‘Stitch-up’: AG Blasts Damning Report That Found Top Prosecutor Gave False Evidence

The recent upper house inquiry into NSW’s Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has exposed the ugly underbelly of politics in Australia’s states. The report, which found that top prosecutor Sally Dowling gave false evidence to parliament, has sparked a firestorm of controversy and accusations of politicization.

At its core, this controversy revolves around the DPP’s decision to provide information to Sydney radio station 2GB about a story related to District Court Judge Penelope Wass. The majority report concluded that Dowling authorized her office to give false evidence in parliament, while the dissenting members claimed that the findings were “unfounded and biased.”

NSW Attorney-General Michael Daley’s reaction to the report was telling. Describing it as “the worst parliamentary committee report” he had seen, Daley accused the upper house MPs of conducting a “stitch-up.” His words speak volumes about the politicization of institutions in Australia.

The involvement of Judge Wass in this saga is also noteworthy. Her explosive submission to the inquiry accused the ODPP of trying to “embarrass and defame” her, sparking fears that there’s more to this story than meets the eye.

The upper house inquiry was ostensibly established to examine statutory identity protections for children in criminal proceedings. However, its focus on Dowling and Wass was a stark departure from its original mandate. This has led some observers to question whether the inquiry was an attempt to distract from more pressing issues or further partisan agendas.

Prominent Sydney silk Geoffrey Watson, SC, has described the report as a “hatchet job.” His comments suggest that some have already reached similar conclusions about the motivations behind the inquiry.

The saga raises important questions about accountability and the rule of law in Australia. Can institutions like the DPP truly operate independently when their actions are subject to such intense scrutiny and partisanship? What does this mean for the public’s trust in our justice system?

Greens MP Sue Higginson has criticized the report, stating that it “discards sworn testimony and relies on confected evidence and inference to assume guilt.” Her dissenting statement serves as a stark reminder that justice demands more than mere allegations.

As this saga continues to unfold, the real victim of this politicization remains: our faith in the institutions that are meant to serve us all.