Inside Sally Dowling SC’s war with Judge Penelope Wass
This is an extraordinarily violent feud. A public row between the state’s attorney general and a NSW District Court judge has led to a police investigation, two parliamentary inquiries and a court fight.
Viewed in isolation, it appears to be a dispute between two senior legal figures in Sydney: Judge Penelope Wass, SC, who was appointed to the District Court bench almost a decade ago, and Director of Public Prosecutions Sally Dowling, SC, less than halfway through her 10-year term.
But this is just one front in a more than year-long battle between the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions and a group of District Court judges over sexual assault cases. This raises serious questions about the consequences of criminal matters before the court.
December marked the latest outbreak of hostilities. Wass made an explosive 68-page submission about Dowling and her office to the upper house inquiry in NSW in November, which was published without fanfare on parliament’s website late on 4 December. Australian the next day.
‘Deliberate and targeted’
In his submission, Wass accused the ODPP of providing information to Sydney radio station 2GB in October 2024 about transactions involving an Indigenous teenager in an attempt to “embarrass and denigrate” him.
He alleged that “some individuals within the ODPP, including Ms Dowling, were part of a deliberate strategy to attack him personally or to influence his judicial conduct, or both.”
Wass said the committee may consider sending top ODPP officials to the governor “for removal.”
The judge had challenged the local teenager to perform what he called a Welcome to Country rally before he was sentenced for serious offences. He made a brief speech of thanks to the “traditional owners and custodians of these lands” via video link.
Ben Fordham, who hosts 2GB’s morning show, described the “welcome”, which airs on October 25, 2024, as a “local scandal”. The young man had made a heavy break and entrance by making sexual contact with an older woman.
Wass extended an invitation for the teenager to make more “receptions” at court in the future, but said this was conditional on the teenager not re-offending.
He had already spent a significant period of time in custody and was immediately released on parole.
Wass said in his statement that the criminal received the maximum possible sentence. The judge said he “received derogatory public statements and threats from consumers regarding the 2GB story immediately after it was published.”
“No one from ODPP has expressed any concerns to me.” [during the sentencing] … Instead, ODPP took action to disclose the information to 2GB, after which the ‘trial by media’ began,” Wass said.
He said that he made the invitation in order to rehabilitate young people and to “increase their sense of identity and self-confidence”.
The lawyer acting on behalf of the local teenager told the inquest he supported the judge’s invitation to give him a “welcome” or initiation ceremony.
ODPP ‘gave the story’ to 2GB
Dowling gave evidence ahead of the inquest on 5 December. He accused the upper house committee of a “shameful” denial of procedural fairness by publishing Wass’s submission on December 4 without giving him a copy. He believed the investigation had a completely different focus.
The attorney general admitted during the deposition that his office “put the story on 2GB” about Wass, but said he didn’t know about it until about “two days ago.”
“I never gave instructions or requested anything. [ODPP] The media manager will present the story to 2GB,” he said.
Dowling’s evidence led the inquiry to call in ODPP media manager Sally Killoran. Killoran revealed that Dowling was in a meeting with him and an outside media consultant the day before the 2GB broadcast.
There are legitimate questions about why Dowling’s office would give a news organization a story about a sitting judge at a time when Dowling and Wass were already locked in a bitter dispute. But it is unclear why this issue has attracted the attention and resources of a parliamentary inquiry in a seemingly unrelated remit.
In a statement regarding the investigation on December 17, the ODPP said it was “difficult to avoid the inference that the committee intended to carry out an ambush.” [Dowling] …with the judge’s presentation”.
Dowling claimed during his evidence that the upper house committee was conducting a “de facto” investigation into the ODPP under the guise of an inquiry into the NSW law.
An extraordinary investigation
The investigation has some unusual features. It was ostensibly established to examine the adequacy of legal protections to prevent publication of the identities of children in criminal cases. 2GB was cited by the upper house justice and communities committee in October, a year after publication.
The Dowling-Wass saga was described as a “case study” during the hearings. It appears to be the only case study that has been researched in detail and is vigorously pursued.
The investigation is expected to report on February 20, leaving little time to address wider issues.
Under Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act of NSWThere are broad prohibitions on public disclosure or publication of information identifying a child involved in a criminal case. Criminal sanctions are applied.
In his submission, Wass said he contacted the head of the NSW Police cybercrime team after the 2GB broadcast because he was concerned the ban might have been breached.
The judge told police that the shadow attorney general, NSW Liberal MP Alister Henskens, told him that someone within 2GB had provided him with a screenshot of information about the Indigenous youth’s case before he was invited to discuss the matter live on air.
In his police statement, Wass said Henskens told him the document “had a symbol with the OPP identifier on it.”
Killoran later told the inquiry he provided a screenshot of the 2GB internal ODPP database showing details of the case, including the teenager’s name, to help “corroborate the story”.
However, 2GB has not released or released its name to the public. Dowling told the inquiry that “the provision of this screenshot involved no criminal offence” but was unaware at the time that Killoran had sent it and did not consent to its disclosure.
Killoran started this position in late July 2024 and was not legally trained. He told the inquiry he made a mistake in releasing the screenshot because he had since learned that only ODPP staff could view the contents of the database. He was given a formal warning and counseled following an internal investigation.
“On 21 March 2025, NSW Police notified the ODPP that it had completed its investigation. As I have said, the police took no further action to reflect that no crime had been committed,” Dowling said in his statement.
Wass said in his submission that “based on the insufficient information currently known, ODPP is correct to assert that this provision has not been violated.”
But he said the outcome of internal police and ODPP processes “suggests that current sanctions … are unlikely to provide meaningful accountability or general deterrence for breaches of children’s identity protections.”
In its statement on the inquiry, the ODPP said it would be an “abuse of the powers and privileges of parliament” if the inquiry was “misdirected from its terms of reference because the judge is not satisfied with the results of the appropriate processes undertaken to date”.
Interview with Dowling
Around the time the 2GB story emerged, a number of stories had been published. Australian About the court orders that blew up Dowling’s office.
District Court judges, Wass includedHe targeted the ODPP in decisions regarding its handling of sexual assault cases and claimed that it pursued unfounded cases.
The criticism was unusually harsh, and it was disapproved by the Judiciary Committee after two judges – Robert Newlinds and Peter Whitford – filed complaints against them about Dowling’s remarks. The two decisions are no longer available online.
The judicial watchdog said both judges denied that it was procedurally fair for Dowling’s office to make criticisms without being invited to respond, and that Whitford deliberately used her decision as a “tool” to publicly criticize the ODPP.
Although Dowling did not complain about Wass to the commission, the pair complained about each other in different forums. Dowling Complaint filed with Chief District Court Judge in May 2024 Wass filed a complaint with the Bar Association about Wass instructing witnesses in three sexual assault cases. The association said it could not investigate.
By mid-2024, the duo’s working relationship had deteriorated significantly.
Australian There was constant coverage of the fight, which increased Dowling’s anger.
The parliamentary inquiry has exposed the inner workings of the ODPP during this turbulent period. The office engaged the service of an external media consultant in April 2024.
Dowling, who made an additional statement to the investigation on December 16 after Killoran testified, said that on October 24, 2024, he had a meeting with Killoran, his office’s general counsel and a consultant from strategic communications consulting firm GRACosway.
This was the day before the 2GB release.
“During the meeting there was general discussion on a variety of topics, including Judge Wass’ invitation to the youth to ‘Welcome to Country,'” Dowling said. “It was discussed that this was a newsworthy story.”
He said Killoran “asked a question about what would happen if the story reached the media” but that did not mean Killoran offered to bring up the story to any journalists. Dowling said he “inferred that the media already had the story” and did not provide “any substantive response”.
Killoran proved that he “proactively raised the issue of whether I could pitch the story to the media” and suggested News Corp’s offer. Daily Telegraph.
Killoran said, “External media counsel suggested that 2GB would probably be more interested. No one objected to this suggestion and therefore I believed I had approval to present the story at the time.”
The inquiry may call on Dowling to provide more evidence about that meeting in February. But a NSW Court of Appeal decision in December made clear that inquests’ current powers to compel witnesses to appear are constitutionally invalid.
The feud continues
This is far from the end of the poisonous struggle. The Court of Appeal heard on December 18 that four criminal cases involving Wass were “paused” because the ODPP asked him to recuse himself on the grounds of bias. This is not an actual allegation of bias, but the appearance of it.
This triggered a Court of Appeal case into whether it would be a breach of parliamentary privilege for Dowling’s office to rely on Wass’s submission as the basis for its rejection application. A hearing is scheduled for February.
In a letter to the NSW upper house speaker, upper house inquiry chairman Robert Borsak of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party said the committee was concerned that the withdrawal applications “may be an attempt to intimidate an inquiry witness, namely Wass”.
On that basis, Dowling now faces a separate investigation by parliament’s privileges committee into whether the applications would amount to contempt of parliament. Although this is not a criminal offense, a finding of defamation would be another blow to the ODPP.
The debate seems to have no end, and its consequences have now spilled over into the courtroom.
2GB belongs to Nine, the publisher of this imprint.
Start your day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.
