In the case of State of New South Wales v Spedding [2023] NSWCA 180, William Spedding was a person of interest and prime suspect in the disappearance of 3-year-old William Tyrrell in 2014.
Inspector Gary Jubelin led the investigation and collaborated closely with Detectives Moynihan and Brennan. To apply pressure and aid the Tyrrell investigation, Spedding was arrested and charged with unrelated child sexual assault offenses from 1987. He was denied bail to install a listening device in his cell, authorised by a warrant.
Spedding was acquitted on March 5, 2018, and was awarded costs for his prosecution.
The Court of Appeal has now recently upheld the primary judge’s decision and have maintained that the damages awarded were appropriate.
Unpacking the issues of the State’s appeal
The main issues on appeal were:
Reasonable and probable cause - the Court determined that the police officers lacked a reasonable and probable basis for arresting and charging Mr. Spedding, as they possessed materials that contradicted the charged allegations, casting doubt on their veracity.
Maintenance of prosecution - the police officers continued the prosecution even after the ODPP took over the case, by controlling and withholding relevant material for bail and failing to disclose crucial interview materials.
Malice - Mr. Spedding's arrest, carried out to advance an unrelated investigation, was deemed improper. Malice was inferred from the improper purpose behind initiating the proceedings.
ODPP liability - the ODPP was found not liable for malicious prosecution, as they were unaware of the police officers' improper motives in arresting and charging Mr. Spedding.
Misfeasance in public office - the arrest and charging of Mr. Spedding were considered an unauthorised exercise of public power for an improper purpose, constituting the tort of misfeasance in public office.
Abuse of process - the Court established that this tort was applicable, as the proceedings were commenced for a dominant purpose outside the scope of the criminal process invoked.
Damages - the Court affirmed that damages, including aggravated damages, were not excessive. Mr. Spedding suffered significant consequences due to the wrongful conduct. Exemplary damages were emphasised to signal disapproval of the conduct and uphold the rule of law. Their purpose was to deter such reprehensible behaviour in the future.
Court of Appeal findings
The Court of Appeal judges stated that “the high-handed, self-serving, grand-standing undermining of the criminal justice system by the relevant police officers in arresting, charging, opposing bail and maintaining the prosecution against Mr Spedding has no relevant comparator in the reported cases in New South Wales.”
They affirmed the primary judge's decision, concluding that:
- The police officers lacked reasonable and probable cause when initiating criminal proceedings against Mr. Spedding. They were found to have maintained the prosecution by withholding pertinent information, and their arrest of Spedding was deemed malicious, serving an unrelated investigation.
- The tort of misfeasance in public office was committed as the proceedings were initiated for an improper purpose, constituting an unauthorised act. Additionally, collateral abuse of process was established, as the proceedings were commenced for a purpose beyond the scope of the invoked criminal process.
- The ODPP (Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions) was not held liable for malicious prosecution. The allegation that the ODPP pursued the case to justify expended public resources in the Tyrrell Investigation was deemed unsubstantiated. The ODPP was unaware of the police officers' improper motives.
Given the wrongful treatment Mr. Spedding endured, the Court found the damages awarded to be fitting. The appeal was dismissed, and costs were granted.
The systemic issue of Police misconduct
The treatment of Mr Spedding is not an isolated incident. Regardless of the jurisdiction in Australia, if a police officer acts outside of their powers or breaks the law, you may be able to bring a claim for compensation.
Serious police misconduct ranges from assault, false imprisonment and wrongful arrest to malicious prosecution. Whether your injury is physical or psychological, you may be able to sue the police for misconduct.
Contact Robinson Gill’s Police Misconduct team if you or someone you know has been affected by alleged police misconduct.
Authors: Jeremy King and Sophia Baldi.
How can I learn more?
Jeremy King.
Principal.
- Injury Law & Police Misconduct
- 03 9890 3321
- Email Address: j.king@robinsongill.com.au
Jeremy King is a Principal Lawyer and head of the Police and Prisons team at Robinson Gill. With an imposing track record of high-profile actions against the Victorian police, Jeremy is at the forefront of the fight for police oversight and accountability. Through both his landmark litigation and advocacy work, he has played a key role in shaping legislative reform across Australia.
Some other resources you
might find helpful
Section 459 arrest power: when are there reasonable grounds to believe an indictable offence has been committed?
The case of Carrie Peters (a Pseudonym) v the State of Victoria [2023] VCC 1791 examined the circumstances in which police are entitled to arrest an individual without a warrant under section 459 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) (Crimes Act).
What Role Does the TAC Clinical Panel Play in Determining Whether Your Surgery Is Paid For?
If you’ve been injured in a transport accident, you may be surprised to find that the Transport Accident Commission (TAC) don’t automatically agree to pay for all requested treatment.
Conspiracy case update: Taxi Apps Pty Ltd v Uber Technologies Inc & Ors [2025] VSC 514
On 25 August 2025, the Supreme Court of Victoria handed down its decision in Taxi Apps Pty Ltd v Uber Technologies Inc & Ors (Taxi Apps decision) deciding, inter alia, whether Uber’s expansion in Australia constituted a tortious conspiracy that caused Taxi Apps Pty Ltd (Taxi Apps) loss.