A parliamentary committee in New South Wales has made serious adverse findings against the state’s Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Sally Dowling, over allegations that the Office of the DPP improperly used public information to plant a negative story about Judge Penelope Wass in October 2024. The story, which was disseminated through the radio station 2GB, concerned Wass requesting an Aboriginal young person to perform an “acknowledgment of country” during court proceedings.

The central issue of the inquiry was whether Dowling authorised the planting of the story. Dowling admitted to attending a meeting where two staff members planned the dissemination but claimed she was “distracted on her phone” during the discussion and did not tacitly endorse the plan. She has maintained that she was unaware of the true nature of the meeting’s outcome for more than a year. Several other participants in the meeting declined to provide evidence, leaving questions about the coordination among those involved unresolved.

Further scrutiny revealed that this media meeting had been hastily arranged to address an inquiry from a media outlet regarding a complaint Judge Wass lodged with the NSW Bar Association against Dowling. This information surfaced only after a freedom of information request obtained an email scheduling the meeting.

Following the release of the committee’s report, NSW Attorney-General Michael Daley publicly rejected its findings and appointed senior counsel Noel Hutley to review the inquiry. Daley framed Hutley’s role as impartial, though critics suggested the appointment was politically motivated to counter the committee’s adverse conclusions.

Questions about potential conflicts of interest arose when it was revealed that Dowling and Hutley share a long-standing professional and personal friendship spanning decades. In 2015, Dowling publicly supported Hutley’s campaign for the governing council of the NSW Bar Association, and her husband, Richard Lancaster, has shared chambers with Hutley. Dowling herself acknowledged, during parliamentary testimony, that she was involved in advising Daley on who should be tasked with reviewing the report, but she did not disclose her connection to Hutley and reportedly vetoed other candidates she deemed unsuitable.

Hutley’s subsequent advice endorsed Dowling’s account of being distracted during the meeting as “plausible” and deemed the committee’s adverse findings unjustified. Dowling defended the independence of Hutley’s assessment despite their close relationship, expressing confidence that he would have recused himself had a conflict existed.

The controversy highlights broader concerns about conflicts of interest and public confidence within the NSW legal system. Critics argue that the intertwining of personal and professional relationships among senior legal figures undermines the perceived impartiality of inquiries into misconduct. The situation has also raised questions about the willingness and ability of judicial, political, and professional leaders to address internal disputes effectively and transparently.

Opponents of the handling of this matter suggest it exemplifies a pattern in which elite interests may take precedence over the public good, eroding trust in the justice system. The ongoing tensions underscore the challenges faced in maintaining accountability and independence within the upper echelons of the legal and political establishments in New South Wales.