Attorney General and legal profession respond to inquiry critical of the ODPP

Portfolio Committee No. 5 – Justice and Communities established the inquiry in October 2025 to assess whether current identity protection laws for accused children remain fit for purpose in New South Wales.

Committee Chair, the Hon. Robert Borsak MLC, said the overall verdict on the identity protections system itself was largely positive, even as the Committee flagged specific weaknesses. “The committee is reassured by evidence that the system for protecting children’s identities is generally working well, but recognises that steps could be taken to improve its effectiveness,” he said.

To close those gaps, the Committee has backed a Law Reform Commission recommendation to tighten up legislative wording around what counts as “information tending to identify” a person. It has also urged the NSW Government to broaden the existing disclosure ban to apply to the pre-trial stages of proceedings, and called on the Minister for Police to roll out specific training for NSW Police officers on the issue.

The case study

The report’s most striking findings centre on a case study: the leak of a young person’s details to Radio 2GB following a District Court sentencing at Taree in October 2024, and the conduct of the ODPP in the lead-up to and aftermath of that disclosure.

The Committee concluded that the disclosure from the ODPP to journalists should never have happened.

Recommendations relating to the ODPP

The Committee majority called on Attorney General Michael Daley to consider establishing a formal inquiry with compulsory powers into the findings relating to the conduct of the ODPP, and the Government consider establishing a dedicated parliamentary committee to oversight the ODPP.

Daley rejected the report outright, calling it “the worst Parliamentary Committee report that I have seen in my nearly 21 years in Parliament.” He said it “makes findings that are unsupported by the evidence” and “treats mere suspicion and speculation as fact,” describing the inquiry as “a stitch-up from the outset.” He noted that despite receiving submissions from eight agencies and individuals, only ODPP staff were called to give evidence. Daley said he retains full confidence in the DPP, and confirmed he would ask the Crown Solicitor’s Office to brief senior counsel to review the report.

An ODPP spokesperson welcomed Daley’s response, saying the Office “acknowledged his serious concerns and his unequivocal rejection of the findings”, and welcomed his decision to brief senior counsel to review them. The spokesperson said the ODPP and Dowling valued the Attorney General’s support and confidence, adding: “The ODPP acts with integrity and independence. That is not going to change.”

Committee Deputy Chair and Greens MLC Sue Higginson dissented, refusing to endorse the findings or recommendations relating to the ODPP, and accused fellow committee members of pursuing a politically motivated campaign. “The report discards sworn testimony and relies on confected evidence and inference to assume guilt on the part of the Director,” she said, calling the suggestions Dowling may have broken the law and could warrant removal “profoundly serious allegations that have been made irresponsibly and erroneously.” She warned the report’s “absurdity” risked overshadowing an opportunity for genuine reform.

The Crown Prosecutors of NSW also backed the DPP. Senior Crown Prosecutor Brett Hatfield SC said the state’s more than 120 Crown Prosecutors regarded her as a person of the highest integrity, and were significantly concerned about findings the Attorney General had already labelled unfounded. He said it was fundamental to the criminal justice system that the ODPP’s independence be preserved, “free from political interference.”

The proposal for a parliamentary oversight committee drew its own pushback. The Law Society of NSW and the NSW Bar Association issued a joint statement warning that it risked undermining prosecutorial independence. The bodies, representing the state’s 47,000 lawyers, said decisions to initiate and maintain prosecutions must remain free of interference — a principle underpinning the formal establishment of an independent prosecutorial body some 40 years ago through the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986. They urged “profound caution” in considering any reform that could undermine that independence.

The Law Society’s submission to the inquiry had separately backed the existing statutory framework in relation to identity protection, while flagging gaps. It supported a Law Reform Commission proposal for a broader prohibition on publishing “information tending to identify” a child, arguing this would address “jigsaw identification” — where a child’s identity is pieced together from fragments published across different sources. It also called for the publication ban to extend to the investigation and pre-charge stage, citing cases where NSW Police had posted identifying details of children, including one never charged, on Facebook.

The Committee adopted much of this thinking, backing the Law Reform Commission’s proposed language change, recommending the disclosure ban be extended to pre-trial stages, and calling for police training on the issue.

The inquiry involved eight written submissions and four public hearings held at Parliament House. The complete report and supporting material are available on the inquiry’s official webpage.