The evidence is too mixed to justify removing a sitting judicial officer
A parliamentary committee voted 4-3 that Dowling authorized pitching a story to radio 2GB and falsely denied it, but Minns disputes the evidence quality. Major legal organizations including 120 crown prosecutors and the Police Association support Dowling, while the attorney general ordered an independent review.
- Parliamentary committee voted 4-3 that Dowling authorized pitching a story to 2GB and falsely denied it
- 120 crown prosecutors, Police Association of NSW, and Public Service Association support Dowling
- Attorney General Daley ordered independent review led by Noel Hutley SC
- Dowling admitted her office pitched the story but denied authorizing it under oath
NSW Premier Chris Minns rejected a parliamentary committee's recommendation to establish a formal inquiry into whether director of public prosecutions Sally Dowling should be removed, citing insufficient evidence supporting the allegations.
Chris Minns stood at a press conference and drew a line. The NSW premier rejected a parliamentary committee's recommendation that the state establish a formal inquiry into whether Sally Dowling, the director of public prosecutions, should be removed from office. His reasoning was direct: he did not believe the evidence supported what the committee was asking him to do.
The dispute centers on a story pitched to radio station 2GB about a sentencing hearing involving a young Indigenous person. Last week, an upper house inquiry voted 4-3 to conclude that Dowling had authorized the pitch and then denied it under oath to the committee. Dowling has acknowledged that her office made the pitch but insisted she did not authorize it. She and another DPP witness rejected the characterization of the incident as a leak altogether.
When asked about his previous statements—made last year—in which Minns said it would be "completely unacceptable" for the DPP to leak information, he pivoted. The committee, he said, had come down hard on an independent judicial officer based on evidence that was, at best, contradictory. Two people gave sworn testimony that Dowling did not leak the information. That mattered to him. "I do stand by that view," he said, "but I'm not sure, I don't believe the evidence supports the recommendations."
What followed his rejection was telling. A broad coalition of legal institutions and practitioners lined up behind Dowling. One hundred twenty crown prosecutors signed a letter of support. The Police Association of NSW backed her. The Public Service Association, which represents prosecutors, stood with her. Defence Lawyers NSW—an incorporated association representing more than 700 criminal barristers and solicitors—wrote to Attorney General Michael Daley saying the committee's report "raises questions that require further examination." The message was clear: the legal establishment did not see grounds for removing the state's top prosecutor.
Daley himself had already criticized the report. He went further than Minns, instructing crown solicitors to brief senior counsel to conduct an independent review of the committee's findings. That review would be led by Noel Hutley SC, a former Bar Association president. The move suggested the attorney general saw the committee's work as flawed enough to warrant a second look from a senior legal figure.
The split vote—4-3—had already signaled division within the committee itself. Now that division was mirrored in the broader response. The question of what happened with the 2GB story remained contested. Dowling's account and that of her witness differed from the committee majority's conclusion. Minns and Daley were essentially saying that conflicting sworn testimony, combined with support from the legal profession, meant the case for removal had not been made. The inquiry would not proceed. The matter would go to independent review instead.
Citações Notáveis
I think that [the committee] have come in very hard denouncing an independent judicial officer who serves an important role on evidence that at best is very different... I don't believe the evidence supports the recommendations.— NSW Premier Chris Minns
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does the premier's rejection matter if the committee already voted?
Because the committee's recommendation only carries weight if the government acts on it. Minns is saying: I don't accept your conclusion. That stops the process cold.
But didn't the committee find that Dowling lied under oath?
The majority did, 4-3. But Minns is pointing to the two DPP witnesses who testified the opposite way. He's saying the evidence is too mixed to justify removing a sitting judicial officer.
Is that a reasonable position, or is he protecting her?
That depends on how much weight you give to conflicting sworn testimony versus the committee's interpretation of events. The legal profession seems to think the testimony matters—120 prosecutors don't sign a letter lightly.
What happens now?
The attorney general ordered an independent review by a senior counsel. So instead of a removal inquiry, there's going to be another examination of the committee's work itself.
That sounds like delay.
It could be. Or it could be a genuine attempt to sort out what the evidence actually shows. The committee was split. The legal profession is split. An independent senior lawyer might clarify things—or might just add another layer of disagreement.
What's at stake for Dowling personally?
Her job, her reputation, her ability to lead the DPP. If the removal inquiry had gone ahead, it would have been a public trial. This way, she survives—at least for now.