71-Year-Old Man Sues NSW Police for False Imprisonment and Malicious Prosecution over William Tyrrell case, awarded $1.4M in damages

Spedding v State of New South Wales [2022] NSWSC 1627 (1 December 2022)

Intro: In this case, William Harrie Spedding was charged with sexual assault allegations. He now claims damages for malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office, collateral abuse of process, and false imprisonment.

Facts:

Mr. Spedding is 71 years of age. In late 2014, Mr. Spedding became a person of interest in relation to an investigation into the disappearance of William Tyrrell from a house in Kendall, a town in New South Wales approximately 35 kilometers southwest of Port Macquarie. At that time, Mr. Spedding was living at Bonny Hills with his wife Margaret Spedding, and her four grandchildren then aged between 15 and 9 years.

On 19 September 2014, Mr. Spedding attended the Port Macquarie Police Station at the request of the police who were investigating the disappearance. He provided them with his diary and work notebook. The police examined his mobile phone as well. Mr. Spedding did not again hear from the police until 20 January 2015.

On 19 January 2015, search warrants were obtained by the police in respect of Mr. Spedding’s home at Wandoo Place, Bonny Hills, and his business premises in Bold Street, Laurieton. At approximately 7 am on the morning of 20 January 2015, Mr. Spedding and his wife were seated on the back verandah of their home at Bonny Hills when their driveway filled up with police cars. Detectives in plain clothes came to their front door. Mr. Spedding opened the garage door and let them in. He was informed that they were looking for William Tyrrell.

The police searched the premises. Mr. Spedding later accompanied the police to his business premises in Bold Street, Laurieton. The following day, crime scene warrants were issued with respect to both premises. Mr. Spedding’s wife was taken to Port Macquarie Police Station to be interviewed. Mr. Spedding was told that he needed to find somewhere else to stay as his home had been declared a crime scene. Detective Sergeant Moynihan said to him: “We want you to come in for an interview to Port Macquarie Police Station.”

Mr. Spedding went to Port Macquarie with Detective Moynihan and Detective Senior Constable King. He was driven in the rear of a police vehicle that had doors that could not be opened by a rear-seat passenger. He was told, “Stay there until we let you out.”

Mr. Spedding was then taken into the custody area of the police station and directed into an interview room. He participated in an electronically recorded interview in relation to the investigation concerning the disappearance of William Tyrrell. That lasted more than six hours. It became apparent to Mr. Spedding that the police considered him to be a suspect upon the basis that William Tyrrell’s foster grandmother had telephoned him on the morning of 12 September 2014 requesting that he attend her house in Kendall in order to repair a broken washing machine. Detective Moynihan said to Mr. Spedding: “We believe that perhaps you may have seen William ... Further to that we believe that you may have grabbed William from the front yard of that address, you may have left that area without anyone knowing ... We of course very much believe it.”

Mr. Spedding found this interrogation difficult and confronting. By the end of the interview, he was very agitated. At the conclusion of the interview, Mr. Spedding was driven to Colin and Julie Youngberry’s house by Detective Moynihan and Constable King. Detective Moynihan shouted at Mr. Spedding during this journey, saying, “We know you did it. We’re going to get you. I’m going to come and arrest you”. Mr. Spedding told them that he had done nothing and that he did not know what they were talking about.

When they arrived, Constable King asked Detective Moynihan, “Are we going to let him out?” Detective Moynihan said, “Yeah, I suppose we have to”. Mr. Spedding left the vehicle feeling “absolutely terrible” and “really stressed”. His legs were shaking and he was hot and sweaty. Constable King himself observed Mr. Spedding to appear “shaken and distressed”.

Mr. Spedding later recalled, in conversation with his wife, that on the morning of William Tyrrell’s disappearance, they had been at the Buzz Café in Laurieton where they had paid for coffee with Mr. Spedding’s Visa Card, following which they attended a school assembly at their grandchildren’s school. After a difficult night’s sleep, Mr. Spedding and his wife drove to Port Macquarie to purchase new mobile phones. When they returned to the Youngberry residence, they observed media vans and reporters to be surrounding the premises. Television cameras were everywhere.

Later that day, on 21 January 2015, Mr. Spedding called Detective Moynihan from the Youngberrys’ home. He told Detective Moynihan that he had bank records from the Buzz Café. He gave Detective Moynihan the details, including the time of the transaction. Detective Moynihan said, “I’m tired of your bullshit and lies. Don’t speak to me again.”

Sometime later, the police learned that Mr. Spedding had been the subject of historical sexual assault allegations. From the Strike Force Progress Report number 4, dated 9 February 2015, of which Detective Inspector Gary Jubelin is the author, it appears that the investigating police may have learned of these allegations as early as 17 September 2014. Detective Moynihan’s e@glei entry on 5 January 2015 indicates that he was aware of the historical sexual assault allegations made against Mr. Spedding at least by that date. In the events that occurred, three of the grandchildren who were living with Mr. Spedding and his wife were removed into the care of Family and Community Services. They were told that this was because of Mr. Spedding’s involvement in the disappearance of William Tyrrell. The grandchildren were never returned to their custody.

On 26 February 2015, Detective Jubelin attended Mr. Spedding’s Bonny Hills premises and requested that he and his wife participate in a “walk-through” interview concerning their movements on the morning of 12 September 2014. The interviews were conducted by Detective Jubelin and Officers King and Brennan.

Two months later, at 1.30pm on 22 April 2015, police officers, including Detectives Jubelin, Brennan, and Moynihan, attended Mr. Spedding’s home and arrested him. Media representatives were present at his home from early that morning. Mr. Spedding and the police officers were filmed and photographed during the arrest. Images and videos of Mr. Spedding and the police were broadcast widely across multiple news outlets throughout Australia.

Mr. Spedding was taken to Port Macquarie Police Station. He was charged in relation to the historical sexual assault allegations concerning Janelle Dalliday and Leonnie Robins. He was refused bail by the police and by the Local Court the following day. Justice Bellew of the Supreme Court granted bail on 19 June 2015. Carriage of the criminal proceedings was taken over by the ODPP by the end of April 2015.

The trial ultimately commenced before Sweeney DCJ on 21 February 2018 but was adjourned on the Crown’s application to 26 February 2018. On 5 March 2018, Mr. Spedding applied for a Prasad direction in relation to Counts 1 to 3 on the indictment concerning Janelle. Mr. Spedding also argued that there was no prima facie case in relation to Counts 4 to 7 on the indictment concerning Leonnie. Sweeney DCJ found Mr. Spedding not guilty on Counts 1 to 3 on the indictment and directed herself to return verdicts of not guilty on Counts 4 to 7 because she was of the view that the evidence was not capable of proving each of the offences beyond reasonable doubt. Mr. Spedding applied for and was awarded costs pursuant to s 2 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967.

Issue:
1) Whether or not there is reasonable or probable cause to institute or maintain the criminal prosecution against Mr Spedding.

Ruling:

No.

I am satisfied that there was no reasonable or probable cause to institute or maintain the criminal prosecution against Mr. Spedding.

The sexual assault allegations against Mr. Spedding arose out of a malignant contest between embittered protagonists in the Family Court in 1987. They were exhaustively explored and considered in that setting by a well-respected and experienced judge. His conclusions were unambiguous. The material to which he made reference made it clear that the allegations of sexual assaults upon Mr. Spedding’s daughters were the result of poisonous attempts by various people to manufacture heinous allegations against Mr. Spedding for a collateral purpose.

I observe immediately that it is no part of a prosecutor’s function to usurp the role of the jury. Prosecutorial discretion does not extend to the making of decisions not to prosecute where there exists good evidence from which a jury might reasonably conclude that an offence has been committed. That includes the fact that the decision of a judge in unrelated proceedings, such as Gee J in the Family Court, is not binding upon putative prosecutors.

However, the material available to the prosecutors in this case, considered as a whole and not in a piecemeal or disconnected manner, supported an overwhelming inference that the allegations of sexual assault upon his daughters against Mr. Spedding were concocted and false and could not be supported. I accept that the question is whether the prosecutor had reasonable and probable cause to do what he did, not whether, regardless of his knowledge or belief, there was reasonable and probable cause for a charge to be laid. In the present case, I am satisfied not only that Detective Brennan and Inspector Jubelin, and thereby the Director of Public Prosecutions, were armed with evidence that did not objectively support the institution or maintenance of the criminal proceedings against Mr. Spedding but also that if they honestly held any such frail belief, they could not have done so, and did not do so, on reasonable grounds.

DECISION

(1) Judgment for the plaintiff for $1,484,292 plus interest on those heads of damage that attract interest.

(2) I direct the parties within 7 days to provide my Associate with a minute of an order calculating interest in accordance with these reasons.

(3) I order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs.