Sexual assault matters will receive greater scrutiny amid a rare public spat between judges and NSW prosecutors.
Long-serving District Court Judge Peter Whitford recently aired concerns of "opaque, even secret, policies" leading public prosecutors to press on with unmeritorious rape cases.
It follows a former leading barrister turned judge in December saying evidence in a similar case never "in any realistic way" demonstrated a prospect of a guilty verdict.
In both cases, the jury acquitted the defendant in about an hour.
Director of Public Prosecutions Sally Dowling SC launched another spirited defence of her office on Wednesday, having issued rare public statements against "offensive and unwarranted" criticism.
"The suggestion that there are secret policies or opaque policies is completely preposterous," she told a parliamentary hearing.
But continued admonishment from the bench had caused her to launch an audit in recent days.
All matters currently committed for trial would be audited by senior, experienced prosecutors to reassure Ms Dowling that guidelines were being followed, she said.
"(That) is to make sure every brief that is going to trial now in every sexual assault matter in the state satisfies the tests in the prosecution guidelines," she said.
Ms Dowling, who was appointed in August 2021, said judges often called her to complain about how concluded cases had been run by her office's 110 crown prosecutors and 480 solicitors.
But none of the four judges criticising her office had raised the cases in question, she said.
Crime statistics show conviction rates for sexual assault matters in NSW resemble murder conviction rates and have remained consistent over the past five years.
NSW's conviction rate in sexual assault matters is equivalent to the national average.
One judge who criticised the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions recorded his "deep level of concern" in December, that it had an unwritten policy or expectation that any allegation of sexual assault should be prosecuted "without a sensible and rational interrogation of that complainant".
While believing the complainant in the case in question gave honest evidence, Judge Robert Newlinds said she had no memory of the events and misunderstood the law.
"There was just no basis for her belief," he said.
The DPP backed its judgment to place before a jury the factual issue, of the woman's capacity to consent while intoxicated.
Ms Dowling later also took the extraordinary step of referring Judge Newlinds to the bench's independent oversight body, the Judicial Commission.
Attorney-General Michael Daley declined to comment, saying it was not his role to provide rolling commentary on matters before the commission.
