A NSW parliamentary committee says Sally Dowling, the state's top prosecutor, gave false evidence under oath about her office's role in pitching a story to radio station 2GB. The story involved the sentencing of a young Indigenous offender. The committee released a 75-page report on 7 July 2026 documenting 14 instances of false or misleading testimony from Dowling The Guardian.

The committee voted 4 to 3 to conclude that Dowling approved the story being sent to 2GB, then lied about it when questioned. The inquiry was originally meant to examine how NSW protects children by keeping them unnamed in court cases, but it expanded into this broader dispute.

What Happened on 25 October 2024

On that date, Ben Fordham's breakfast show on 2GB aired details about a sentencing hearing involving an Indigenous child. The child was not named during the broadcast. However, the show got a fact wrong: it described something that happened in court as a "welcome to country" when it was actually an acknowledgment of country. The report notes this error. Police investigated whether the child had been illegally identified but decided not to bring charges The Guardian.

The committee concluded the prosecution office had no good reason to secretly pitch the story to 2GB. Doing so risked identifying the child and probably broke the office's own guidelines.

The committee's main evidence comes from Sally Killoran, a media manager at the prosecution office. She testified that the day before the broadcast, she met with Dowling and an outside media adviser. The adviser said 2GB would be more interested in the story than the Daily Telegraph. No one in the meeting objected, so Killoran thought she had permission to go ahead with the pitch. Dowling has said her office did pitch the story but denies that she personally approved it.

A Judge Speaks Up

A District Court judge named Penelope Wass made a 68-page submission to the committee. She alleged that Dowling arranged for the leak to occur. Wass said the leak was meant to embarrass her and undermine her as a judge because she and the prosecution office had disagreed before. Several district court judges have criticised how the prosecution office has handled sexual assault cases during Dowling's time as head. That existing tension is part of the background the committee considered.

The committee has recommended that NSW Attorney General Michael Daley think about starting a formal, separate inquiry. This formal inquiry would have the power to force people to give evidence and hand over documents, and could decide whether Dowling should be removed from her job. The recommendation matters more than the committee's findings so far because removing a top prosecutor is not done easily, and any formal process would have to prove the case to a higher standard than a parliamentary committee vote.

Daley has rejected the report completely. He called it "a stitch-up from the outset" and said it was "the worst… that I have seen in my nearly 21 years in parliament." He himself appeared before the same committee in March 2026. In April 2026, Dowling sent a letter to the committee mentioning a separate criminal case in which NSW Police believed someone in her office had leaked information — showing that leak problems in the office go beyond the 2GB story.

The fact that the committee voted 4 to 3, rather than unanimously, is important. When a narrow majority — especially on a question about whether someone in power told the truth — decides an issue, it raises questions about the fairness of the whole process. That is probably why Daley's criticism has gotten some support. Other top prosecutors have publicly backed Dowling since the report came out, suggesting that prosecutors themselves do not agree with the committee WAtoday.

What happens now depends on Daley. As Attorney General, he decides whether to start that formal inquiry the committee recommended. Since he has publicly said the report is wrong, that step looks unlikely unless more political pressure builds. The real question is whether the case against Dowling can meet the higher standard of proof needed to actually remove her — or whether this will just become a disputed chapter in the office's history.