Lois D'Arcy re Bill D'Arcy to Conference at Surfair

	Historic Accusations of Child Sexual Abuse: From Noble Cause to Nightmare Speech to Conference 2 December 2006 at ‘Surfair’ – by Lois D’Arcy I had hoped to begin today’s speech by reporting a significant legal development in the case of my husband, Bill D’Arcy. Unfortunately, a legal complication has occurred, involving a difference of opinion between lawyers on an option available to Bill, something we currently are trying to resolve. In parallel, we have been attempting to employ another strategy aimed at achieving the same result, but this is requiring patience also. For legal reasons I am unable to expand further. You would understand it is an understatement when I say that we are finding things frustrating. I would think it is typical of what so many of us are experiencing in our quest for justice in this climate of witch-hunt. Sometimes it seems as if we meet brick walls or are forced to jump higher hurdles at every turn; however, be assured that Bill and I have no intention of quitting, and we really believe that if we continue to tackle the injustice, we will succeed. We believe it is not a matter of “if” but rather “when” our breakthrough will come. At this point I should like to tell you how Bill is faring after 6 years in prison. Within the prison community, among inmates, officers, medical staff, and administrative personnel, Bill’s case is openly and frequently discussed as being a clear miscarriage of justice. Experience within the system allows these people to make good assessments of others – far better assessments I would say, than that of judges and juries, politicians and journalists. I will digress briefly at this point to mention that within the legal circles in Queensland there is considerable and growing disquiet in regard to Bill’s case. Back to Bill and how he is faring his health is surprisingly good, despite the unrelenting stress and the living conditions he experiences. He has minor problems with skin cancers, teeth and circulation in the leg from where a vein was removed for his open-heart surgery. To date his mechanical heart valve is working extremely well, and although he is on high dosages of Worfarin, at least there seems to be no real problems with maintaining the correct thinness of his blood. Bill’s emotional and mental states are amazing under such soul-destroying conditions. He remains positive, and focused on achieving justice, and at the same time is a source of strength and encouragement to others in the same situation. On his release, he is determined to work for changes in the law, and in associated areas related to false accusations of child sexual abuse; to redress the huge imbalance that currently exists that makes it relatively easy for miscarriages of justice to occur. Maintaining one’s innocence, an undisputed right in a democratic country such as Australia, results in longer sentences and harsher treatment. Bill faces this discrimination on a daily basis but he is a survivor and has earned widespread respect within the prison. However, I must tell you that this coming Christmas will be the 7th one the D’Arcy Family has been forced to spend without our beloved Bill enjoying it with us. I will now outline some of the problems that Bill has encountered, typical of many others before him and since, and how we perceive they may be redressed: Inadequate avenues for appeal in Queensland. It seems to me that the justice system strongly resists the notion that wrongful convictions can and do occur. It goes to great lengths to avoid being perceived by the public as getting it wrong, and it makes it incredibly hard for persons wrongly convicted to prove their innocence and have their convictions overturned or pardoned. If new evidence surfaces, after a convicted person has exhausted the avenues of appeal, there exists no proper mechanism to allow the appeal to be reopened or a new one brought. This contrasts starkly with Bali, a developing nation on Australia’s doorstep, where we have witnessed Shapelle Corby going back to the court, time and time again, with new evidence and different grounds for appeal. In Queensland, in cases such as Bill’s, where police have withheld vital evidence from the Defence, and this is not discovered until after appeals are finished, the only recourse, is to petition the Governor for a pardon. In case there are lawyers argue differently, I need to say that under some circumstances it is possible to return to the courts with new evidence, but the list of conditions that must be met make this option a remote possibility. The route towards a pardon is circuitous and extremely slow and can take years. The Governor is bound by the advice of the Attorney-General as to whether a pardon petition is to be referred to the Court, and so effectively, the Governor rubber-stamps a decision made by Attorney-General, who is a politician and is not obliged to give reasons if the advice is not to refer the petition to the Court. A pardon petition may be perceived by eminent legal brains as having ‘merit’, but may be denied a court hearing because of the current process. It defies common sense that one individual, who need not have any legal qualifications, could have such power over the life of others. Surely common sense dictates that decisions of this gravity should be in the hands of the Judiciary. The absurd lack of common sense in the justice system. It is startlingly apparent that judges, lawyers, administrators, police, politicians and even journalists can’t or won’t see what even Blind Freddy would perceive as very obvious. To illustrate, I will refer to a few aspects from the first trial Bill faced. Firstly, eight prosecution witnesses testified to a hole made with the point of a compass in a hardwood, tongue & groove wall, through which pupils were said to have viewed offences over a period of 3 years, forty years ago. Common sense says it is impossible that this could have happened and not one adult in that tiny rural community came to hear of it. In small communities especially at that time there were no secrets and everyone knew everything that happened. The physical aspect of gouging with that implement, a large-enough hole, in that type of wall, in the exact position, is clearly beyond common sense. We have since had the wall inspected by an experienced, qualified building inspector who has written a report stating that the building is wholly in tact and there never was, never has been, and there is not now any hole. Further evidence to the same effect has been obtained from a maintenance worker who prepared the wall for painting in 1999 and the man who subsequently painted the building. As well many other former students have given affidavits affirming that there was no hole. However we are advised by our legal team that this is not sufficient for a successful pardon application to the Governor. What of the eight people who must have conspired in regard to the non-existent hole? Why would people do such a thing? I am advised that this probably constitutes an instance of ‘Noble Cause Corruption – where people, believing an accused to be guilty, and perhaps persuaded by over-zealous police that he is, want to ensure the person is found guilty and so decide to commit perjury. Common sense says that if this is necessary to obtain a conviction, then there is a strong likelihood that the accused is innocent. Common sense also dictates that justice is not done. Secondly, in regard to the most serious charges of rape made by one female, her evidence placed the events clearly in 1966, during the time of the teacher who succeeded Bill, being 10 months after he left Yalleroi for a school 1000km away; her evidence as to the identity of the teacher whom she claimed assaulted her, in about 8 ways describes and identifies the teacher after Bill. During the trial she had to be prompted frequently to state Bill’s name, as she continually referred in her evidence to a ‘he’ and ‘him’, and in her statement said, ‘When the police identified me as a victim’ – think about those words as they are very telling words. She described an alleged rape of her as an 8 year old in the classroom in front of approximately 25 students all country kids, most from surrounding sheep and cattle stations, some as old as 14, and some sitting as close as one metre way. No witnesses to support her story were produced, not any of the former student, nor her parents. We now have a report from an older highly-qualified gynaecologist with experience in tiny, rural communities, in which he states that these rape allegations “beggar belief”. How could a jury have found her fanciful account to be truthful? How could the jury not have applied common sense and made the only logical assessment: that the rapes as described were impossible? Even the judge failed to exercise common sense as he made no comment to this effect. He seemed not to have considered the facts properly when he said in his summing up to the jury, “There is no other person suggested as having done the acts”, as the Education Department records showed Bill wasn’t there in 1966 and the complainant clearly identified that year in her evidence, linking it to when she was sent to Brisbane to live with a relative. Of course, the judge should have pointed out this discrepancy to the jury, but didn’t. It seems, the more bizarre an allegation, the more readily a jury will find guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and that judges will accept such a verdict! What happens to common sense? The pressure placed on some innocent persons to plead guilty to offences of which they are not guilty. This is a terribly sad situation. Let me explain. Often it is through well-meaning advice of misguided defence lawyers who convince clients that it is in their best interests to plead guilty. They tell them that juries these days are so predisposed to convict on child sex charges, that it is very likely that they will be found guilty. They advise them to accept a plea bargain, or just plead guilty to all the charges, so they will receive shorter sentences. They also advise them to undertake the sex offender courses, continuing the lie. Some of them are able to maintain the lie. Others have nervous breakdowns. However the outcome is the same, as they have labelled themselves for life and will continue to be punished as sex offenders under surveillance and restrictions for ever, and as well they will have to try to live with their consciences. They probably lose any support they may have had from family and friends. Thus they distort the statistics and so help to intensify the witch-hunt, which in turn has negative impacts for all the others who have been falsely accused and subsequently wrongly convicted. Again I ask the question, where is common sense in the face of all this misguided madness? In our system of justice, those accused are said to be entitled to the presumption of innocence. The former Attorney-General of Queensland, Linda Lavarch, was quoted in the Sunday Mail of June 11, this year, in relation to the Stafford case, as saying and I quote: “ ... one of the most fundamental rules of law is that no innocent person should go to jail, no innocent person should be convicted. Rule 101 in jurisprudence is that you would much rather see 10 guilty people go free than one innocent person imprisoned.”- end of quote. One doesn’t need much common sense to see that clearly this has not been the case for Bill and many other innocent men who have been wrongly convicted. The pressure on the innocent to participate in the SOTP, the Sex Offender Treatment Program. In order to get timely parole, those convicted of child sex offences are told they must successfully undertake the SOTP course. However to do so they are required to admit guilt to all convictions over and over again on a daily basis for 3 or more months. The guilty, often having pleaded guilty at trial and having received shorter sentences, eagerly do these courses and so get out of jail so much sooner. Maintaining one’s innocence in Queensland, if wrongly convicted on child sex charges, can mean never doing a course, serving the total head sentence in a maximum security jail without parole, despite a perfect behaviour record, with the prospect that one may never be released. Another example of how the system defies common sense. ‘Tunnel Vision’ of the investigating police. Normally when a crime is committed, police start with the evidence, they test the complainant’s story, they look for clues to lead to the perpetrator/s attempting to identify persons with possible motives, and they eventually lay charges. In cases like Bill’s, the opposite happens: the police start with a person, a suspect, and then go off to find and/or manufacture crimes to pin on that person. They do this by conducting a ‘trawling operation. When the first complaint is of something that was supposed to have happened many, many years ago, Queensland police don’t test the credibility of the complainant’s story nor question their memory. They rarely check to see if the accuser has been the patient of a therapist who practices the now discredited recovered memory therapy. They treat what the complainant says as truth, and often lay charges, and then set out to find more complainants, whose accusations are treated similarly. Where is the sense in that type of operation if police are supposed to be trying to ascertain the truth and ensure justice is done? Most Queenslanders believe that the police collect evidence for and against the accused. I am sorry to say that this is not the reality. In Bill’s case the investigating police hid or discarded any evidence that did not support their case: that is, any evidence that supported Bill’s claims of innocence. The Queensland legislation which makes it illegal for anyone convicted of a crime to speak to journalists while their sentence is current, including while on parole. Interestingly, this law was introduced into the parliament quite close to the time of Bill’s first trial and gained assent with a fortnight of the conclusion of this trial. Effectively it seriously disadvantages those who are victims of a miscarriage of justice, as it prevents them from telling their side of the story publicly in an attempt to inform the public. This law has had the effect of ‘muzzling’ Bill for 11 years. The Queensland public can never hear from Bill until November 1st, 2011. Common sense says that in a democracy everyone deserves the right to pursue every avenue possible in their quest for justice if they believe the system has denied them justice. What can be done? What needs to be changed? What safeguards need to be put in place? I will now proceed to outline seven things that I believe need to be done to redress the imbalance. Bill and I will not be satisfied until we achieve a non-political inquiry into all aspects of his case. This inquiry must be given the widest possible terms of reference and be fully funded, with an investigative team at its disposal. It must be one where all witnesses are under oath and compelled to answer, with criminal penalties for anyone caught deliberately lying. It must be conducted in public and it must be headed by an experienced judge who has the power to widen the scope if he/she deems necessary. Bill and I see such an inquiry as a catalyst to opening up other cases where there is reason to suspect that a similar miscarriage of justice has occurred. We also see the purpose of such an inquiry to include recommendations for reform of the entire system; legal, investigative, judicial and custodial. We believe such an inquiry as having a mandate to restore balance in society, the balance that has been lost because of the witch-hunt. We also believe that ancient allegations need to come under different laws and procedures from recent ones. Currently unscrupulous people who make false allegations relating to times 30, 40, 50 and more years ago unfairly use procedures set in place for child witnesses where abuse is said to be recent. In other countries, statutes of limitations are in place and miscarriages of justice such as Bill’s simply cannot occur. In theory, Longman’s Principle should go some way towards overcoming the huge disadvantages in ancient cases, but in practice in the current witch-hunt climate, it is next to useless, and juries don’t understand its implications, especially when judges merely pay lip-service to it. Police procedures need dramatic changes, especially in regard to ancient allegations. The practice of ‘trawling’ for complainants and witnesses by police must be outlawed. Police must be forced to record all phone calls and interviews, and all of must these be readily available to the Defence team. The current practice of sending information packs to new complainants, providing information about criminal compensation must cease. Psychological assessment of complainants in ancient cases prior to the laying of any charges, should be mandatory, and any complaints that have emerged subsequent to counseling involving recovered memory techniques must be made illegal. Very importantly, police must be forced to take statements from all possible witnesses, who should be located, interviewed, and immediately have statements recorded so that the police cannot ignore *nor suppress* exculpatory evidence. The Defence team must have access to all of this. In Bill’s case, so many people who were phoned or interviewed, either were not mentioned in police running sheets or if they were, their evidence was dismissed with a statement such as “So and So could not assist us with our inquiries”. We have learned that some such people in Bill’s case did have relevant and important evidence e.g. that no hole in the wall existed. Police must not be allowed to use the practice of pretext phone calls. While this practice yielded no incriminating evidence in Bill’s case, none the less it was attempted. Courts must be enabled and even required to admit testimony from expert witnesses, such as forensic psychologists and gynaecologists. While this is the case in other states it is rarely permitted by judges in Queensland with the result of further disadvantage to the falsely accused. The legislation regarding crimes relating to sexual abuse of children in Queensland needs a massive overhaul. It needs to reflect the differences between ancient and modern accusations. I have been made aware that the huge discrepancy in the number of convictions between Queensland and other states is directly related to the differences in legislation. In Queensland it seems that a high number of convictions is the aim of the legislation which makes them much easier to obtain than in other states. I am aware of a case where a complaint of an ancient nature was made in NSW against a former step-father and the police there found it not to have sufficient credence to lay charges. The woman involved then went to Queensland as the family had resided here for a while. Those same accusations resulted in convictions of that man. Politicians are so eager to promote the image of being tough on crime without due regard to just and fair process. In a climate of witch-hunt, they are all so fearful of being labeled as soft and sympathetic to perpetrators of child sexual abuse that they acquiesce to the fanatical demands of the zealots and seem to agree with one of them who has been heard to say something along the lines of: ‘So what, if one innocent man is convicted. Too bad for him’. The legislation regarding media reporting of accusations needs reform. Many people blame the fact that Bill was identified by the media and then the subject of frequent adverse stories vivifying him over the two years preceded his first trial, for his conviction: they believe that he was convicted by a jury that could not have been otherwise than prejudiced. Some freely say he was convicted by the media before one word was uttered in court. In cases involving allegations of child sexual abuse, especially ancient ones, the accused should not be publicly identified unless a conviction results. This would mean that those acquitted don’t carry the stigma that accusations of this type alone cause. It would also make it harder for police to trawl. To address the problem of the inadequacy of the appeals process, Bill and I strongly believe that Queensland, and indeed Australia needs a body similar in charter, makeup and operation to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, known as the CCRC, that currently operates in Britain. It was set up to deal with the situation in Britain so similar to that here where ancient abuse cases frequently ended up as miscarriages of justice. Persons who believe they are victims of a miscarriage of justice and who have exhausted their avenues of appeal, may apply to the Criminal Cases Review Commission where the terms of reference are different from those in the regular court system. In Britain the results have been nothing short of spectacular, resulting in many people having wrongful child sex convictions overturned, to date more than 200. If anyone would like to find out more about this important fairly new adjunct to the British legal system, the website of the CCRC is: http://www.ccrc.gov.uk. The setting up of such a commission would go far to redress the difficulties encountered by innocent person wrongly convicted in a system which refuses to recognize that wrongful convictions can and do occur, and where the treatment of prisoners make no allowances at all for those who are innocent, and in fact treats them more harshly. Another British website that I recommend you visit is: http://www.richardwebster.net. Here you will find extensive documentary on wrongful convictions resulting from false allegations of ancient child sexual abuse; topics such as ‘Crusade or witch-hunt?’, ‘Trawling goes on trial’, and ‘End this cruel injustice’ will give you a greater insight into the issues involved in this contagious disease of the justice system that has spread to Australia and most other western democracies. A search on the internet will easily give you access to the many publications of Elizabeth Loftus, the Distinguished Professor of Social Ecology from Washington University in the United States. Loftus is considered a world expert in the study of memory and the problems associated with it and its role in many wrongful convictions. It’s quite possible that some of you have other recommendations to add to mine and I would be happy to hear from you. I find it hard to understand why we in Queensland cannot learn from the prior experiences in other countries where the witch-hunt preceded that here in Australia. We seem to have to follow regardless, when common sense dictates that we take advantage of their experience and curtail the needless pain and suffering of the innocent who have been wrongly convicted and their families, here in Queensland. I’ve mentioned Britain already. I should not let the opportunity go by to mention France. One case of false accusations was so bad and involved so many innocent people, men and women who were wrongly convicted, that the President of France made a public apology to all those who suffered and also to the whole French nation. If you are a follower of world news you will be aware of accusations of sexual crimes made against politicians in Britain, Malaysia, the US and recently the Solomon Islands. These are usually ‘the kiss of death’ to their careers, regardless of any later acquittals or recants by the false accusers. I cannot think of anything more cruel to do to a person of good character, than make false accusations of child sexual abuse. I asked Bill how many men are currently in Wolston Correctional Centre, whom he believes to have been wrongly accused of sexual crimes against children. He estimates at the very least 12 in the Residential section which houses 300 prisoners, which would be 4%, probably a conservative estimate. I can’t comment on the number in Secure Section which houses another 300 inmates. Of course Bill knows of a considerable number more who are in this category but who have been released. You may be interested to know of recent changes in the classification of those convicted of sex offences including ancient ones. They used to start at High Risk classification and proceed through Medium and then Low and on to Open, which made them eligible to go to the prison farms in the latter half of their sentences. Now all have been reclassified as High Risk, which impacts adversely on their eligibility for parole, as does the maintenance of a stance of innocence. So who is going to the Farms these days you may ask? The answer is those convicted of drug offences mostly. While the witch-hunt continues unchecked and the balance remains distorted, no adult in Queensland will be safe from false accusations of child sex abuse, especially those hardest to defend, the ancient allegations. All it takes is an accusation and the nightmare begins. How do you prove that something NEVER happened when there CAN BE NO EVIDENCE if the alleged events NEVER OCCURRED. In reality, you will not receive the proper presumption of innocence. Terrible pressure will descend upon you and your family. You cannot be sure you family will be strong enough to survive. You will find many people, while they privately tell you they find it hard to believe the accusations levelled against you, will not have the courage to publicly support you. I would like to mention briefly a few cases which may give you a better appreciation of the motivation behind false accusations. These are cases of men whom Bill has met. One of these stomach- turning scenarios is the case of a former teacher in an all-boys school. When the allegations were made to the police, he was in his 80's and was exhibiting the early stages of dementia and quite honestly could not remember a thing. Told that he was facing the prospect of dying in jail, he was convinced by his lawyers to plead guilty and throw himself on the mercy of the courts. Many others have been prevailed upon to plead guilty under an agreement with their own lawyers to keep their sentences to a minimum. Another case involved that of a man of Asian origin in his 90's who spoke no English. He was accused by a grand child whose motive he believed was to get to most of the inheritance. A third case involved a man accused by a stepdaughter from a previous marriage. He admitted to being an alcoholic around that time and that he had big gaps in his memory. He was convinced to plead guilty so that the stepdaughter did not have to give evidence, and was assured he would receive a non-custodial sentence. Unfortunately he was jailed, he lost his job of 30 years, and is still under the threat of deportation because although living in Australia for over 40 years, he never became an Australian citizen. What a nightmare for him, his wife and family. In conclusion, Bill andIfeel very strongly that the Queensland public must be made aware, that ‘there but for the grace of God’ goes EVERY ONE of them. The public, once they learn the real facts, will be horrified by the D'Arcy case, not just because of the scale of injustice in Bill’s wrongful convictions, but because, if it could happen to Bill D’Arcy, a serving member of the Queensland Parliament, it could happen to any one of them. Any person, male or female, who has had kids stay over, who has been on a school camp, who has taken kids to a sports event or some other outing, who has at some time comforted a child after an accident or disappointment, or has simply put a hand on a head or shoulder, is vulnerable to an allegation at any time throughout the rest of their lives. It's worse for teachers, youth workers and professional child-carers. Any parent, step-parent or relative involved in any family drama such as a break-up is vulnerable. Under current Queensland legislation any allegation is enough to ruin a life now or 30 to 60 years into the future. I call upon the Queensland Government to set up a non-political enquiryinto the case of Bill D’Arcy, as previously outlined by me. I also call upon the Queensland Government to follow the United Kingdom Government and set up aCriminal Cases Review Commission to deal with the escalating problem of wrongful convictions. Ladies and Gentlemen, the D' Arcy case highlights the very worst in the system, and one day anyone of YOU could easily find yourself in such a predicament. When will this madness end? Something must be done and soon, to restore balance to Justice in the Queensland.	Lois D'Arcy - resilient and unwavering in her defence of her husband Bill D'Arcy

Historic Accusations of Child Sexual Abuse:
From Noble Cause to Nightmare

Speech to Conference 2 December 2006 at ‘Surfair’ – by Lois D’Arcy

I had hoped to begin today’s speech by reporting a significant legal development in the case of my husband, Bill D’Arcy. Unfortunately, a legal complication has occurred, involving a difference of opinion between lawyers on an option available to Bill, something we currently are trying to resolve. In parallel, we have been attempting to employ another strategy aimed at achieving the same result, but this is requiring patience also. For legal reasons I am unable to expand further. You would understand it is an understatement when I say that we are finding things frustrating. I would think it is typical of what so many of us are experiencing in our quest for justice in this climate of witch-hunt. Sometimes it seems as if we meet brick walls or are forced to jump higher hurdles at every turn; however, be assured that Bill and I have no intention of quitting, and we really believe that if we continue to tackle the injustice, we will succeed. We believe it is not a matter of “if” but rather “when” our breakthrough will come.

At this point I should like to tell you how Bill is faring after 6 years in prison. Within the prison community, among inmates, officers, medical staff, and administrative personnel, Bill’s case is openly and frequently discussed as being a clear miscarriage of justice. Experience within the system allows these people to make good assessments of others – far better assessments I would say, than that of judges and juries, politicians and journalists. I will digress briefly at this point to mention that within the legal circles in Queensland there is considerable and growing disquiet in regard to Bill’s case. Back to Bill and how he is faring his health is surprisingly good, despite the unrelenting stress and the living conditions he experiences. He has minor problems with skin cancers, teeth and circulation in the leg from where a vein was removed for his open-heart surgery. To date his mechanical heart valve is working extremely well, and although he is on high dosages of Worfarin, at least there seems to be no real problems with maintaining the correct thinness of his blood. Bill’s emotional and mental states are amazing under such soul-destroying conditions. He remains positive, and focused on achieving justice, and at the same time is a source of strength and encouragement to others in the same situation. On his release, he is determined to work for changes in the law, and in associated areas related to false accusations of child sexual abuse; to redress the huge imbalance that currently exists that makes it relatively easy for miscarriages of justice to occur. Maintaining one’s innocence, an undisputed right in a democratic country such as Australia, results in longer sentences and harsher treatment. Bill faces this discrimination on a daily basis but he is a survivor and has earned widespread respect within the prison. However, I must tell you that this coming Christmas will be the 7th one the D’Arcy Family has been forced to spend without our beloved Bill enjoying it with us.

I will now outline some of the problems that Bill has encountered, typical of many others before him and since, and how we perceive they may be redressed:

Inadequate avenues for appeal in Queensland.
It seems to me that the justice system strongly resists the notion that wrongful convictions can and do occur. It goes to great lengths to avoid being perceived by the public as getting it wrong, and it makes it incredibly hard for persons wrongly convicted to prove their innocence and have their convictions overturned or pardoned. If new evidence surfaces, after a convicted person has exhausted the avenues of appeal, there exists no proper mechanism to allow the appeal to be reopened or a new one brought. This contrasts starkly with Bali, a developing nation on Australia’s doorstep, where we have witnessed Shapelle Corby going back to the court, time and time again, with new evidence and different grounds for appeal. In Queensland, in cases such as Bill’s, where police have withheld vital evidence from the Defence, and this is not discovered until after appeals are finished, the only recourse, is to petition the Governor for a pardon. In case there are lawyers argue differently, I need to say that under some circumstances it is possible to return to the courts with new evidence, but the list of conditions that must be met make this option a remote possibility.
The route towards a pardon is circuitous and extremely slow and can take years. The Governor is bound by the advice of the Attorney-General as to whether a pardon petition is to be referred to the Court, and so effectively, the Governor rubber-stamps a decision made by Attorney-General, who is a politician and is not obliged to give reasons if the advice is not to refer the petition to the Court. A pardon petition may be perceived by eminent legal brains as having ‘merit’, but may be denied a court hearing because of the current process. It defies common sense that one individual, who need not have any legal qualifications, could have such power over the life of others. Surely common sense dictates that decisions of this gravity should be in the hands of the Judiciary.
The absurd lack of common sense in the justice system. It is startlingly apparent that judges, lawyers, administrators, police, politicians and even journalists can’t or won’t see what even Blind Freddy would perceive as very obvious. To illustrate, I will refer to a few aspects from the first trial Bill faced. Firstly, eight prosecution witnesses testified to a hole made with the point of a compass in a hardwood, tongue & groove wall, through which pupils were said to have viewed offences over a period of 3 years, forty years ago. Common sense says it is impossible that this could have happened and not one adult in that tiny rural community came to hear of it. In small communities especially at that time there were no secrets and everyone knew everything that happened. The physical aspect of gouging with that implement, a large-enough hole, in that type of wall, in the exact position, is clearly beyond common sense. We have since had the wall inspected by an experienced, qualified building inspector who has written a report stating that the building is wholly in tact and there never was, never has been, and there is not now any hole. Further evidence to the same effect has been obtained from a maintenance worker who prepared the wall for painting in 1999 and the man who subsequently painted the building. As well many other former students have given affidavits affirming that there was no hole. However we are advised by our legal team that this is not sufficient for a successful pardon application to the Governor. What of the eight people who must have conspired in regard to the non-existent hole? Why would people do such a thing? I am advised that this probably constitutes an instance of ‘Noble Cause Corruption – where people, believing an accused to be guilty, and perhaps persuaded by over-zealous police that he is, want to ensure the person is found guilty and so decide to commit perjury. Common sense says that if this is necessary to obtain a conviction, then there is a strong likelihood that the accused is innocent. Common sense also dictates that justice is not done. Secondly, in regard to the most serious charges of rape made by one female, her evidence placed the events clearly in 1966, during the time of the teacher who succeeded Bill, being 10 months after he left Yalleroi for a school 1000km away; her evidence as to the identity of the teacher whom she claimed assaulted her, in about 8 ways describes and identifies the teacher after Bill.
During the trial she had to be prompted frequently to state Bill’s name, as she continually referred in her evidence to a ‘he’ and ‘him’, and in her statement said, ‘When the police identified me as a victim’ – think about those words as they are very telling words. She described an alleged rape of her as an 8 year old in the classroom in front of approximately 25 students all country kids, most from surrounding sheep and cattle stations, some as old as 14, and some sitting as close as one metre way. No witnesses to support her story were produced, not any of the former student, nor her parents. We now have a report from an older highly-qualified gynaecologist with experience in tiny, rural communities, in which he states that these rape allegations “beggar belief”. How could a jury have found her fanciful account to be truthful? How could the jury not have applied common sense and made the only logical assessment: that the rapes as described were impossible? Even the judge failed to exercise common sense as he made no comment to this effect. He seemed not to have considered the facts properly when he said in his summing up to the jury, “There is no other person suggested as having done the acts”, as the Education Department records showed Bill wasn’t there in 1966 and the complainant clearly identified that year in her evidence, linking it to when she was sent to Brisbane to live with a relative. Of course, the judge should have pointed out this discrepancy to the jury, but didn’t. It seems, the more bizarre an allegation, the more readily a jury will find guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and that judges will accept such a verdict! What happens to common sense?
The pressure placed on some innocent persons to plead guilty to offences of which they are not guilty. This is a terribly sad situation. Let me explain. Often it is through well-meaning advice of misguided defence lawyers who convince clients that it is in their best interests to plead guilty. They tell them that juries these days are so predisposed to convict on child sex charges, that it is very likely that they will be found guilty. They advise them to accept a plea bargain, or just plead guilty to all the charges, so they will receive shorter sentences. They also advise them to undertake the sex offender courses, continuing the lie. Some of them are able to maintain the lie. Others have nervous breakdowns. However the outcome is the same, as they have labelled themselves for life and will continue to be punished as sex offenders under surveillance and restrictions for ever, and as well they will have to try to live with their consciences. They probably lose any support they may have had from family and friends. Thus they distort the statistics and so help to intensify the witch-hunt, which in turn has negative impacts for all the others who have been falsely accused and subsequently wrongly convicted. Again I ask the question, where is common sense in the face of all this misguided madness?
In our system of justice, those accused are said to be entitled to the presumption of innocence. The former Attorney-General of Queensland, Linda Lavarch, was quoted in the Sunday Mail of June 11, this year, in relation to the Stafford case, as saying and I quote: “ ... one of the most fundamental rules of law is that no innocent person should go to jail, no innocent person should be convicted. Rule 101 in jurisprudence is that you would much rather see 10 guilty people go free than one innocent person imprisoned.”- end of quote. One doesn’t need much common sense to see that clearly this has not been the case for Bill and many other innocent men who have been wrongly convicted.
The pressure on the innocent to participate in the SOTP, the Sex Offender Treatment Program. In order to get timely parole, those convicted of child sex offences are told they must successfully undertake the SOTP course. However to do so they are required to admit guilt to all convictions over and over again on a daily basis for 3 or more months. The guilty, often having pleaded guilty at trial and having received shorter sentences, eagerly do these courses and so get out of jail so much sooner. Maintaining one’s innocence in Queensland, if wrongly convicted on child sex charges, can mean never doing a course, serving the total head sentence in a maximum security jail without parole, despite a perfect behaviour record, with the prospect that one may never be released. Another example of how the system defies common sense.
‘Tunnel Vision’ of the investigating police. Normally when a crime is committed, police start with the evidence, they test the complainant’s story, they look for clues to lead to the perpetrator/s attempting to identify persons with possible motives, and they eventually lay charges. In cases like Bill’s, the opposite happens: the police start with a person, a suspect, and then go off to find and/or manufacture crimes to pin on that person. They do this by conducting a ‘trawling operation. When the first complaint is of something that was supposed to have happened many, many years ago, Queensland police don’t test the credibility of the complainant’s story nor question their memory. They rarely check to see if the accuser has been the patient of a therapist who practices the now discredited recovered memory therapy. They treat what the complainant says as truth, and often lay charges, and then set out to find more complainants, whose accusations are treated similarly. Where is the sense in that type of operation if police are supposed to be trying to ascertain the truth and ensure justice is done? Most Queenslanders believe that the police collect evidence for and against the accused. I am sorry to say that this is not the reality. In Bill’s case the investigating police hid or discarded any evidence that did not support their case: that is, any evidence that supported Bill’s claims of innocence.
The Queensland legislation which makes it illegal for anyone convicted of a crime to speak to journalists while their sentence is current, including while on parole. Interestingly, this law was introduced into the parliament quite close to the time of Bill’s first trial and gained assent with a fortnight of the conclusion of this trial. Effectively it seriously disadvantages those who are victims of a miscarriage of justice, as it prevents them from telling their side of the story publicly in an attempt to inform the public. This law has had the effect of ‘muzzling’ Bill for 11 years. The Queensland public can never hear from Bill until November 1st, 2011. Common sense says that in a democracy everyone deserves the right to pursue every avenue possible in their quest for justice if they believe the system has denied them justice.

What can be done? What needs to be changed? What safeguards need to be put in place? I will now proceed to outline seven things that I believe need to be done to redress the imbalance.

Bill and I will not be satisfied until we achieve a non-political inquiry into all aspects of his case. This inquiry must be given the widest possible terms of reference and be fully funded, with an investigative team at its disposal. It must be one where all witnesses are under oath and compelled to answer, with criminal penalties for anyone caught deliberately lying. It must be conducted in public and it must be headed by an experienced judge who has the power to widen the scope if he/she deems necessary. Bill and I see such an inquiry as a catalyst to opening up other cases where there is reason to suspect that a similar miscarriage of justice has occurred. We also see the purpose of such an inquiry to include recommendations for reform of the entire system; legal, investigative, judicial and custodial. We believe such an inquiry as having a mandate to restore balance in society, the balance that has been lost because of the witch-hunt.
We also believe that ancient allegations need to come under different laws and procedures from recent ones. Currently unscrupulous people who make false allegations relating to times 30, 40, 50 and more years ago unfairly use procedures set in place for child witnesses where abuse is said to be recent. In other countries, statutes of limitations are in place and miscarriages of justice such as Bill’s simply cannot occur. In theory, Longman’s Principle should go some way towards overcoming the huge disadvantages in ancient cases, but in practice in the current witch-hunt climate, it is next to useless, and juries don’t understand its implications, especially when judges merely pay lip-service to it.
Police procedures need dramatic changes, especially in regard to ancient allegations. The practice of ‘trawling’ for complainants and witnesses by police must be outlawed. Police must be forced to record all phone calls and interviews, and all of must these be readily available to the Defence team. The current practice of sending information packs to new complainants, providing information about criminal compensation must cease. Psychological assessment of complainants in ancient cases prior to the laying of any charges, should be mandatory, and any complaints that have emerged subsequent to counseling involving recovered memory techniques must be made illegal. Very importantly, police must be forced to take statements from all possible witnesses, who should be located, interviewed, and immediately have statements recorded so that the police cannot ignore nor suppress exculpatory evidence.
The Defence team must have access to all of this. In Bill’s case, so many people who were phoned or interviewed, either were not mentioned in police running sheets or if they were, their evidence was dismissed with a statement such as “So and So could not assist us with our inquiries”. We have learned that some such people in Bill’s case did have relevant and important evidence e.g. that no hole in the wall existed. Police must not be allowed to use the practice of pretext phone calls. While this practice yielded no incriminating evidence in Bill’s case, none the less it was attempted.
Courts must be enabled and even required to admit testimony from expert witnesses, such as forensic psychologists and gynaecologists. While this is the case in other states it is rarely permitted by judges in Queensland with the result of further disadvantage to the falsely accused.
The legislation regarding crimes relating to sexual abuse of children in Queensland needs a massive overhaul. It needs to reflect the differences between ancient and modern accusations. I have been made aware that the huge discrepancy in the number of convictions between Queensland and other states is directly related to the differences in legislation. In Queensland it seems that a high number of convictions is the aim of the legislation which makes them much easier to obtain than in other states. I am aware of a case where a complaint of an ancient nature was made in NSW against a former step-father and the police there found it not to have sufficient credence to lay charges. The woman involved then went to Queensland as the family had resided here for a while. Those same accusations resulted in convictions of that man. Politicians are so eager to promote the image of being tough on crime without due regard to just and fair process. In a climate of witch-hunt, they are all so fearful of being labeled as soft and sympathetic to perpetrators of child sexual abuse that they acquiesce to the fanatical demands of the zealots and seem to agree with one of them who has been heard to say something along the lines of: ‘So what, if one innocent man is convicted. Too bad for him’.
The legislation regarding media reporting of accusations needs reform. Many people blame the fact that Bill was identified by the media and then the subject of frequent adverse stories vivifying him over the two years preceded his first trial, for his conviction: they believe that he was convicted by a jury that could not have been otherwise than prejudiced. Some freely say he was convicted by the media before one word was uttered in court. In cases involving allegations of child sexual abuse, especially ancient ones, the accused should not be publicly identified unless a conviction results. This would mean that those acquitted don’t carry the stigma that accusations of this type alone cause. It would also make it harder for police to trawl.
To address the problem of the inadequacy of the appeals process, Bill and I strongly believe that Queensland, and indeed Australia needs a body similar in charter, makeup and operation to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, known as the CCRC, that currently operates in Britain. It was set up to deal with the situation in Britain so similar to that here where ancient abuse cases frequently ended up as miscarriages of justice. Persons who believe they are victims of a miscarriage of justice and who have exhausted their avenues of appeal, may apply to the Criminal Cases Review Commission where the terms of reference are different from those in the regular court system. In Britain the results have been nothing short of spectacular, resulting in many people having wrongful child sex convictions overturned, to date more than 200. If anyone would like to find out more about this important fairly new adjunct to the British legal system, the website of the CCRC is: http://www.ccrc.gov.uk.
The setting up of such a commission would go far to redress the difficulties encountered by innocent person wrongly convicted in a system which refuses to recognize that wrongful convictions can and do occur, and where the treatment of prisoners make no allowances at all for those who are innocent, and in fact treats them more harshly. Another British website that I recommend you visit is: http://www.richardwebster.net. Here you will find extensive documentary on wrongful convictions resulting from false allegations of ancient child sexual abuse; topics such as ‘Crusade or witch-hunt?’, ‘Trawling goes on trial’, and ‘End this cruel injustice’ will give you a greater insight into the issues involved in this contagious disease of the justice system that has spread to Australia and most other western democracies. A search on the internet will easily give you access to the many publications of Elizabeth Loftus, the Distinguished Professor of Social Ecology from Washington University in the United States. Loftus is considered a world expert in the study of memory and the problems associated with it and its role in many wrongful convictions.

It’s quite possible that some of you have other recommendations to add to mine and I would be happy to hear from you. I find it hard to understand why we in Queensland cannot learn from the prior experiences in other countries where the witch-hunt preceded that here in Australia. We seem to have to follow regardless, when common sense dictates that we take advantage of their experience and curtail the needless pain and suffering of the innocent who have been wrongly convicted and their families, here in Queensland. I’ve mentioned Britain already. I should not let the opportunity go by to mention France. One case of false accusations was so bad and involved so many innocent people, men and women who were wrongly convicted, that the President of France made a public apology to all those who suffered and also to the whole French nation. If you are a follower of world news you will be aware of accusations of sexual crimes made against politicians in Britain, Malaysia, the US and recently the Solomon Islands. These are usually ‘the kiss of death’ to their careers, regardless of any later acquittals or recants by the false accusers. I cannot think of anything more cruel to do to a person of good character, than make false accusations of child sexual abuse.

I asked Bill how many men are currently in Wolston Correctional Centre, whom he believes to have been wrongly accused of sexual crimes against children. He estimates at the very least 12 in the Residential section which houses 300 prisoners, which would be 4%, probably a conservative estimate. I can’t comment on the number in Secure Section which houses another 300 inmates. Of course Bill knows of a considerable number more who are in this category but who have been released. You may be interested to know of recent changes in the classification of those convicted of sex offences including ancient ones. They used to start at High Risk classification and proceed through Medium and then Low and on to Open, which made them eligible to go to the prison farms in the latter half of their sentences. Now all have been reclassified as High Risk, which impacts adversely on their eligibility for parole, as does the maintenance of a stance of innocence. So who is going to the Farms these days you may ask? The answer is those convicted of drug offences mostly.

While the witch-hunt continues unchecked and the balance remains distorted, no adult in Queensland will be safe from false accusations of child sex abuse, especially those hardest to defend, the ancient allegations. All it takes is an accusation and the nightmare begins. How do you prove that something NEVER happened when there CAN BE NO EVIDENCE if the alleged events NEVER OCCURRED. In reality, you will not receive the proper presumption of innocence. Terrible pressure will descend upon you and your family. You cannot be sure you family will be strong enough to survive. You will find many people, while they privately tell you they find it hard to believe the accusations levelled against you, will not have the courage to publicly support you.

I would like to mention briefly a few cases which may give you a better appreciation of the motivation behind false accusations. These are cases of men whom Bill has met. One of these stomach- turning scenarios is the case of a former teacher in an all-boys school. When the allegations were made to the police, he was in his 80's and was exhibiting the early stages of dementia and quite honestly could not remember a thing. Told that he was facing the prospect of dying in jail, he was convinced by his lawyers to plead guilty and throw himself on the mercy of the courts. Many others have been prevailed upon to plead guilty under an agreement with their own lawyers to keep their sentences to a minimum. Another case involved that of a man of Asian origin in his 90's who spoke no English. He was accused by a grand child whose motive he believed was to get to most of the inheritance. A third case involved a man accused by a stepdaughter from a previous marriage. He admitted to being an alcoholic around that time and that he had big gaps in his memory. He was convinced to plead guilty so that the stepdaughter did not have to give evidence, and was assured he would receive a non-custodial sentence. Unfortunately he was jailed, he lost his job of 30 years, and is still under the threat of deportation because although living in Australia for over 40 years, he never became an Australian citizen. What a nightmare for him, his wife and family.

In conclusion, Bill andIfeel very strongly that the Queensland public must be made aware, that ‘there but for the grace of God’ goes EVERY ONE of them. The public, once they learn the real facts, will be horrified by the D'Arcy case, not just because of the scale of injustice in Bill’s wrongful convictions, but because, if it could happen to Bill D’Arcy, a serving member of the Queensland Parliament, it could happen to any one of them. Any person, male or female, who has had kids stay over, who has been on a school camp, who has taken kids to a sports event or some other outing, who has at some time comforted a child after an accident or disappointment, or has simply put a hand on a head or shoulder, is vulnerable to an allegation at any time throughout the rest of their lives. It's worse for teachers, youth workers and professional child-carers. Any parent, step-parent or relative involved in any family drama such as a break-up is vulnerable. Under current Queensland legislation any allegation is enough to ruin a life now or 30 to 60 years into the future.

I call upon the Queensland Government to set up a non-political enquiryinto the case of Bill D’Arcy, as previously outlined by me. I also call upon the Queensland Government to follow the United Kingdom Government and set up aCriminal Cases Review Commission to deal with the escalating problem of wrongful convictions.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the D' Arcy case highlights the very worst in the system, and one day anyone of YOU could easily find yourself in such a predicament. When will this madness end? Something must be done and soon, to restore balance to Justice in the Queensland.

Lois D'Arcy - resilient and unwavering in her defence of her husband Bill D'Arcy