Spedding v State of New South Wales - [2022] NSWSC 1627

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Spedding v State of New South Wales [2022] NSWSC 1627
Hearing dates: 26-29 April, 2-4 May, 17 August 2022
Date of orders: 01 December 2022
Decision date: 01 December 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
(1)  Judgment for the plaintiff for $1,484,292 plus interest on those heads of damage that attract interest.
(2)  Direct the parties within 7 days to provide my Associate with a minute of an order calculating interest in accordance with these reasons.
(3)  Order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs.

Catchwords:
TORTS – malicious prosecution – whether prosecutor acted without reasonable and probable cause – whether prosecutor did not honestly form the view that there were proper cases for prosecution or whether the prosecutor formed that view on an insufficient basis.
TORTS – malicious prosecution – whether prosecutor acted maliciously – whether the sole or dominant purpose of the prosecutor was other than the proper invocation of the criminal law

Legislation Cited:
Bail Act 2013 (NSW), s 18
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), Pt 2, ss 3B, 11, 11A, 16
Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW), s 2
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), Ch 3, Pt 2, Div 1
Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986 (NSW), s 9(4)(a)
Law Reform (Vicarious Liability) Act 1983 (NSW), s 8(1)
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)
Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW), s 7
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 36.7(1)

Cases Cited:
A v New South Wales (2007) 230 CLR 500; [2007] HCA 10
Attorney-General v Niania [1994] 3 NZLR 106 (HC)
Beckett v State of New South Wales [2015] NSWSC 1017
Cornwall v Rowan (2004) 90 SASR 269; [2004] SASC 384
Davis v Gell (1924) 35 CLR 275; [1924] HCA 56
De Reus v Gray (2003) 9 VR 432; [2003] VSCA 84
Ea v Diaconu [2019] NSWSC 795
Ea v Diaconu (2020) 102 NSWLR 351; [2020] NSWCA 127
Edwards v State of New South Wales [2021] NSWSC 181
Gray v Motor Accident Commission (1998) 196 CLR 1; [1998] HCA 70
Haynes by her tutor Karen Lindley v Haynes [2022] NSWSC 581
Lamb v Cotogno (1987) 164 CLR 1; [1987] HCA 47
MBP (SA) Pty Limited v Gogic (1991) 171 CLR 657; [1991] HCA 3
Murray v Commonwealth of Australia (1985) 5 NSWLR 83
New South Wales v Ibbett (2006) 229 CLR 638; [2006] HCA 57
Northern Territory of Australia v Mengel (1995) 185 CLR 307; [1995] HCA 65
Nye v State of New South Wales (2004) AusTorts Reports 81-725; [2003] NSWSC 1212
Rock v Henderson [2021] NSWCA 155
Roman v Commonwealth (2004) 16 NTLR 80; [2004] NTSC 9
Savile v Roberts (1698) 91 ER 1147
State of New South Wales v Abed (2014) 246 A Crim R 549; [2014] NSWCA 419
State of New South Wales v Bouffler (2017) 95 NSWLR 521; [2017] NSWCA 185
State of New South Wales v Cuthbertson (2018) 99 NSWLR 120; [2018] NSWCA 320
State of New South Wales v Ibbett (2005) 65 NSWLR 168; [2005] NSWCA 445
State of New South Wales v Landini [2010] NSWCA 157
State of New South Wales v Quirk [2012] NSWCA 216
State of New South Wales v Riley (2003) 57 NSWLR 496; [2003] NSWCA 208
State of New South Wales v Zreika [2012] NSWCA 37
Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118
Varawa v Howard Smith & Co Ltd (1911) 13 CLR 35; [1911] HCA 46
Walter v Alltools (1944) 61 TLR 39

Texts Cited:
R P Balkin and J L R Davis, The Law of Torts (4th ed, 2009, Butterworths)

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: William Harrie Spedding (Plaintiff)
State of New South Wales (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Canceri with T O’Rourke (Plaintiff)
A Williams with B Searson (Defendant)
Solicitors:
O’Brien Criminal and Civil Solicitors (Plaintiff)
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2019/00289937
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: By his amended statement of claim filed on 21 November 2019, William Harrie Spedding claims damages for malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office, collateral abuse of process and false imprisonment. Those claims arise out of the following facts and circumstances.

Background

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 kilometres south west 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 7am 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 through 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 Jenna 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 Jeannie Dalrymple and Lois Rifkin. 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 offences allegedly committed by Mr Spedding, for which he was arrested, were said to have occurred in 1987 against his stepdaughter Jeannie Dalrymple, then aged six, and his biological daughter Lois Rifkin, then aged three. All offences were said to have been committed on the same night, between 1 March and 30 April 1987, when Mr Spedding had overnight contact with his children. However, no charges were laid by the police as the result of their investigations in 1987.
The allegations arose after access orders had been made by consent in the Local Court at Parramatta in March 1987, and while proceedings were on foot in the Family Court of Australia, concerning the custody of the children of Drake Kruger and India Kruger (Kruger v Kruger). The allegations had been the subject of a police investigation that year and the girls were interviewed by police. Cynthia Heyman, Mr Spedding’s former wife (later Cynthia Kruger), as well as Connie Goldstein, were complaint witnesses in 1987 and in the subsequent District Court trial proceedings. The allegations against Mr Spedding and India Kruger of sexual assault of the Kruger children were litigated as part of the Kruger v Kruger Family Court proceedings between 17 to 21 October 1988 and 10 April to 12 May 1989.
During the Kruger v Kruger proceedings, Mr Spedding, Cynthia Heyman, Connie Goldstein, Drake Kruger and India Kruger gave evidence. Portions of the evidence of these witnesses were available by the time of Mr Spedding’s District Court trial.
Mr Spedding’s legal representatives were served with a copy of the reasons for judgment of Justice Gee in the Family Court dated 17 May 1989 in Kruger v Kruger. Mr Spedding was committed for trial in the District Court, and an indictment was presented on 10 June 2016 in respect of the charges specified in paragraph 37 of the amended statement of claim. Mr Spedding was arraigned on that day and pleaded not guilty. On 7 September 2016, Mr Spedding applied for a permanent stay of the criminal proceedings against him. Huggett DCJ refused that application on 24 February 2017. The matter was listed for trial commencing 8 May 2017. However, that date was vacated and later the proceedings were re-listed on 12 February 2018. Mr Spedding applied for a judge alone trial, which the Crown did not oppose.
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 Jeannie. Mr Spedding also argued that there was no prima facie case in relation to Counts 4 to 7 on the indictment concerning Lois. 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.

Liability

The sexual assault allegations

It is at the heart of Mr Spedding’s claim for damages that the sexual assault allegations that led to his District Court prosecution were in effect a collateral attack upon him in order to facilitate the investigation of him as a suspect in the disappearance of William Tyrrell. It is therefore important to understand the circumstances surrounding the making of those allegations, Mr Spedding’s family background and the relationship between and among various people concerned.
Mr Spedding’s first marriage was to Jenna Spedding. The marriage produced three children: George Spedding, Izzy Spedding and Robin Spedding. Mr Spedding later married Cynthia Heyman on 4 December 1982. Cynthia had two children to her previous husband, Gene Temple: Ross Temple and Jeannie Temple. Mr Spedding’s marriage to Cynthia produced one daughter, Lois, who was born in December 1983. In 1984, Mr Spedding adopted Ross Temple and Jeannie Temple and they took his surname.
In mid-December 1986, Cynthia informed Mr Spedding that their marriage was over, and in the days following she moved from Victoria, where the family were then residing, to her parents' home in Dundas, New South Wales. Cynthia took Ross, Jeannie and Lois with her.
When Mr Spedding and his family were residing in Victoria, they had met and socialised with Drake Kruger and India Kruger. This couple also had three children: Noreen Kruger, Tina Kruger and David Kruger. At the end of December 1986, Drake Kruger left his wife India Kruger, taking his children to reside with Cynthia in Dundas. This prompted India Kruger to commence custody proceedings against Drake Kruger in the Magistrates Court at Ballarat. This was effectively the commencement of the Kruger v Kruger family law proceedings. On 29 January 1987, consent orders were made in the Family Court in Melbourne granting India Kruger sole custody of Noreen Kruger, David Kruger and Tina Kruger, with some access also granted to Drake Kruger.
On 24 February 1987, the Community Services Child Protection Department in Victoria received a notification about the Kruger children being sexually abused by India Kruger. In early March 1987, the Department terminated the investigation on the basis that the allegations of abuse were unsubstantiated. Importantly, on 4 March 1987, orders for access by Mr Spedding to Ross, Jeannie and Lois were made in the Local Court at Parramatta. Mr Spedding was entitled to weekend access to his children every alternate weekend commencing 11 April 1987.
In April 1987, Mr Spedding resided in a caravan parked on the driveway of a house in Lillian Street, Campbelltown, the home of his friends, Les Turner and Sue Turner. Mr Spedding had known the Turners since the early 1970s.
Mr Spedding’s first period of weekend access to Ross, Jeannie and Lois after the making of the orders on 4 March 1987 occurred on 11 April 1987. Mr Spedding and his children slept in the caravan on the Turner property that night.
Sometime around 22 April 1987, following Mr Spedding’s first weekend access visit with the children, Cynthia telephoned him and said words to the effect of "You will not be having any more access with the kids. You molested them". A week later, Lois, then three years of age, was taken to Westmead Children's Hospital. Lois alleged that Mr Spedding had sexually assaulted her. The allegation was made to Jennanne Scott, a social worker at the Hospital. Significantly, Ms Scott spoke with Jeannie who was also present at the Hospital when Lois alleged that she had been sexually assaulted by Mr Spedding. Jeannie denied that she had also been sexually assaulted. On 1 May 1987, Lois was taken back to Westmead Children's Hospital to be examined by Dr Tanya Dus with Ms Scott present. Once again, Ms Scott spoke with Jeannie who did not disclose being sexually assaulted.
Between 1 and 5 May 1987, Jeannie allegedly disclosed to her aunt, Cynthia's sister Connie Goldstein, that she had been sexually assaulted by Mr Spedding. Jeannie was taken to Westmead Children's Hospital on 5 May 1987 where she was interviewed by Ms Scott and examined by Dr Newton. At this time, Jeannie repeated the allegation.
The circumstances in which Jeannie allegedly disclosed to Connie Goldstein that she had been sexually assaulted by Mr Spedding are relied upon by him as of vital importance to the claim for malicious prosecution. The circumstances are addressed in detail later in these reasons.
On 20 May 1987, Mr Spedding was interviewed by Detective Roderick Dayment from Campbelltown Police Station. Mr Spedding agreed that he slept with the children in the caravan but denied the allegations of sexual assault. He was not charged and the investigation was terminated. The Police Incident Report from 1987 states that "Due to the victims’ age, their mother Cynthia Jeannie Spedding was spoken to. She declined to allow her daughters to give evidence in this matter at the present time".
In the Kruger v Kruger Family Court proceedings, Cynthia and Drake Kruger alleged that Mr Spedding and India Kruger were in a relationship. They further alleged that when India Kruger had access to her children, she and Mr Spedding sexually assaulted them.
After a hearing occupying several weeks in the Family Court, in October 1988 and April and May 1989, Gee J of the Family Court of Australia delivered judgment in Kruger v Kruger. His Honour ordered India Kruger to have sole custody of the Kruger children and denied Drake Kruger access. His Honour’s reasons are referred to in more detail below. However, his Honour was scathing in his assessment of the credibility of Cynthia and Connie Goldstein. His Honour found that Cynthia and Connie Goldstein had tutored the Kruger children to make allegations of sexual abuse against Mr Spedding and India Kruger. His Honour also found that the household of the Kruger and Spedding children was one in which allegations of sexual assault of the Kruger and Spedding children by Mr Spedding were much discussed. His Honour further found that there was a special relationship between Connie Goldstein and the Kruger children, and between Connie Goldstein and Jeannie, to the extent that if the children told her “the right thing” they would be cured of germs.

The criminal proceedings

In summary, it was alleged against Mr Spedding that between 1 March 1987 and 30 April 1987, whilst Ross, Jeannie and Lois were inside the caravan on the Turner property at Campbelltown, he:

Sexually assaulted Jeannie by digitally penetrating her vagina while lying on top of her (sequence 1 in the Court Attendance Notice);
Assaulted Jeannie when she resisted (sequence 2 in the Court Attendance Notice);
Digitally penetrated Lois's vagina (sequence 3 in the Court Attendance Notice);
Digitally penetrated Lois's anus (sequence 4 in the Court Attendance Notice);
Penetrated Lois's vagina with his penis (sequence 5 in the Court Attendance Notice);
Penetrated Lois's anus with his penis (sequence 6 in the Court Attendance Notice);
Assaulted Lois (sequence 7 in the Court Attendance Notice).

There were changes to these charges whilst the matter proceeded through the District Court. The indictment ultimately presented to the District Court at the commencement of Mr Spedding’s trial contained seven charges. The allegations supporting the charges in the indictment were described in the Crown Case Statement in the following terms:

"Inside the Caravan the two girls stayed in a bed with the accused and Ross slept in a separate bed. During the night it is alleged six year old Jeannie was woken by the accused inserting his fingers into her vagina while laying on top of her. Count 1 - sexual intercourse with a child under 10 pursuant to section 66A of the Crimes Act 1900, alt. Count 2 indecent assault section 66E(1A). This was not an isolated occurrence. Jeannie alleges she was subjected to ongoing sexual abuse in Victoria prior to this. On this occasion the assault only lasted briefly as Jeannie resisted the accused by kicking her legs and screaming out. Jeannie next either hit the wall or floor after being pushed aside by the accused. Count 3: Common assault pursuant to section 61 of the Crimes Act 1900.
It is alleged that after pushing Jeannie aside the accused assaulted three year old Lois. Jeannie hearing Lois screaming. It is alleged the accused penetrated both her vagina and anus with his penis and digitally penetrated her vagina. Counts 4, 5 and 7 sexual intercourse with a child under 10 pursuant to section 66A of the Crimes Act 1900 with Count 6 indecent assault section 66E(1A) as alt. to Count 5. During the assault it is alleged that the accused hit Lois to the head. Count 8: Assault pursuant to section 61 of the Crimes Act 1900."

The Family Court decision

Although the views and findings expressed by Gee J in his 17 May 1989 judgment in Kruger v Kruger are in no sense determinative of the issues raised in the present proceedings, the subject matter and comprehensive analysis exposed in his Honour’s detailed reasons reveal a significant forensically valuable historical analysis of the primary material that would appear ultimately to have inspired the criminal case against Mr Spedding. It is in effect the first critical consideration of the metaphorical Petri dish from which Mr Spedding’s charges emerged. It is therefore instructive to take some time to refer to it now. That is particularly so having regard to the fact that it was material that was in the hands of the prosecution from as early as 20 January 2015, when a copy of his Honour’s judgment was seized by police during the execution of the search warrant at Mr Spedding’s business premises at Laurieton on that date, and some time before the proceedings terminated favourably to Mr Spedding.
The proceedings related to the custody of the three children Noreen, David and Tina Kruger, whose parents were Drake Kruger and India Kruger. Drake Kruger was, by the time of these Family Court proceedings, married to Cynthia Jeannie Heyman-Temple-Spedding-Kruger (as his Honour described her), in whose custody the children then were. Drake Kruger and Cynthia Heyman alleged that the children had been sexually abused by India Kruger and Mr Spedding.
His Honour described India Kruger’ case as follows:

“Substantially the wife’s case is that, insofar as these allegations have any substance, they have come about as a combination of many circumstances being a determination of an implacable kind by Cynthia and the husband assisted by Connie Goldstein, her sister, and to a less extent by Mrs Heyman, her mother, to implant into the minds of the Kruger children that they had been sexually abused. This has been orchestrated by their continued presence in the home of the husband and Cynthia in association with her children as a result of cross-fertilisation between them and in which course of action the husband has been a knowing and willing participant.
It is alleged on the wife’s behalf that the environment of intrigue thus created was such that the children said what they said, not only to play their parents off against each other because of an intense loyalty conflict, but to appease the authority figures in their home, and that they were compounded further by the activities of Cynthia’s brother, Jerry Heyman, insofar as those activities may have contributed to the climate of construing any innocent action between a parent and child as having a sexual connotation and a sinister one.
Certain it is that if the allegations are true they are of a monstrous kind. Certain it is that if they have been made as a result of a combination of the circumstances I have described, those circumstances are remarkable but, as will be apparent from my reasons for judgment, that is precisely this case.
…
During the course of January 1987, while the Kruger children were at the Heyman home at Dundas, one Jerry Heyman took Lois and David to the toilet. He is the brother of Cynthia and was convicted on 2 February 1982 of abducting a five year old girl and was also convicted of an act of indecency and was thereafter imprisoned. His main problem is a sexual attraction to girls. The incident above referred to occurred while he was at the home on parole.
…
The wife denied the allegations of breast licking and the allegations of neglect. These had been raised by the husband in his affidavits filed in February 1987 in the Victorian custody proceedings. Both social workers were of opinion that there were no indications of any sexual abuse occurring in the children’s relationship with their mother. To their observation she demonstrated love for her children and both believe the children were not suffering abuse at her hands.
…
On 4 March 1987 orders for access by Bill Spedding to Ross, Jeannie and Lois were made in the Local Court at Parramatta …
…
On 29 March 1987 Bill Spedding had access to his three children until 5pm. He arranged to have weekend access to his children every second weekend, to commence on Saturday, 11 April 1987, and had access to them overnight from 11 April to 5.30pm on Sunday, 12 April 1987.
…
In April 1987 Cynthia asserted that her daughters Jeannie and Lois had informed her that they had been sexually abused by Bill Spedding. On 22 April 1987 Bill Spedding received a phone call from Cynthia stating there would be no access on the weekend of 25 and 26 April 1987 and alleged that Bill had sexually molested the children.
Thereafter Bill Spedding had no access to those children and paid no maintenance in respect of them.
Mrs Edna Heyman, the mother of Cynthia Spedding, alleged that on 25 April 1987 she had a discussion with Lois and she was damp in her pants and had complained of stinging when urinating. She cried that her body was hurting and according to Mrs Heyman her labius [sic] appeared to be purple, and seemed to be badly bruised. Lois complained that Bill Spedding did it by sticking his fingers in her little botty.
Connie Goldstein, Cynthia’s sister, filed an affidavit in the Spedding proceedings, stating that she had a conversation with Jeannie about germs in which Jeannie alleged Bill Spedding touched her with his diddle in the front and in the back. She alleged he had taken her clothes off and done things to her, described an action which involved her being pulled onto Bill Spedding’s penis, according to Mrs Goldstein. Cynthia herself purported to corroborate what her mother had said.
…
On 20 May 1987 Bill Spedding was interviewed by the police in relation to the allegation that he had sexually molested Jeannie and Lois. He denied these allegations, both in the statement and in his oral evidence before me.
…
On 22 August 1987 Bill Spedding moved into 13 Dorrit Way, Ambervale, to live in a de facto relationship with Margaret Myers, with whom he still resides.
…
On 8 June 1988 the husband and wife were divorced, as were Bill Spedding and Cynthia. On 11 September 1988 the husband married Cynthia.
…
In considering an allegation of sexual abuse, the Court should not make a positive finding that the allegation is true unless the court is so satisfied according to the civil standard of proof and due regard to the factors mentioned in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 at page 362. There, Dixon J (as Dixon CJ then was) said:
‘The seriousness of an allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an allegation of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding are considerations which much affect the answer to the question whether the issue has been proved to the satisfaction of the tribunal. In such matters ‘reasonable satisfaction’ should not be produced by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony or indirect inferences.’

These remarks have direct application to an allegation that a parent has sexually abused a child. In some cases the Court will be able to come to a positive finding that the allegation is well founded. In some cases the Court will have no hesitation in rejecting the allegations as groundless.
…
To reach a conclusion in favour of the wife on this issue in the present case I would need to be reasonably satisfied that the wife has not sexually abused the children before I could conclude, in relation to that issue, that she should have custody to the children; for otherwise for her to have custody would expose them to an unacceptable risk of child abuse at her hands and/or the hands of Bill Spedding.
I would also have to take into account among other issues, if I was in favour of the wife on that issue, that the children believe that they have been sexually abused by her in concert with Bill Spedding, and also take into account the fact that they have been integrated into the Kruger new household for a considerable period of time.
…
Mr Trench, on behalf of the husband, submitted that there were nine possible scenarios in this case. Firstly, that the wife and Bill Spedding in conjunction, collectively or individually abused the children. Secondly, that the wife by herself sexually abused the children. Thirdly, that the wife and Bill Spedding sexually abused the children unbeknown to each other. Fourthly, that the wife and another male sexually abused the children. Fifthly, that another India did it. Sixthly, that no one sexually abused the children. Seventhly, that Cynthia and/or the husband sexually abused the children. Eighthly, that it was done by Jerry Heyman. Ninthly, that it was done by the wife, Bill Spedding, the husband and Cynthia.
…
The conduct of Cynthia can only be described as obsessive, compulsive and bizarre. She is the mistress of the Kruger household-fortress and the husband has become absorbed into that fortress. Thus he became obsessed and remains obsessed with her capacity, with which she remains obsessed, to construe any innocent remark by a child and any innocent action by a person or persons, including the wife, towards a child as having sinister consequences.
It is apparent upon the evidence that both Cynthia and the husband gave to the Kruger children very clear and explicit warnings that Bill Spedding was a bad man and would do bad things to them. Cynthia had shown photographs of Bill to the children and asked them to confirm he was the man staying in the wife’s house. That was done repeatedly during 1987 and both Cynthia and the husband got the children to agree he was the man with their mummy. He said Cynthia told him of these matters and he made no inquiries himself.
It is clear that by the end of 1987, on his own admission, that his children were abundantly aware of the things Bill Spedding was alleged to have done to the Spedding children and that they were similar to the sort of things alleged to have been done to the Kruger children. It is clear upon the evidence that his children were present on many occasions when Cynthia also gave to them warnings of what Bill Spedding had done to the Spedding children. He said the remarks were that Bill Spedding had done naughty things to his children, but having regard to particularly the evidence of Connie Goldstein, I suspect, and find, that the remarks were much more specific than that.
I have no doubt that in the Kruger new household there were discussions in the presence of the Spedding and Kruger children without any concern as to what they might hear, what they might imagine, and what they might dream up or dream about in conversation between themselves. There was undoubtedly discussion of the specific allegations made against Bill Spedding, discussion of their suspicions concerning their own children, discussion concerning what they, namely Cynthia and the husband, imagined was being done to the Kruger children.
It is clear that both the husband and Cynthia were concerned to impress on the Kruger children that Bill Spedding was a dangerous man and should not be doing naughty things to them, that it in some way involved him touching their private parts, that they must be careful when he was around, that he was a naughty man who did bad things to little children, that their mummy was naughty in letting him come into the house, and that they should be careful when she let him come into the house.
…
Further, it is apparent upon the evidence that the husband and Cynthia set out deliberately to make Cynthia the children’s mother so that she became their mother and so that the children’s mother in fact became simply ‘India’ and called her ‘dragon lady’ and ‘monster dragon lady’. Further, I have no doubt whatever and find that Cynthia was prepared to say anything that would fulfil this end and bring it to consummation.
Her evidence contained inconsistencies within itself so numerous that I cannot take the time now to refer to them. One in particular I may draw attention to is the fact that she told Judy Houston that she and Bill Spedding had separated in August 1986 when it is plainly apparent that it was later. Further, there is not only her own unhealthy concern for construing innocent matters as having sexual overtones but there is evidence of an over-active imagination taking instances of similar conduct in one place and relocating them in the other.
…
I am sure insofar as it was tutoring that Cynthia and Connie were more than equal to the task of sustaining a high degree of ‘tutoring’. These children were brought to expect the kind of behaviour alleged against the wife and Bill Spedding, they learnt about explicit sexual behaviour because the behaviour was constantly discussed in the home. Children in the second Kruger household, including the Kruger children, learnt more about the interrogators when they were discussing the matters expected. They learnt what adults including the husband and Connie and Cynthia expected from them and wanted of them.
…
Professor Brent Waters himself agreed that it was possible for allegations to be not only false or malicious but evolved over a period of interrogation precipitated by innocent incidents. He agreed there was a possibility of cross-fertilisation of ideas between the step-siblings on the Spedding side with whom the Kruger children have resided for so long. Children can say what their parents and others want to hear. Children in a conflict of loyalties situation can shift their ground, and an ex-spouse or others close to them expecting and wishing the worst can suggest things that are not there or build up what were small things with suggestive interviewing technique and spontaneous imaginative reconstruction into a falsification and contamination rather than clarification of children’s memory.
…
I am not only not reasonably satisfied that the children [sic, wife] and/or Bill Spedding sexually abused her own children but I am reasonably satisfied that the wife and Bill Spedding have not sexually abused the said children.
I bear in mind in reaching that conclusion the nature of the allegations made. I bear in mind the necessity to be reasonably satisfied that they have not been established. I have borne in mind the cautionary words of Sir Owen Dixon in the passage from Briginshaw v Briginshaw (supra) to which I have referred. However, after a careful examination of the evidence in the way that I have described, I have found that I am reasonably satisfied that they have not been established.”

Mr Spedding obviously places considerable emphasis upon the availability and content of this material as informing the question of whether or not the institution and maintenance of the criminal proceedings against him occurred without reasonable and probable cause and maliciously.

Mr Spedding’s evidence

Mr Spedding’s evidence-in-chief was given in an affidavit sworn by him on 1 July 2020. It is largely uncontroversial so far as his recitation of the events surrounding his arrest and prosecution are concerned. His version of what occurred is largely agreed and is reflected in the outline contained earlier in these reasons. However, the conversations that he had with arresting police are not accepted in full by the State, and those portions of Mr Spedding’s statement that record those conversations must be included in these reasons. They are as follows. First at the Bonny Hills premises on the morning of the police raid:

“28. The detectives approached the door and were demanding entry. The front door was a deadbolt that I had to unlock with a key, so I walked to the garage and opened the electric garage door to allow the detectives entry.
29.When I opened the garage door, there were approximately six male detectives wearing plain clothes that entered and approached me.
30. One of the officers had in his hand a piece of paper. He indicated to it and stated words to the effect ‘we have here a search warrant to search the premises for William Tyrrell … you are not allowed to hinder or obstruct us in any way … we are going to search the premises’.
31. He handed me the piece of paper and I said words to the effect of ‘I’ll escort you inside’.
…
35. One of the detectives asked me a question to the effect ‘may we have the keys to your office at ** Bold Street and the keys to any locked cabinets down there?’ I maintained an office there, from which I conducted my business. I located and provided the keys to three to four locked cabinets in the office at ** Bold Street Laurieton.
36. One of the detectives said to me words to the effect ‘you’ll need to come with us and open everything at the office’. I followed the detectives out of my property and I was conveyed down to my office at Bold Street Laurieton in an unmarked detectives vehicle. In the vehicle was an officer that I came to know as Detective Sergeant Moynihan, and another officer. I believe that we attended the office in Laurieton at approximately 9am.
37. Once we arrived at the office in Laurieton, I opened the office and opened the various safes and locked cabinets within the office. I had three computers in a row on the office bench and a number of laptops. One of the officers asked me a question to the effect of ‘what are all the laptops for?’ I replied with words to the effect ‘the kids come in the afternoons after school and play their computer games’.
38. An officer then said to me words to the effect ‘we will take you back to the house now’. I was conveyed back to my house in Bonny Hills again in the unmarked police car by Detective Sergeant Moynihan and another officer.

39. When [we] arrived back at the house, an officer informed me words to the effect ‘we’ve declared this as a crime scene. You need to find somewhere else to stay and for the children’.
…
45. I had a number of interactions with different officers during the search. One had approached me and said words to the effect ‘we are going to search under the house’.
46. Another police officer came and asked for some tools to search the woodpile down the back of the property. The woodpile was about 50 yards south-east of the house. I said to the police officer words to the effect ‘you will need more than tools to pull that apart. The landlord has put very big logs down there’.
…
51. I had not finished packing the bag when I was approached and told by Detective Sergeant Moynihan words to the effect of ‘we want you to come in for an interview to Port Macquarie Police Station’.
52. As the police had told me I had to go, I did not feel like I had the option to refuse them. It was not put to me as a question or a request. However, I did not know I was a suspect at this time. No police officer had informed me that I was a person of interest or a suspect before this time. I replied with words to the effect of ‘oh, alright, not a problem’.
53. I was directed towards one of the unmarked police vehicles and complied. I was taken from the house to Port Macquarie Police Station in that vehicle, which was an unmarked Holden sedan. Detective Sergeant Moynihan and Detective Senior Constable King were in the front seats of the sedan and I was seated alone in the backseat.
54. During the drive to Port Macquarie, Detective Senior Constable King asked me a question to the effect ‘do you know any paedophiles?’ I thought about it and replied with words to the effect ‘There are only two that I know of. I know him as Ronald Morgan. The other one is Bradley Facey’. One of the detectives said, ‘What about Jerry?’ I replied with words to the effect ‘Jerry who?’ One of them replied ‘Jerry Heyman’. I understood Jerry Heyman to be a reference to Cynthia Heyman’s brother. I said words to the effect of ‘He’s been in gaol for years’.
55. One of the officers began asking me questions with words to the effect of ‘How often did you see him?’ and ‘Did he work for you?’ I became confused as there was another Jerry that had worked for me and I did not know which one they were referring to, as Jerry Heyman had never worked for me.
56. By this time we were driving in the 100km/hr zone into Port Macquarie and I was struggling to hear what was being asked of me over the road noise. I said words to the effect ‘I can’t hear what you are saying, you’ll have to ask me when we get out of the car’. Nothing more was said until we got to Port Macquarie Police Station.
57. When the vehicle arrived at Port Macquarie Police Station, it drove through the back gate of the secure police car park at the back of the station. When it stopped, I tried to open the door and I was unable to open it. One of the detectives said to me words to the effect ‘stay there, we need to let you out’ or ‘stay there until we let you out’.
58. I then observed the detectives check their pistols into the lockers and I was taken into the police station through one of the back doors. I was taken through and into what I later found out was the custody area of the police station and down a short hallway.
59. In the hallway, a door was opened and I was directed to enter an interview room. I was given a cup of water and everyone sat down. One of the detectives then said words to the effect ‘You do not have to say anything’ or ‘You are not obliged to participate in an interview’.
…
63. The interview went for approximately six hours and eight minutes.
…
67. By the time that the interview ended, it appeared to me as if Detective Sergeant Moynihan had increased in his aggression towards me. I was escorted out, the way I had come, to the same vehicle. I had no concept of what time of night it was.
…
69. Whilst I was still seated in the back of the vehicle, Detective Sergeant Moynihan turned around and shouted, in what I felt to be a very angry tone, words to the effect of ‘We know you did it. We’re going to get you. I’m going to come and arrest you.’
70. I replied ‘I haven’t done anything. What are you talking about?’
71. When we arrived at Colin and Jenna’s house and the vehicle stopped, Detective Senior Constable King said words to the effect of ‘Are we going to let him out?’
72. Detective Sergeant Moynihan said words to the effect of ‘Yeah, I suppose we have to’.
73. Once I got out of the vehicle, I was shaking and really stressed out. I felt absolutely terrible, my legs were shaking, I was hot and sweaty. I was really, really stressed.”

Mr Spedding’s affidavit then dealt with events a little later:

“85. That same day on 21 January 2015, I cannot recall what time, I called Detective Sergeant Moynihan on Colin’s phone. I said to him words to the effect ‘We have got the bank records from the Café Buzz coffee shop’. I also informed him of the time on the transaction and words to the effect ‘I believe the missing call from my mobile went to my answering service’.
86. He replied to me words to the effect ‘I’m tired of your bullshit and lies. Don’t speak to me again’. I hung up the phone.
87. I was completely shocked. There was no attempt to obtain my cooperation and even though I had the evidence that corroborated my alibi, he would not speak to me about it. As a result, I thought I’m not ringing or speaking to the police again.”

Mr Spedding’s evidence concerning the circumstances of his apprehension and arrest on 22 April 2015 needs to be recorded in full:

“98. Following the Search Warrant but prior to my arrest, Detective Inspector Jubelin attended my property at ** Wandoo Place Bonny Hills, accompanied by another detective. He had an object in his hand in a plastic bag. He identified the object to me with words to the effect of, ‘This is the Spiderman toy from your van’. He then asked me a question to the effect ‘Did you use this to lure William into your van?’ I replied with words to the effect ‘No, we’ve had that in the van for years. I had forgotten that it was there’. He asked me a question to the effect ‘will we find William’s DNA on this?’ I replied with words to the effect ‘No, it will be my DNA and also from many of our boys, most likely Bob, because it’s his toy. It has been there since around 2006 when the van was brand new’. Detective Inspector Jubelin appeared to be disappointed. He and the other detective then departed our property. I was later informed and verily believe that Bob was interviewed by police in regard to the background of the Spiderman toy.
99. On the morning of 22 April 2015, on or around 6am, Margaret put the blinds up in the morning and we could see a lot of media personnel everywhere. I observed that there were cars parked all over the road visible from our house.
100. I turned to Margaret and said words to the effect that ‘There’s something going on. It looks like these guys have been here since daylight, and they’ve got the cameras pointing at us’.
101. That morning, I had to drop pre-arranged paperwork off into Port Macquarie at around 10am. On the drive there and back, I was followed by a string of media vehicles. When I returned home, the media was still all camped outside of the house and remained there.
102. Around about 2pm, a number of unmarked police cars pulled into our driveway at the front of the property. I observed Detective Inspector Jubelin and another officer exit the first car. I also observed Detective Sergeant Moynihan outside.
103. I called a solicitor, Mr Jeremy Brigden, from Port Macquarie and I received advice from him. He advised me of my right to silence.
104. Whilst I was on the phone to Mr Brigden, I observed that Margaret had opened the door and Detective Inspector Jubelin was approaching me. He said to me words to the effect ‘I am arresting you for historical sexual assault’. I replied with words to the effect ‘I have just got the solicitor on the phone’. He said to me ‘I don’t care what fucking cunt you have on the phone’. As a result, I handed the phone to Margaret and I submitted to the arrest process with Detective Inspector Jubelin.
105. I was told by Detective Inspector Jubelin words to the effect of ‘empty your pockets’, which I did. I handed my keys and phone to Margaret. I handed the rest of the contents of my pockets to Detective Inspector Jubelin. I was allowed to keep my wallet.
106. Detective Inspector Jubelin stated words to the effect ‘We are not going to handcuff you. You aren’t going to run away are you?’ I replied with words to the effect ‘No, I’ll behave’.
107. I was then escorted to an unmarked police vehicle. There were two detectives in the front seats. I was seated in the back with another detective seated next to me. One of the detectives in the vehicle was Detective Sergeant Moynihan. I cannot recall where in the vehicle he was seated.
108. The media approached the car and I could see photographers taking photos through the car window of me.
109. During the drive to Port Macquarie Police Station, Detective Sergeant Moynihan said to me words to the effect ‘I told you I was going to arrest you, didn’t I?’
110. The vehicle was driven to Port Macquarie Police Station by a different route to the one that I had been taken on during the day of 20 January 2015. When the car arrived at Port Macquarie Police Station, one of the detectives had made a phone call for the security gate to be opened. The gate was already opened when we arrived and a uniformed officer immediately closed the gate behind us.
111. The vehicle pulled up at the back of the police station. The detectives checked in their weapons and then I was let out of the car.
112. I was taken through the rear entry door to the custody area. I was introduced to the Custody Sergeant. I cannot recall the name of the Custody Sergeant.
113. First, I was put in a holding cell. Then I was taken back to the Custody Sergeant where I was formally charged for the allegations from 1987. I was then fingerprinted and photographed.
114. I was also strip searched by two police officers. I do not recall their names.
115. I am aware that the Custody Management Record from 22 April 2015 states that I spoke to a solicitor from the Aboriginal Legal Service by phone, however, I do not have a memory of speaking to a solicitor aside from Mr Brigden.
116. I was later taken to the interview room. When I arrived at the door, the door to the interview room was held open. I said to Detective Senior Constable Brennan and Detective Senior Constable King words to the effect ‘I’m not doing an interview’. Detective Senior Constable King said, ‘C’mon Bill don’t make this hard on yourself, we want to do the interview.’
117. I then entered the interview room at their insistence.
118. Once I was seated in the interview room with Detective Senior Constable Brennan and Detective Sergeant Moynihan, Detective Senior Constable Brennan began asking me questions.
119. I told Detective Senior Constable Brennan words to the effect of ‘I believe I was compelled to come into this room. I do not want to be here. I do not want to make any statements whatsoever.’
120. I also said words to the effect ‘I wish to leave now’.
121. I further said words to the effect ‘My legal advice is not to come into this room, not to conduct an interview’.
122. I stated again words to the effect of ‘I wish to leave the room now’.
123. When the interview tape was stopped, no independent officer came into the interview room to ask me any questions about the interview, as they had done on 20 January 2015.
124. That whole interview was over very quickly.
125. I can recall that after the interview, I was left alone in the interview room with another officer whose name I do not know, for a period of time. We did not speak during this time, however he escorted me to the bathroom at my request before returning me to the interview room.
126. After a period of time, Detective Inspector Jubelin came into the interview room. I recall there being four officers present including Detective Inspector Jubelin, Detective Sergeant Moynihan and Detective Senior Constable King. I cannot recall who the other detective was.
127. I was then questioned by Detective Inspector Jubelin for what felt like a long period of time. Occasionally questions would be asked by the other officers present.
128. The questioning during this interview was primarily concerned with the William Tyrrell investigation. However, I do recall some questions being asked in regard to the allegations of historical sexual assault.
129. I did not feel as if I had any choice other than to attempt to answer their questions.
130. To my knowledge this interview was not recorded. In hindsight, unlike the first two interviews, I wasn’t told that it was going to be recorded and I did not observe any of the detectives putting 3 discs into the machine as they had in the other interviews.
131. I only recall some specific questions that were asked of me.
132. The only interaction I can recall with Detective Inspector King during this time was him informing me words to the effect ‘we have the CCTV footage from the picture theatre facing the school from the morning of 12 September 2014 and there is no footage of you and Margaret walking across to the school from the Café’.
133. During the interview, Detective Inspector Jubelin repeatedly asked me questions to the effect of ‘how would you dispose of a body?’ I repeatedly replied with words to the effect ‘I have never had need to do so’.
134. Also during the interview, Detective Inspector Jubelin said to me words to the effect ‘Mr Nice-Washing-Machine-Man’, I am going to ruin you’. As he said this, he leaned towards me and put his face close to mine. It was very intimidating.
135. He also stated to me during the interview words to the effect ‘I’ve got a deal with the papers. Whenever they talk about William Tyrrell, your name’s going to come up as well, and, when they’re talking about you, William Tyrrell’s name is going to come up’. He waved his right hand when talking about William Tyrrell, then waved his left hand when he was talking about me, then waved his left hand when he was talking about me, again, then again waved his right hand when he was talking about William Tyrrell, to make this point.
136. In regard to the historical sexual assault allegations, I remember stating to Detective Inspector Jubelin words to the effect ‘the Family Court proved that Cynthia coerced the children, I was completely cleared’.
137. In response to this statement, all the detectives present laughed loudly and what appeared to be sarcastically, as if what I had said was ludicrous.
138. I remember Detective Inspector Jubelin had a histogram which appeared similar to the one that I recalled Cynthia had generated in the Kruger v Kruger trial, as it depicted India Kruger and I as a couple, which was never the case. I could see the histogram, however I was not allowed to hold it or take a closer look at it.
139. I further recall Detective Inspector Jubelin saying words to the effect of ‘the whole of the New South Wales Police Force, backed by the New South Wales Government, is behind this investigation, and also the Victorian Strike Force, we will find out everything that you have done. You have been one step ahead of the law and now we are going to put you away.’ I cannot remember the name of the Victorian Strike Force that Detective Inspector Jubelin used.
140. I can also recall Detective Inspector Jubelin saying words to the effect of ‘we are going to put you away for 30 years’.
141. During the interview, Detective Inspector Jubelin’s demeanour appeared to me to be angry, aggressive and intimidating.
142. I was kept in the interview room for what felt like hours. I am not aware of the length of time that I was in the interview room being questioned.
143. After the interview, I was taken to a person who I believe was the corrective services officer at the police station, where I was strip searched again.
144. Shortly after going into the custody of what I believe was Corrective Services at Port Macquarie Police Station, my then solicitor, Mr Brigden came to see me. I signed a power of attorney with him. After Mr Brigden left, Margaret came to see me.
145. The next day, I was taken to Port Macquarie Local Court and I was refused bail by the Presiding Magistrate.
145. After the Magistrate in the Local Court denied me bail, I was kept in Port Macquarie Police Station for approximately a week.
147. After about a week, I was transported to Kempsey Correctional Centre. However, I was informed and verily believe that Kempsey declined to receive me, as I was not taken out of the transport vehicle and into the Centre, and I was then transported back to Port Macquarie Police Station for a further few days.
148. Whilst I was at Port Macquarie Police Station in the custody of Corrective Services, I was kept in solitary confinement. A corrective services officer removed the additional bedding from the cell and at that time I was informed by the corrective services officer words to the effect ‘We are not allowed to put anyone else in with you’.”

Malicious prosecution

Mr Spedding contends that his prosecution on the historical child sexual assault charges was commenced and maintained without reasonable or probable cause and maliciously. The following material is marshalled by him in support of that contention.
Eleven days prior to his arrest on 22 April 2015, Detective Inspector Gary Jubelin prepared a document (Exhibit E) entitled Strike Force Rosann Proposed Operational Phase. It is a document described by counsel for Mr Spedding as “dripping with malice”. It purports to identify Mr Spedding as a person of interest in the disappearance of William Tyrrell by reference to Mr Spedding’s “involvement” in the historical child sexual offences dealt with, and discredited by, Gee J in 1987. Despite its length, but having regard to its significance in Mr Spedding’s case, it is necessary to include the following important extracts:

“STRIKE FORCE ROSANN PROPOSED OPERATIONAL PHASE
‘Confidential document – Public Interest Immunity Claim’
This document is an informal document that has been created as a guideline only to upcoming operations and strategies relating to capturing evidence against William Spedding’s possible involvement in Tyrrell’s abduction. Where required specific operational orders will be prepared for tasks identified in this document.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
William Tyrrell, 3 years old disappeared from his grandmother’s home at ** Benaroon Drive, Kendall about 10.30am on Friday 12/9/14. An extensive search of the surrounding bushland and properties failed to locate Tyrrell. Police have now formed the view that Tyrrell was abducted.
A person of interest William Spedding, 63 years old has been identified as a suspect. The suspicion attached to Spedding stems from the following:
• Spedding had contact with the Tyrell family in his capacity as a washing machine mechanic. On the morning of Tyrell’s disappearance his foster mother, left a message on Spedding’s phone requesting he attend that day to complete his repairs of their washing machine. Checks show that Spedding retrieved that message in the morning. He did not return the call, but manually deleted the call from his phone. (no other calls were deleted).
• When interviewed by police Spedding claimed he had attended a school assembly at Laurieton that morning to see his grandson get an award. This alibi has been vigorously investigated. All adults who attended the assembly have been identified and interviewed by way of detailed statement. No person at the assembly recalls seeing William Spedding at the assembly. Two people who Spedding claims to have spoken to whilst at the assembly, deny doing so. His grandson who received the award was interviewed by Child Protection Police and claims he recalls his grandmother there, but not his grandfather. The only person who supports Spedding being at the assembly is his wife and her credibility is questionable in regards to her account of the situation.

• Spedding has kept a spider man toy in a prominent location in his work vehicle months after being interviewed by police in regards to his possible abduction of a child wearing a spider man outfit. Spedding claims this toy belonged to one of his grandchildren. This version has been supported by certain family members. However it appears there been some coaching and collaboration in their responses.
• Evidence available to police indicate that despite the fact no convictions have been recorded, Spedding is a paedophile. Police are in possession of substantial evidence, including statements and medical evidence which indicate Spedding has been sexual assaulting numerous children, including his daughter when she was just 3 years old.
• Spedding is a member of Grandparents Acting as Parents (GAPA) which on initial investigation appears to be linked to a group adults involved in paedophilic activities.
• Although not evidence Spedding’s behaviour during the course of this investigation can only be best described as unusual. This includes posting pictures of Tyrrell on his Facebook site.
PHASE 1: PREPARATION PHASE (to be completed by 17/4/15)
i. Gather evidence against William Spedding in regards to the historical sexual assaults of his daughters, Leonie [sic] and Jeannie. This includes obtaining statements and records sufficient to compile a brief of evidence.
ii. Compile the brief with a view to charging Spedding with four offences. Two offences relate to his then 3 year old daughter Leonie [sic] and two offences relating to his 6 year old daughter Jeannie.
iii. The brief should include a comprehensive set of facts which outlines reasons for which bail should be refused.
…
xvii. Speak to Anthony Jones, (sex offender, prisoner and member of GAPA) re his knowledge of Spedding and his willingness to cooperate with police.
…
PHASE 2: MEDIA RELEASE – FRIDAY 17/4/15
The release of the first media interview given by the parents of William Tyrrell will be released early Friday morning. This will be followed by a Media Conference held at Police Headquarters with Detective Superintendent Willing addressing the media about the status of the investigation, this will include reference to the fact investigators are exploring a line of inquiry relating the activities of suspected paedophiles. It is anticipated this will attract intense and wide ranging interest from the media. It is likely there will be further requests for interviews following the conference, which will be considered on an individual basis.
The purpose of the media release is to generate discussion by possible targets, appeal to the public for further information and also be it remote encourage any person who might have William to return him.
PHASE 3: ELECTRONIC & PHYSICAL SURVEILLANCE
It is anticipated the media attention will generate discussion by Spedding, who may also attempt to meet up with people he feels are sympathetic towards him. LD’s, TI’s and physical surveillance will be utilised to capture this activity. We are also seeking photographs from surveillance police of persons who meet with Spedding during this period. These photographs will be used in Phase 6.
PHASE 4: INTERVIEW WILLIAM & MARGARET SPEDDING – 20/4/15
This will involve Detective Inspector Jubelin and Detective Senior Constable King speaking to Bill Spedding whilst wearing a body wire. The conversation will be done under caution and will focus mainly on his alibi evidence relating to the school assembly.
Speak to Margaret Spedding this will be done away from William Spedding. The purpose of this interview will be to point out to her that all the evidence we have gathered indicates Bill was not at the assembly and therefore she is being untruthful. Discussion will also be had concern the parents appeal for William’s safe return. It is anticipated these interviews will potentially generate discussion between Margaret and Bill. It might also get Margaret to acknowledge she was lying about claiming Bill was with her at the assembly.
PHASE 5: ARREST SPEDDING RE SEXUAL ASSUALTS [sic] – 22/4/15
This involves arresting Spedding, interviewing and charging him in regards to the sexual assaults of his daughters. A search warrant will also be executed on his home in regards to photographs, documents relating to the sexual assaults. Margaret Spedding will also be interviewed about her knowledge of Bill’s paedophile activities.
NB: Prior to the arrest we need to notify foster parents, biological mother and FACS.
It is most likely this arrest will attract significant media interest we need to have a strategy in place to deal with this. It should be noted the more attention to this the greater the impact we can have in regards to Phase 6.
If Bail Refused: Attempts will be made to conduct a covert operation to obtain a confession from Spedding in regards to Tyrrell.
PHASE 6: INTERVIEW GAPA MEMBERS & ASSOCIATES
(timings to be determined possibly commencing week of 27/4/15)
Following the arrest of Spedding we will then speak to all the identified members of GAPA. The purpose of the interviews will be to establish what they know about Bill Spedding and the disappearance of William Tyrrell. We will also be seeking information concerning their knowledge of any person they have contact with or know of that has allegations and or convictions for sexual assault of juveniles.
At this stage we have identified approximately 20 persons associated with GAPA who will be interviewed.
The interview of the associates of Spedding will be for the purpose of establishing what they know about William Tyrrell’s abduction, do they know why Bill is lying about being at the school assembly, what do they think about Bill, now he has been charged with sexually assaulting children.
At this stage we have identified approximately 15 associates of Spedding who will be required to be interviewed during this phase.
PHASE 7: CONCLUSION TO OPERATION PHASE
Assess information obtained during operation.
Determine whether to continue convert electronic evidence gathering. If not recover all devices.
Follow up further sex offences committed by Bill Spedding. At this stage we have identified three other definite victims and five other possible victims.
NB: The time frames for these matters are tight, I have taken into account the fact Spedding’s lease on his home runs out in early May. There is also information that he was looking at possibly moving. He was seeking a job based in Townsville. With the intense media attention and financially struggling there is a possibility he might move. This would have a detrimental effect on our ability to target him.
I have also attempted to facture [sic, factor] in Court Commitments, other investigations and Team 2’s on call commitment commencing 29/4/15.
Created 11/4/15 by Detective Inspector Jubelin”

However, by 15 June 2015, some weeks after Mr Spedding’s arrest on the unrelated historical child sexual assault allegations, Detective Jubelin was in a position to prepare a Strike Force Investigation Progress Report into Mr Spedding’s “suspected” involvement in William Tyrrell’s disappearance. As will be apparent from the following extracts, Mr Spedding was by this time effectively being excluded as a suspect in that investigation:

“DURING THIS REPORTING PERIOD: We have continued to work on the Spedding line of inquiry. I believe we have taken this as far as possible at this point in time and have not obtained any additional evidence as to Spedding’s involvement in Tyrrell’s abduction.
The strategies that have been implemented to gather evidence against Spedding since the execution of search warrants at his home and business include:
• Installation of listening devices into his home as a matter of priority.
• Covert execution of search warrant at Wellington property.
• Utilisation of physical surveillance.
• Media Release informing the public the Tyrrell matter is no longer considered a missing person, but is a result of human intervention. Also requesting any person in the area at a specific time to come forward, before police identify him.
• Speaking to William Spedding and his wife Margaret, in relation to the school assembly.
• Conducting a video walkthrough with William and Margaret Spedding in relation to attendance at the school assembly.
• Interviewing of all adult persons at the school assembly.
• Interviewing Spedding under caution whilst wearing listening devices in regards to certain aspects of the investigation, including the ‘Spiderman’ toy.
• Conducting a search of bushland as a result of information concerning Spedding’s van.
• Media release re possible paedophiles involved in the disappearance.
• Investigate previous sexual assault allegations against William Spedding.
• Media strategy involving public appeal from the parents of William Tyrrell.
• Charge William Spedding with historical sexual assaults.
• Re-interview Margaret after Spedding has been charged and bail refused.
• Conduct elaborate covert operation whilst Spedding is in custody.
All these strategies have been planned and implemented with the view of obtaining evidence which would exclude Spedding or implicate him in the abduction of Tyrrell. Having assessed all the evidence gathered as of this point in time (10/6/15) investigators are the view there is a likelihood Spedding is not responsible for the abduction of William Tyrrell. The strategies implemented have been complex and aggressive and have not resulted in any additional inculpatory evidence.
The responses we have captured covertly whilst Spedding is in custody could be interpreted as that of a person who is not involved in Tyrrell’s abduction. This can’t be conclusive due to some problems encountered with the installation and the fact Spedding has flagged the possibility his conversations are being listened too [sic]. However, on the balance of probabilities the evidence we are gathering is of an exculpatory nature.
…
Accepting that on the balance of probabilities Spedding is not involved in the abduction, there needs to be a refocus on how the investigation is approached. We cannot totally discount Spedding’s involvement, so certain tasks will need to be finalised. However, we need to identify fresh persons of interest.” [Emphasis added]

Mr Spedding has contended that this document totally undermines any suggestion that the historical child sex offence charges against him were “standalone matters” unrelated to the police attempts to put pressure upon him in the Tyrrell investigation. On the contrary, Mr Spedding maintains that the charges were transparently the backbone of the police strategy in the investigation of Mr Spedding as a suspect in William Tyrrell’s disappearance. The proposed plan by the police to speak to Anthony Jones, a sex offender in custody who was also a suspect in the William Tyrrell disappearance, makes this plain: Mr Spedding was refused bail and kept at Cessnock Correctional Centre in a cell occupied by Mr Jones and their conversations were covertly recorded. The police could have achieved that result without arresting Mr Spedding on charges completely unrelated to their investigation.

Detective Brennan

Detective Samuel Brennan joined the William Tyrrell investigation in February 2015. He said that he became “formally aware” of historical child sexual assault allegations against Mr Spedding through “team and investigation meetings”, but had “some awareness” of allegations before this time. Detective Brennan’s statement in these proceedings included the following:

“13. I was not the first officer to start investigating the historical child sexual assault allegations. Investigations had already been commenced within S/F Rosann and by officers attached to the Sex Crimes Squad who had made enquiries and obtained statements from Lois and Jeannie.
14. I took over the investigation into the historical child sexual assault allegations in around early April 2015. My recollection is that the documents I was originally provided with in relation to these allegations were the statements of Lois and Jeannie, as well as the historical records from the now-Department of Communities and Justice (‘DCJ’). I recall then attending a meeting with officers attached to the Sex Crimes Squad and they provided a briefing as to where the investigation was up to. I did not have carriage of the investigation relating to the historical sexual assault allegations until after statements were taken from Lois and Jeannie.
…
18. On 15 April 2015, I began preparing the Facts Sheet in relation to allegations made against Mr Spedding. At that stage, I had available to me the statements from the complainants Lois and Jeannie, and the DCJ records which included contemporaneous records from medical practitioners who treated the complainants.”

The statements of Jeannie Dalrymple and Lois Rifkin are both exhibited to Detective Brennan’s statement. The parts of Jeannie’s statement that purport to describe the charged incidents in the caravan in April 1987 are as follows:

“47. The inside of the caravan was small, I think I was excited about being in a caravan for the first time. I can remember that Lois and I shared a bed with Bill and there was a small bed for Ross. Bill slept in between Lois and I. I can remember waking up in the night with my pants being taken off by Bill and him putting his fingers inside my vagina. He didn’t keep them for inside my vagina for very long. He was lying on top of me. I kicked my legs and carried on and screamed a bit. Lois stirred from her sleep. Bill pushed me aside and I can’t remember if I hit a wall or fell off the bed. He grabbed Lois, I didn’t watch what he did to her but I could hear Lois crying and screaming. I think I was on the bed at this point. I kept my head down because I didn’t want to see what he was doing to her. I was crying, I was very upset. I don’t know how long it went on for. I have a memory of Bill leaving the caravan when he was finished and I remember putting Lois’s clothes back on her and cuddling her in the bed. I can’t describe the clothes she was wearing. I remember saying to her, ‘Don’t tell mum.’ The light was off and it was dark, but there was light coming in from outside, it could have been the moon or light. At the time I didn’t see Ross wake up, but I have heard since that that he did. I heard him telling a family member that he woke up when it was happening. I have since thought about why I fought back on this occasion, I think it was because I hadn’t seen him in a while as mum and Bill had separated. The abuse hadn’t happened for a while so I think it made me react strongly to it.”

By way of contrast, Lois’s statement contained no reference at all to any incidents in the caravan either in April 1987 or at any time at all.
Detective Brennan attempted to secure a statement from Ross Spedding, as Detective Brennan’s Investigator’s Note dated 27 January 2016 reveals:

“About 1.00pm on Wednesday 27/01/2016 DSC Brennan phoned Ross Spedding on his mobile. DSC Brennan had previously visited Ross’s address on Saturday 16/01/2016 and informed his son police would speak with Ross on another occasion.
In their discussion DSC Brennan informed Ross he would like to meet in person to discuss matters concerning his father and his current court matter. Ross was immediately defensive stating he had ‘nothing further to say’. DSC Brennan explained as per their previous conversation in 2015, police considered Ross to be a victim in this matter and would like to speak with him further about the matters relating to the current charges.
Ross began again pursuing an explanation for why he wasn’t spoken to prior to his father being charged even though he acknowledged this was addressed by DSC Brennan in their last conversation in that police had sufficient evidence to charge his father without speaking with Ross first. He further stated, ‘I was there and I was also there to see my mother make the whole thing up.’ Ross further challenged DSC Brennan by stating the fact that Ross was present is detailed in the ‘charge papers’ he had read relating to his father.
DSC Brennan stated the fact that Ross was present for the assault was not disclosed in their first meeting. Ross acknowledged this stating, ‘Oh well I didn’t say much that day’. DSC Brennan then further reiterated to him it is best to discuss such matters in person and not over the phone.
Ross eventually stated he would be seeking legal advice from his father’s solicitor as to whether he would speak with police. He stated he would call DSC Brennan when he made a decision.
DSC Brennan, in consultation with D/Insp Jubelin, has decided no further efforts will be undertaken to try and obtain a statement from Ross Spedding.”

Detective Brennan’s Investigator’s Note dated 24 February 2017 took that process a little further:

“Narrative:
On Wednesday 15/02/2017 DSC Brennan sent a text message to Ross Spedding requesting unavailable dates in the event of a trial being set in the matter of R v Spedding. Ross replied in the course of that conversation, ‘I find it very interesting you have never officially interviewed me’. DSC Brennan replied he had made such attempts a number of times and Ross did not take DSC Brennan up on his offer to be spoken to formally in regards to this matter. DSC Brennan phoned Ross not long after and left a voicemail message. Ross never returned the call.
On Friday 24/02/2017 DSC Brennan again texted Ross to inform him of the Trial date set in this matter. Ross replied with, ‘Would have been nice if you had spoken before this.’ DSC Brennan called Ross who initially did not answer but then called DSC Brennan back where they had a lengthy conversation.
DSC Brennan told Ross he was tired of talking to him by text and is not understanding where Ross is coming from when he says he wasn’t given an opportunity to be interviewed. DSC Brennan retrieved Eaglei records outlining previous conversation with Ross to corroborate his claims of offering Ross the opportunity to be interviewed to which he declined.
Ross denied he was actually ever formally asked to provide a statement in relation to this matter (despite being read the Eaglei records described above). DSC Brennan asked Ross why he is only raising this now given police first made contact with him in 2015 and the matter has been at court in recent weeks.
Further discussions revealed Ross has in fact been confused as to the investigation/court process and he misunderstood what was happening etc. He then complained he is still upset he wasn’t spoken to prior to charges being laid against his father. DSC Brennan again stated there is/was sufficient evidence to charge his father. DSC Brennan also put to Ross it was very clear that police had wished to speak with Ross and had made attempts to contact him when he did not contact police as previously arranged.
Ross also complained his father’s legal representatives won’t talk to him. DSC Brennan said that was none of his concern and he could not advise Ross on such matters.
Ross made the claim ‘no one is willing to listen to me’. DSC Brennan rejected such a claim, stating police had actively made attempts to speak with him formally to which he declined or did not take police up on their offer.
Ross further stated he does not want anything to do with the matter as it may involve his family and result in unwanted public attention. DSC Brennan told Ross this is where the confusion lies as on one hand he is complaining about supposedly not being afforded the opportunity to provide a statement but then on the other hand states he wants nothing to do with the matter.
Ross responded that he doesn’t want to get involved but wants ‘to see justice’ done as far as he is concerned his mother ‘should be charged with mental assault’ for what she did to him and his sisters. Ross made further statements concerning he [sic] witnessing his mother and ‘what she did to those girls’ in the period of interest to this investigation.
DSC Brennan eventually told Ross to forget all previous disagreements concerning offers to be interviewed etc, to which he agreed. DSC Brennan clearly asked Ross if he wished to provide a statement in relation to this matter. DSC Brennan said it is not too late to provide one but the decision rests with Ross.

Reputational damages - malicious prosecution

Reputational damages may be recovered as a separate head of damage: Beckett v State of New South Wales [2015] NSWSC 1017 at [745]-[748] and the cases cited therein. The intensity and ferocity of the media attention in this case, and the damage occasioned to Mr Spedding’s reputation as a result, warrants a separate and substantial award for reputational damages.
It is Mr Spedding’s case that the public's perception of him as the perpetrator in the William Tyrrell matter was engineered by Strike Force Rosann. The criminal proceedings portrayed him as a paedophile and strengthened the public's perception of him as being the person responsible for the disappearance of William Tyrrell. The public perception reflected Inspector Jubelin's belief that Mr Spedding was indeed a paedophile, and he wished to bring media attention upon Mr Spedding to exert maximum pressure. Without the criminal proceedings Mr Spedding was simply a person of interest. With the criminal proceedings he became the likely perpetrator.
There was a high level of media attention surrounding Mr Spedding following the execution of the search warrant at his home on 20 January 2015. The media referred to children being removed from his care, that he and his wife had been questioned days before by FACS, that the grandchildren's mother wanted answers from FACS as to why the children were living with him, the large police presence and the fact that he was a local white goods repairman. The media releases also depicted Mr Spedding and his wife on multiple occasions. The media coverage continued into March 2015, including outlets detailing further occasions when Inspector Jubelin arrived at or returned to the house.
On 17 April 2015, three days prior to Mr Spedding’s arrest, the Sydney Morning Herald and the ABC were reporting on the suspicions of police that a paedophile ring was involved in the disappearance of William Tyrrell, including naming Mr Spedding as a person of interest in that coverage.
On 22 April 2015, there was a significant media contingent at Mr Spedding’s home several hours before his arrest. His arrest was reported locally and nationally. When he was released from custody at Cessnock on 19 June 2015, the media was once again in attendance. Articles were also published regarding his release.
The coverage of Mr Spedding’s historical sexual assault charges was widespread, from local news referring to him as an alleged paedophile, to national news networks reporting on his being refused bail by Port Macquarie Local Court and extensively citing the Police Facts Sheet, his grant of bail, variations to his bail conditions, his waiving his right to committal and the application for a permanent stay of proceedings.
After 22 April 2015, there was further widespread media reporting concerning the disappearance of William Tyrrell in which Mr Spedding was named, and sometimes also pictured. The media reports referred to purported contact between him and "convicted paedophile Tony Jones" and his family, police lines of inquiry concerning potential involvement by a paedophile ring and that his former brother-in-law, Jerry Heyman, was a paedophile and convicted murderer. The media coverage following 22 April 2015 concerning the disappearance of William Tyrrell in most cases also refers to Mr Spedding having been charged with unrelated historical child sex offences.
The publicity referring to Mr Spedding both as a person of interest in the William Tyrrell disappearance and as having been charged with historical sexual offences in New South Wales and/or Victoria continued even after his acquittal in March 2018.
Mr Spedding submitted that the widespread, continuing and negative media attention concerning the historical sexual assault charges and his being a person of interest in regard to the disappearance of William Tyrrell was the product of a police media strategy adopted, specified or referred to in Exhibits D and E.
The arresting and charging of Mr Spedding substantially intensified the media spotlight on him. He “became” a paedophile and the likely abductor of William Tyrell. That perception is alarmingly and graphically portrayed in a video recording of one of Mr Spedding’s neighbours who came to his front door and demanded in a most undignified and regrettably spiteful outburst that he not leave his house to be near any of her children who were playing in the street. It is evident that that malicious attitude is not only held by the woman concerned but is a view largely accepted as the truth by a significant section of the population.
Mr Spedding claims the sum of $300,000.00 for reputational damage.

Aggravated damages

Aggravated damages are given by way of compensation for injury to a plaintiff which results from the circumstances and manner of the defendant's wrongdoing: Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118 at 129-130 cited in State of New South Wales v Zreika [2012] NSWCA 37 at [60]. Aggravated damages may also be awarded in circumstances when the defendant does not express regret for past wrongs: Walter v Alltools (1944) 61 TLR 39 cited in Beckett v State of New South Wales at [717].
Further, aggravated damages can be awarded for injury to a plaintiff's feelings caused by insult or humiliation: Lamb v Cotogno (1987) 164 CLR 1; [1987] HCA 47. All the circumstances of a particular case must be taken into account: Nye v State of New South Wales (2004) AusTorts Reports 81-725; [2003] NSWSC 1212 cited in Beckett v State of New South Wales at [717].
Mr Spedding’s distress, embarrassment and humiliation were amplified to a very large degree by the intense media interest which followed his arrest and charging. As mentioned above, the media's interest in his arrest was undoubtedly fuelled by him being a person of interest in the investigation concerning the disappearance of William Tyrrell.
Mr Spedding received threatening voice and text messages on his mobile phone and on social media. He was branded a paedophile and a child rapist. Some of the voice messages left on his phone are chilling.
Mr Spedding’s image was shown on all forms of media, making him easily recognisable in public. On 2 August 2016, he was refused service by Douglass Hanly Moir Pathology in Laurieton for an important blood test when a member of staff recognised him. On 7 January 2017, he was assaulted in Kew by a man who grabbed him around the throat with both hands.
The historical sexual assault allegations resulted in FACS removing his grandchildren from his care. The bail conditions imposed prevented any access or contact between him and his grandchildren until after his acquittal in March 2018.
Neither the officers nor the ODPP has apologised for their actions. Further, Mr Spedding submitted that the State’s conduct of the litigation, in particular the late service of Inspector Jubelin's statement and the provision of Exhibit E on the final day of the trial, when the document was called for on the third day of the trial, should lead to an increase in the award of aggravated damages.
Mr Spedding submitted that it is difficult to imagine a more compelling case for an award of aggravated damages at the absolute highest end of the scale. He submitted that his aggravated damages for the torts of malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office and collateral abuse of process, or any one of them, should be assessed in the sum of $400,000.00.

Exemplary damages

Exemplary damages are awarded to punish and deter similar conduct in the future: Lamb v Cotogno. Generally speaking, what is required for an award of exemplary damages is “conscious wrongdoing in contumelious disregard of another's rights”: Gray v Motor Accident Commission (1998) 196 CLR 1; [1998] HCA 70 at [22].
Mr Spedding submitted that using the criminal proceedings to further the investigation of Mr Spedding as a person of interest in the disappearance of William Tyrrell, and to punish him for his suspected involvement is “outrageous conduct” and requires the denunciation of this Court in the strongest terms.
Mr Spedding claimed the sum of $400,000.00 for exemplary damages for malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office and collateral abuse of process. For the reasons expressed in relation to the claims for the other heads of damage regarding these torts, the sum assessed for exemplary damages should still be the same regardless of which of the torts are established.

Legal fees incurred in defending the criminal proceedings

Mr Spedding incurred legal fees in the sum of $270,516.60 in defending the criminal proceedings. He has only received the sum of $161,224.90 pursuant to the certificate issued to him under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act. The agreed shortfall is $109,291.70. This amount is claimed, together with interest at the rate prescribed under UCPR 36.7(1).
The incurring of legal fees was the natural and probable consequence of the torts of malicious prosecution, collateral abuse of process and misfeasance in public office. Mr Spedding is therefore entitled to the agreed shortfall: State of New South Wales v Cuthbertson (2018) 99 NSWLR 120; [2018] NSWCA 320.

Future treatment expenses

Dr Samuels and Dr Apler recommend ongoing psychological counselling at fortnightly intervals until the Coronial Inquest into the disappearance of William Tyrrell is resolved. The likely cost is $300.00 per consultation.
The William Tyrrell matter may never be resolved. Deputy State Coroner Grahame has stated that the investigation into his disappearance remains ongoing, and there is no current timetable for the conclusion of the Inquest. Even if the matter is at some point resolved, or the Inquest is suspended or terminated, Mr Spedding is very likely to continue experiencing the symptoms of his adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression. This is of particular concern in light of his unfortunate notoriety as a result of the intense and ongoing media attention concerning him and the William Tyrrell investigation.
Mr Spedding submitted that it would be reasonable to award him the present value of $300.00 per fortnight over the next 10 years, discounted at 5%. The amount claimed is $150.00 per week x 412.9 (5% multiplier for 10 years) = $62,000.00 (rounded up).

Interest

Interest is claimed on damages for non-economic loss and aggravated and exemplary damages at the rate of 2% per annum from April 2015 to the date of judgment: MBP (SA) Pty Limited v Gogic (1991) 171 CLR 657; [1991] HCA 3 recently applied by this Court in Haynes by her tutor Karen Lindley v Haynes [2022] NSWSC 581 at [62].

Damages submissions – the State

Collateral Abuse of Process and Misfeasance in Public Office

The State submitted that if Mr Spedding is not successful in his claim for malicious prosecution, he ought not be successful in his claims for misfeasance or collateral abuse of process. Further, if he is successful in his malicious prosecution claim, he is not entitled to damages for misfeasance or collateral abuse because they are based on the same facts.

Damages - Malicious Prosecution

For Mr Spedding to recover damage under this head, he must fall within one of the categories identified in Savile v Roberts (1698) 91 ER 1147, namely:

Damage to reputation or fame;

Damage to person or liberty;

Damage to property, usually but not only, consisting of legal defence costs.

The State submitted that Mr Spedding is not entitled to damages for injury to his person, liberty, reputation or fame due to being identified as a person of interest in the disappearance of William Tyrell. Whilst at times one may be forgiven for thinking his claim is based upon him being identified as such a person of interest, that is not the nature of the claim as pleaded. Mr Spedding was never prosecuted for any aspect of his involvement in that disappearance and no such involvement is suggested.

Damage to Reputation

The State agrees that reputational damage may be recovered as a separate head of damage.
Should Mr Spedding succeed with respect to his claim in malicious prosecution, the State submits that a difficult process like unscrambling an egg is required. That is because it is unclear on the evidence what injury to his reputation has been occasioned by his status as a suspect in the disappearance of William Tyrrell as opposed to the prosecution which is the subject of these proceedings.
Whilst the State has admitted that images and videos were broadcast across media organisations, Mr Spedding’s references to some of the media articles do not make it clear where or to whom they were published. Mr Spedding contends that his arrest was reported locally and nationally. However, it is not possible to determine which media article the published photographs he relies upon relate to. Moreover, by way of example, the article from a website from the United Kingdom includes "Officers from Strike Force Rosann stressed that the arrest was not related to the disappearance of the four-year-old-boy …".
The State submitted that any damage to Mr Spedding’s reputation or fame due to the malicious prosecution/misfeasance/collateral abuse claims should be considered in the context of his having already been identified as a suspect in the William Tyrell disappearance at the time the proceedings were instigated: how much more reputational damage did he suffer as a result of being charged with the historical child sexual assault offences, if any? This question should be considered in light of the police efforts to indicate that the historical sexual assault charges laid were not connected to the William Tyrell investigation.
There is no evidence in this case that there is or has been any pervasive view in the community as to Mr Spedding’s guilt for the child sexual assault offences or for abducting William Tyrell. Nor is there any basis to suppose that it would be proper to place weight on a perception that such a community of opinion may exist. The Court should be slow to place any weight on the impact of media reporting on rational members of the community. See Beckettv State of New South Wales at [824]:

"It is highly doubtful that anyone exposed to this programme would have had more than a passing interest in what it portrayed, and even less likely that it would have been treated as a prime source of credible information. Ms Beckett has maintained her innocence at all times and her reputational damage is not increased even by misguided attempts to reduce it."

As at 8 June 2015, Inspector Jubelin came to the view Mr Spedding was no longer a suspect in the disappearance of William Tyrell. His book makes this abundantly clear at page 258:

"On 8 June, I update the strike force's investigation plan, to say that, accepting on the balance of probabilities, Bill was not involved in William's abduction and we need to refocus our investigation."

Mr Spedding’s submissions are misguided in that they appear to rely in part on things that occurred prior to his prosecution which is the subject of the claim and which relate to matters other than that prosecution.
Roseanne Beckett was awarded $120,000.00 for damage to reputation arising out of malicious prosecutions for perjury and soliciting to murder, both extremely grave offences. She had been referred to by the Crown during her criminal proceedings as "an evil woman". It is hard to conceive of a good reason to award Mr Spedding 2.5 times more than that awarded to Ms Beckett for any injury to his reputation. A far more modest figure is warranted. Any injury to Mr Spedding’s reputation caused by the prosecution in question has been dwarfed by the impact on his reputation of being a suspect in the disappearance of William Tyrrell.

Damage to person or liberty

The State agrees with the approximation that Mr Spedding was held in custody on remand for 58 days.
Mr Spedding claims $600,000.00 for non-economic loss. In terms of a comparison with other cases, it is not stated what the basis is, if any, for that submission. Included in the claim for that amount are issues related to public perception. However, Mr Spedding also claims $300,000.00 for damage to his reputation as part of his malicious prosecution case. The State submitted that I should be alert to the prospect that Mr Spedding’s claims may include double counting when considering public perception issues under separate categories or heads of damage.
Mr Spedding was refused bail for offences unconnected to the William Tyrrell investigation. Against the exhaustive list of considerations within s 18 of the Bail Act 2013, there is no evidence that the magistrate/authorised justice who granted bail inappropriately took into account that Mr Spedding had been identified as a person of interest in that investigation. Mr Spedding’s time spent on remand is not connected to the investigation.
Mr Spedding has emphasised his negative experiences with Corrective Services officers and other inmates. In Beckett, I related the evidence as to the experience of imprisonment, including in that matter an assault. In evaluating experiences of custody, I said:

"[805] Ms Beckett's experiences in gaol have been described. I do not get a sense that her custodial experience was any better or any worse than the general prison population. For what it may be worth, Ms Beckett struck me as a woman whose ability to adapt to prison life would have been as good as might be expected for someone imprisoned for so long for the first time. However, I hasten to add that in my view it is irrelevant. The level of difference between the best and worst experience of any one in fulltime custody must by definition be far less than the difference between anyone in gaol and anyone free in society. My view about the quantum of damages necessary or sufficient to compensate a person for time spent in custody that should not have been imposed cannot be diminished or increased by reference to their particular experience."

The point of this head of damage is to compensate for loss of liberty, not for a particular kind or quality of loss of liberty.
Ms Beckett was awarded a total of $1,825,200.00 for loss of liberty, made up of $1,314,000.00 for a three year period served only for count 2, and $511,200.00 for a period of three years and six months served concurrently with other terms of imprisonment. This equated to $1,200.00 per day. The number of days spent in custody by Mr Spedding is not comparable. However, noting my comments at [806] in Beckett relating to a calculable sum for a day in custody, the State conceded there is no reason not to utilise a daily rate in the present case. Were the Court, for example, to allow a figure of $1,300.00 a day as appropriate, that would give an award for injury to liberty of $75,400.00. A figure of that order might be thought appropriate should Mr Spedding succeed in his claim for non-economic loss deriving from injury to liberty.

Cost of defending the criminal proceedings

The State takes no issue with the quantum of the shortfall of $109,291.70 as reflecting the difference between the amount spent by Mr Spedding on his legal representation and the amount recovered following the award of a certificate under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act.
However, the State submitted that a question arises as to the ability to recover such an amount in circumstances where there has been an award of costs pursuant to the constraints of a statutory scheme. Beazley P seems to suggest in State of New South Wales v Cuthbertson at [65]-[66] that such a recovery is impermissible. There appears to be no difference in principle between the provisions of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act and the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001. A contrary position appears to have been taken by Brereton JA in Rock v Henderson [2021] NSWCA 155 at [18].

Future Treatment Expenses

If proven, Mr Spedding is entitled to have any mental anguish sound in damages. That is subject only to the restrictions on the recovery of damages for personal injury imposed by Part 2 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 and the Limitation Act 1969.
The State agrees with the joint recommendation of Dr Samuels and Dr Apler. Precisely when the Tyrrell inquest will conclude is unknown. The doctors’ joint report indicates that Mr Spedding’s emotional state has improved and will continue to do so, suggesting a period of ten years treatment is unreasonable. The State submitted that a period of two years treatment is reasonable and amounts to $15,600.00. That quantum is agreed.

Aggravated Damages

Damages under this head are compensatory and are awarded for insult or humiliation constituting injury to feelings. They can be, but are not invariably, awarded for the tort of malicious prosecution.
The State submitted that while on the face of it one might think that there was inevitably a degree of double counting in awarding aggravated damages for a tort that requires findings of malice and damage to reputation, liberty or property to succeed at all, the High Court appears to suggest that there is no double counting involved: New South Wales v Ibbett (2006) 229 CLR 638; [2006] HCA 57. Aggravated damages can be awarded as a single sum combined with general damages.
The concept of insult relates to insult arising from the tort, not arising from a third party insulting Mr Spedding. In this context, the threatening voice messages are not relevant to this head of damage. Further, it is far from clear that any of those messages in fact relate to the subject of the prosecution as opposed to Mr Spedding’s status as a one-time suspect with respect to the disappearance of William Tyrrell.
Mr Spedding may have been upset and concerned about FACS removing his grandchildren, but there is no evidence that he was insulted or humiliated by this. Of more basic importance is that it cannot be said on the evidence that the breakdown of the foster family relationships visited upon Mr Spedding were the result of his prosecution, as opposed to the allegations underlying the prosecution.
Roseanne Beckett was awarded $100,000.00 for aggravated damages. The factual basis for that award is stated at [811]-[815] and included needless handcuffing during the execution of a search warrant, initial media attention at the behest of the informant officer and improper opposition to bail on one occasion. The State contended that nothing comparable has arisen in the present case.
If an award of aggravated damages is to be made at all it should be far more modest than that awarded to Roseanne Beckett. It cannot be said that the matters expressly relied upon by Mr Spedding put him in a stronger position than Ms Beckett with respect to this head of damages, let alone four times better.

Exemplary Damages

Exemplary damages can be available for malicious prosecution: State of New South Wales v Quirk [2012] NSWCA 216; Beckett. Such an award is intended to punish. For such an award to be made, something more than "human fallibility" is required: State of New South Wales v Riley (2003) 57 NSWLR 496; [2003] NSWCA 208.
Mr Spedding seeks $400,000.00 with respect to exemplary damages for malicious prosecution. The State maintains that the availability of exemplary damages is highly dependent on particular factual findings being made.
There is no basis in principle for an award of exemplary damages consisting of many multiples of the award of general damages. In Beckett, very serious findings of misconduct by police were made, with an award of exemplary damages of $200,000.00. In State of New South Wales v Landini [2010] NSWCA 157, a matter in which police were found to have fabricated or manufactured evidence, an award of $160,000.00 for exemplary damages was reduced to a sum of $50,000.00 on appeal. A sense of proportion must be maintained. In this case, that would mean an award of exemplary damages both appropriate on the facts found, and proportionate to the award of damages for injury to reputation and liberty.
Mr Spedding has claimed interest on exemplary damages. Interest on exemplary damages is not available: Murray v Commonwealth of Australia (1985) 5 NSWLR 83 per Wood J.

The Application of Part 2 of the Civil Liability Act 2002

The State has pleaded the application of Part 2 of the Civil Liability Act.
Section 3B of the Act excludes some kinds of claims from the operation of the Act. None is presently applicable, the torts pleaded involving various allegations of deprivation of liberty, tortious abuse of process or knowing excess of power. Each cause of action has nothing to do with an intention to cause injury or death.
Section 11A of the Act applies Part 2 to any award of personal injury damages regardless of the cause of action. Section 11 defines personal injury damages as damages that relate to the death of or injury to a person. The question is whether and to what extent Mr Spedding’s claim is one for damages for personal injury.
At [64](vii) of the amended statement of claim, Mr Spedding has alleged that the malicious prosecution caused a need for psychological counselling. No similar pleading is made with respect to false imprisonment, misfeasance in public office or collateral abuse of process.
Mr Spedding has particularised his injuries as consisting of Major Depressive Disorder and Anxiety and Depression. His disabilities are described in similar terms. Mr Spedding has qualified a psychiatrist, Dr Samuels. His report is dated 14 April 2020. Mr Spedding’s claim for damages is at least in part one for personal injury damages. The joint report of the psychiatrists relates the need for counselling and treatment to the events on 20 January 2015 and his later arrest, the impact of the prosecution and the unresolved inquest. The first two at least are part of this claim.
It may be the case that the application of Part 2 makes no difference given that any award of damages under the torts pleaded would be primarily for loss of liberty (false imprisonment) or for injury to property, reputation and liberty (malicious prosecution). However, the State submitted that, given the operation of s 16 of the Civil Liability Act and absent any evidence that the severity of Mr Spedding’s non-economic loss is at least 15% of a most extreme case, there should be no award of damages for non-economic loss arising from the personal injury part of the claim.

The Limitation Act 1969

The State relies on a defence under the Limitation Act. That defence related only to Mr Spedding’s claim for false imprisonment. As I have rejected that claim, the issue of the Limitation Act no longer requires consideration.

Damages – consideration

Non-economic loss

Mr Spedding is entitled to general damages for non-economic loss in the amount of $550,000.00 for the torts of malicious prosecution, collateral abuse of process and misfeasance in public office. The two latter torts operate in combination with Mr Spedding’s claim for malicious prosecution to contribute to the amount of damages that I have awarded.
Mr Spedding was subjected to a long and painful ordeal. It never should have occurred. The allegations for which he was prosecuted were old and discredited. They were frail and notoriously so. Notwithstanding those facts, Mr Spedding’s experience left him distressed, confused, wrongly imprisoned and separated from his family. His release from custody, which I find to have been extremely distressing and painful, did not restore to him the family from which he had been so improperly removed. Nor has it recovered even now. He remained subject for three years to the ignominy of reporting to the police in a small community alive with suspicions about him.
Mr Spedding was the subject of a harsh and cynical strategy to further an unrelated investigation. It was never viable, nor was it proper. Mr Spedding remains to this day traumatised by the whole unnecessary ordeal. His pain continues. As a result of these things Mr Spedding finds it difficult to concentrate, his level of social activity remains severely attenuated, he feels isolated and socially uncomfortable and his enjoyment of life remains diminished.
I have included in the amount of $550,000.00 a sum calculated at the rate of $1,300.00 per day for the period during which Mr Spedding was detained in custody.

Reputational damage – malicious prosecution

Mr Spedding’s reputation was comprehensively destroyed as the result of his arrest and prosecution on the historical sexual assault allegations. It is doubtful that it will ever be restored. For what it is worth, I take Inspector Jubelin to have accepted that fact. Mr Spedding had until the time of his arrest been living an unexceptionable existence in quiet circumstances in coastal New South Wales. He was never a man of means and wealth never found its way to him. His business as a washing machine repair man could hardly have been described as a path to enormous prosperity, but it depended upon his acceptance as an honest and reliable individual. That humble employment was somewhat ironically critical to his selection as a person of interest in the disappearance of William Tyrrell.
There can be no doubt that Mr Spedding was a suspect in that disappearance. That is what led the police to him in the first place. It is in my view erroneous to suggest, as the State suggests, that damages for injury to his person, his liberty, his reputation or fame due to being identified as a person of interest in that disappearance are not available because he was never prosecuted for any aspect of his alleged involvement in that crime or that no such involvement is suggested. It is clear, as I have found, that Mr Spedding’s prosecution for the alleged historical child sex offences was inextricably woven into the police strategy to investigate that crime. The fact that Mr Spedding was never charged with it is entirely beside the point. Mr Spedding became associated with the disappearance of William Tyrrell as the direct and inevitable result of his arrest and prosecution on unrelated matters. The public perception of Mr Spedding as the perpetrator or prime suspect in the disappearance was directly engineered by the Strike Force.
Despite the submission that Mr Spedding was not entitled to damages for injury to his reputation because he was never prosecuted for any aspect of his alleged involvement in that crime or that no such involvement is suggested, the State submitted in complete contradiction of that submission that any damage to his reputation or fame due to his malicious prosecution should be considered in the context of his having already been identified as a suspect in the disappearance of William Tyrrell at the time the proceedings against him were instigated. The State has asked the rhetorical question, “How much more reputational damage did he suffer as a result of being charged?” As I have attempted to make clear, the distinction is an illusion. Mr Spedding’s arrest on the charges brought against him carried not only the risk that he would be associated with the disappearance of William Tyrrell but were almost sardonically instituted and maintained purposefully to take advantage of that very ambiguity.
Mr Spedding is entitled to an award of $300,000.00 under this head. In arriving at that sum I have specifically adverted to the State’s submission that I should be alert to the prospect of double counting when assessing damages for loss of reputation.

Aggravated damages

I consider that Mr Spedding is entitled to aggravated damages as compensation for the insult and humiliation constituting injury to his feeling for having been maliciously prosecuted. I award $200,000.00 under this head of damage.
In forming that view, I consider that the State’s insistence that the notion of “insult” is not apt to include the effects upon Mr Spedding of “insults” directed at him by members of the public is too narrow and I do not accept it. A consequence of the inappropriate prosecution must be taken to include, among other things, the opprobrium and unfair treatment directed at him by members of the public as an obvious result of the commission of the tort. Mr Spedding’s experience with the patently rabid neighbour captured on video at his front door and the incident he related about the reaction he received when seeking pathology services speak loudly in support of an insidious level of vitriol directed towards him.

Exemplary damages

I also consider that Mr Spedding is entitled to damages in the sum of $300,000.00 under this heading, calculated so as to punish the State for prosecuting him where there was no warrant for doing so and when the decision to do so was not merely the result of a well-intentioned but mistaken appreciation of the true facts. It is in my view difficult to imagine a more seriously improper tactic in the purported exercise of legitimate police powers than to arrest and charge a man in order to put pressure upon him in relation to an ongoing but unrelated investigation, and even then to persist with the prosecution long after the desired strategic advantage has patently evaporated. In a paraphrase of Inspector Jubelin’s published recollections, it was inevitable that Mr Spedding would be damaged but such was the price of his search for a killer. I reject that sentiment as illegitimate, wholly unacceptable and inappropriate. Its repetition should be disavowed and deterred in the strongest possible terms.

Legal costs

Mr Spedding is entitled to unrecovered legal costs in the amount of $109,292.00.

Future treatment expenses

In my view, Mr Spedding is entitled to future treatment expenses in an amount of $25,000.00.
The State has submitted that each cause of action pleaded by Mr Spedding has “nothing to do with an intention to cause injury or death”. I agree with Mr Spedding’s submission that this is plainly incorrect because it appears to be based on an assumption that the word “injury” in s 3B(a)(a) of the Civil Liability Act is limited to “personal injury” as defined in s 11. The definition is not limited in this way: State of New South Wales v Ibbett (2005) 65 NSWLR 168; [2005] NSWCA 445 at [5]-[11].
The deprivation of liberty, anxiety, distress, embarrassment and humiliation flow from the torts which have been pleaded, particularly malicious prosecution. Those who committed these torts intended to do so. For example, Detective Brennan intended to arrest and charge Mr Spedding, acts that necessarily involved depriving him of his liberty and in that context causing him anxiety and distress. These are things falling within the definition of “injury” in s 3B(1)(a) of the Act and at least in part led to Mr Spedding sustaining a psychiatric condition.
The fact that the police officers intended to prosecute Mr Spedding and in that context deprive him of his liberty, resulting in his psychiatric condition, is sufficient to satisfy s 3B(1)(a) with the consequence that Part 2 of the Act does not apply: s 11A provides that Part 2 applies to and in respect of an award of personal injury damages, except an award that is excluded from the operation of the Part by s 3B.
Section 16 of the Act therefore does not apply to the assessment of Mr Spedding’s damages for non-economic loss.

Interest

Mr Spedding is entitled to interest on some but not all of the damages I have awarded. I will require the parties to agree upon the interest calculations and to provide me with a minute of an order that specifies the appropriate sum.

Decision

I make the following orders:

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

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

I order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs.

**********

Amendments

07 July 2023 - Judgment anonymised

Decision last updated: 07 July 2023

Medium Neutral Citation:	Spedding v State of New South Wales [2022] NSWSC 1627
Hearing dates:	26-29 April, 2-4 May, 17 August 2022
Date of orders:	01 December 2022
Decision date:	01 December 2022
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Harrison J
Decision:	(1) Judgment for the plaintiff for $1,484,292 plus interest on those heads of damage that attract interest. (2) Direct the parties within 7 days to provide my Associate with a minute of an order calculating interest in accordance with these reasons. (3) Order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs.
Catchwords:	TORTS – malicious prosecution – whether prosecutor acted without reasonable and probable cause – whether prosecutor did not honestly form the view that there were proper cases for prosecution or whether the prosecutor formed that view on an insufficient basis. TORTS – malicious prosecution – whether prosecutor acted maliciously – whether the sole or dominant purpose of the prosecutor was other than the proper invocation of the criminal law
Legislation Cited:	Bail Act 2013 (NSW), s 18 Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), Pt 2, ss 3B, 11, 11A, 16 Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 (NSW), s 2 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), Ch 3, Pt 2, Div 1 Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986 (NSW), s 9(4)(a) Law Reform (Vicarious Liability) Act 1983 (NSW), s 8(1) Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW), s 7 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 36.7(1)
Cases Cited:	A v New South Wales (2007) 230 CLR 500; [2007] HCA 10 Attorney-General v Niania [1994] 3 NZLR 106 (HC) Beckett v State of New South Wales [2015] NSWSC 1017 Cornwall v Rowan (2004) 90 SASR 269; [2004] SASC 384 Davis v Gell (1924) 35 CLR 275; [1924] HCA 56 De Reus v Gray (2003) 9 VR 432; [2003] VSCA 84 Ea v Diaconu [2019] NSWSC 795 Ea v Diaconu (2020) 102 NSWLR 351; [2020] NSWCA 127 Edwards v State of New South Wales [2021] NSWSC 181 Gray v Motor Accident Commission (1998) 196 CLR 1; [1998] HCA 70 Haynes by her tutor Karen Lindley v Haynes [2022] NSWSC 581 Lamb v Cotogno (1987) 164 CLR 1; [1987] HCA 47 MBP (SA) Pty Limited v Gogic (1991) 171 CLR 657; [1991] HCA 3 Murray v Commonwealth of Australia (1985) 5 NSWLR 83 New South Wales v Ibbett (2006) 229 CLR 638; [2006] HCA 57 Northern Territory of Australia v Mengel (1995) 185 CLR 307; [1995] HCA 65 Nye v State of New South Wales (2004) AusTorts Reports 81-725; [2003] NSWSC 1212 Rock v Henderson [2021] NSWCA 155 Roman v Commonwealth (2004) 16 NTLR 80; [2004] NTSC 9 Savile v Roberts (1698) 91 ER 1147 State of New South Wales v Abed (2014) 246 A Crim R 549; [2014] NSWCA 419 State of New South Wales v Bouffler (2017) 95 NSWLR 521; [2017] NSWCA 185 State of New South Wales v Cuthbertson (2018) 99 NSWLR 120; [2018] NSWCA 320 State of New South Wales v Ibbett (2005) 65 NSWLR 168; [2005] NSWCA 445 State of New South Wales v Landini [2010] NSWCA 157 State of New South Wales v Quirk [2012] NSWCA 216 State of New South Wales v Riley (2003) 57 NSWLR 496; [2003] NSWCA 208 State of New South Wales v Zreika [2012] NSWCA 37 Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118 Varawa v Howard Smith & Co Ltd (1911) 13 CLR 35; [1911] HCA 46 Walter v Alltools (1944) 61 TLR 39
Texts Cited:	R P Balkin and J L R Davis, The Law of Torts (4th ed, 2009, Butterworths)
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	William Harrie Spedding (Plaintiff) State of New South Wales (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: A Canceri with T O’Rourke (Plaintiff) A Williams with B Searson (Defendant) Solicitors: O’Brien Criminal and Civil Solicitors (Plaintiff) Crown Solicitor’s Office (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2019/00289937
Publication restriction:	Nil