling authorised the leak and then denied it. The report recommended that the Attorney-General consider an inquiry into whether there are grounds to remove her from office. The Attorney-General rejected the report outright, a committee member dissented, and Australia's chief prosecutors have backed her. This is a report of what the document says, what the parties have said in response, and where the matter now sits. It records the facts and the sources, and offers no view of its own.
By Aaron Kernaghan · Published 8 July 2026
What is the report, and who produced it?
The document is the final report of the New South Wales Legislative Council's Portfolio Committee No. 5 (Justice and Communities). It came out of the committee's inquiry into identity protections for proceedings involving children, which was established on 28 October 2025. The final report was tabled on Tuesday 7 July 2026. The government response is due by 29 September 2026. The inquiry page and both versions of the report are on the NSW Parliament website, and the full report is available as a PDF.
The inquiry's subject was the protection of the identity of children in court proceedings. The findings about the Director of Public Prosecutions sit within that wider report. That point is contested: the Attorney-General says the inquiry strayed from its subject, while the committee majority treated the leak of material identifying a child as squarely within its terms of reference.
What did the committee majority find?
The majority found that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions leaked information to a commercial radio station to pitch a negative story about District Court Judge Penelope Wass. On the central question of authorisation, the committee found that the Director "authorised the pitching of the story to 2GB and falsely denied having done so". Those are the committee's words, reported by Australian Associated Press.
The committee also found that the office was "proactively and surreptitiously pitching a story" that "would most likely constitute a breach of the prosecution guidelines", and that it was done "to provoke criticism" of Judge Wass. On motive, the report said: "The committee is satisfied the story was pitched in retaliation for Judge Wass' previous criticisms of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and perhaps for additional reasons unknown to the committee." These are findings of a parliamentary committee. They are not findings of a court, and no court has made any finding against Ms Dowling on these matters.
What was the story that was leaked?
The broadcast at the centre of the matter was aired in 2024 by 2GB Sydney presenter Ben Fordham. It concerned Judge Wass allowing a 17-year-old Indigenous boy to perform an Acknowledgement of Country before his sentencing hearing. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions provided the radio station with a screenshot that contained sensitive identifying information. The identity of the child is protected, and this note does not repeat any identifying detail.
Ms Dowling has previously admitted that her media team leaked restricted court material that formed the basis of the 2024 broadcast. She has consistently denied that she gave authorisation for it. That denial is the point on which the committee majority and the Director part ways.
How did the dispute reach this point?
The background is a long-running disagreement between Judge Wass and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. In 2024 the office was at odds with a number of District Court judges over what those judges saw as the over-prosecution of sexual assault matters, and Judge Wass had been critical of the office's handling of sexual offence cases. The legal publication Justinian has set out the history of that dispute.
On 25 October 2024 Judge Wass referred the leak to the Chief Judge of the District Court, the Attorney-General and NSW Police. A criminal investigation was completed without any finding of wrongdoing, a result that reporting has noted was limited by the police being unable to obtain a warrant. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions also commissioned an external fact-finding review by the law firm Norton Rose Fulbright into whether any of its employees had engaged in misconduct. The parliamentary committee then examined the leak as part of its inquiry into the protection of children's identities in court.
What did the report recommend?
In its final recommendation, the committee majority called on the NSW Attorney-General, Michael Daley, to consider establishing a formal inquiry to determine whether there were grounds to remove Ms Dowling from office. The committee did not itself recommend removal. It recommended that the question of whether grounds exist be examined.
The distinction matters, because the Director of Public Prosecutions holds a protected office. Under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986, the Director has security of tenure. The office holder cannot be dismissed at will. Removal can occur only by the Governor, and only on an address from both Houses of Parliament. That is the same protection that applies to judicial officers, and it exists so that the prosecutor's independence is not subject to the government of the day. A recommendation to "consider" an inquiry into grounds for removal is a long way short of removal itself.
How did the Attorney-General respond?
The Attorney-General rejected the report. Mr Daley said he had "full confidence" in the state's chief prosecutor and accused the committee of wasting its time on baseless attacks. In a statement he said: "This is the worst parliamentary committee report that I have seen in my nearly 21 years in parliament." He said the report "makes findings that are unsupported by the evidence" and "treats mere suspicion and speculation as fact".
He also disputed the inquiry's focus. "This was supposedly an inquiry into identity protections for proceedings involving children. It wasn't. It was a stitch-up from the outset." Because the recommendation asked the Attorney-General to "consider" an inquiry, his rejection carries weight for what happens next, though a formal government response is still due by 29 September 2026.
Was the committee united?
No. The findings and recommendations were those of the majority. Greens MP Sue Higginson, a member of the committee, did not support them. She accused fellow committee members of politically motivated attacks against Ms Dowling and described the report's findings as "unfounded and biased" and "irresponsible and incredible". A committee report of this kind records majority findings, and a member who dissents can set out that dissent in the report.
Who has supported the Director?
Australia's chief prosecutors wrote to the Attorney-General in June 2026 in support of Ms Dowling. Their letter said: "She is a person of integrity who, in our dealings, has always conducted herself in an exemplary and ethical manner." The Attorney-General has stated his full confidence in her. The Greens member of the committee rejected the majority's findings. And the earlier criminal investigation into the leak was completed without any finding of wrongdoing. These are the matters that sit on the other side of the ledger from the committee majority's findings.
What happens next?
The government must table a formal response to the report by 29 September 2026. The Attorney-General has already said he has full confidence in the Director, which signals that he is unlikely to establish the inquiry the committee majority asked him to consider. The Director remains in office. A parliamentary committee cannot remove her, and its findings do not carry the force of a court judgment. Any change to her position would require the process set out in the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, which runs through both Houses of Parliament and the Governor.
The reporting, in full.
The tabling of the report was covered on 7 July 2026 by an Australian Associated Press report by Samantha Lock, carried across Australian Community Media mastheads nationally. Representative versions of that report include the Canberra Times, the Newcastle Herald, the Maitland Mercury, the Port Macquarie News and the Goulburn Post. The same wire report ran under the same headline across dozens of other regional titles.
For the background to the dispute between Judge Wass and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the chronology of the 2024 leak, the legal publication Justinian has published a detailed account. Commentary on the accountability of directors of public prosecutions has appeared in Canberra CityNews. Background on the Director herself is set out on her Wikipedia entry and in a NSW Bar News interview. The primary source for everything above is the report itself and its inquiry page, both linked earlier in this note.
Frequently asked.
What did the parliamentary report into Sally Dowling find?
The majority of Portfolio Committee No. 5 (Justice and Communities) found that the DPP authorised the pitching of a story about District Court Judge Penelope Wass to 2GB and falsely denied having done so, and that her office was pitching a story that would most likely breach the prosecution guidelines, to provoke criticism of the judge. Ms Dowling denies authorising the leak. The findings are the committee majority's, not a court's.
Which committee produced the report and when was it tabled?
It is the final report of the NSW Legislative Council's Portfolio Committee No. 5 (Justice and Communities), from its inquiry into identity protections for proceedings involving children. It was tabled on 7 July 2026, and the government response is due by 29 September 2026.
Did the report recommend removing the DPP?
No. It recommended that the Attorney-General consider establishing a formal inquiry into whether there were grounds to remove Ms Dowling. The DPP has security of tenure under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986 and can be removed only by the Governor, and only on an address from both Houses of Parliament.
How did the Attorney-General respond?
Michael Daley said he had full confidence in the DPP, called it the worst committee report he had seen in nearly 21 years in parliament, said it treated suspicion and speculation as fact, and described it as a stitch-up. Greens MP Sue Higginson dissented, calling the findings unfounded and biased.
Who has supported Sally Dowling?
Australia's chief prosecutors wrote to the Attorney-General in June 2026 describing her as a person of integrity who had always acted in an exemplary and ethical way. The Attorney-General expressed full confidence in her, a committee member dissented from the findings, and the earlier criminal investigation ended without any finding of wrongdoing.
To speak to a criminal defence lawyer, call Aaron Kernaghan on 0421 717 019.
This article is a factual report of a parliamentary committee report and the public responses to it, as at 8 July 2026. It records findings made by a parliamentary committee majority, and the denials and responses of the persons and bodies concerned. It is not a finding of any court, it is not legal advice, and it is not a comment on the conduct of any person. Ms Dowling denies authorising the leak, the government has rejected the report's findings, and a committee member dissented. For advice on a specific matter, please contact the firm or phone 0421 717 019.
More criminal-law commentary by Aaron Kernaghan.