Call for a probe into police ‘mistakes’ in William Tyrrell search

Police are under pressure to explain why they haven’t been able to solve Tyrrell case.

William Tyrrell went missing in 2014.

NSW police should be questioned over potentially damaging mistakes they may have made during the five-year investigation into the disappearance of William Tyrrell, a coroner’s court heard yesterday.

Two lawyers yesterday argued for more transparency, including a good look at “possible deficiencies” in the police investigation, which was until this year led by homicide detective Gary Jubelin.

The lawyers want to know why certain people were targeted by media and police and other leads were ignored. They also want to know why it took four years for police to organise a proper forensic search of the bushland; and why William’s foster father, among others, was not asked to give a statement when the boy disappeared.

“Could this have been done better? The community has a right to know,” said criminal ­defence barrister Peter O’Brien.

William was in foster care when he went missing from Kendall, NSW, on September 12, 2014. There is no suggestion his ­foster parents or biological parents had anything to do with his disappearance.

The mistakes and miscalculations in the investigation, as well as police turf wars, are the subject of The Australian’s latest podcast series, Nowhere Child. There has been no trace of William, despite one of the state’s largest manhunts and its biggest reward.

Mr O’Brien argued yesterday for Mr Jubelin, who is facing criminal charges related to his handling of the Tyrrell case, to be called to the stand. Mr Jubelin is accused of recording “persons of interest” without a warrant. He denied wrongdoing and is fighting the charges.

Mr O’Brien said Mr Jubelin and others should explain many of the decisions they took during the investigation: “Maybe things could be done differently, maybe they could be done better.”

Mr O’Brien represents Bill Spedding, a local washing ­machine man who visited the Tyrrell house two days before William got there. His name was linked to the case despite there being no evidence to tie him to the dis­appearance. To clear his name, he tried protesting his innocence via a YouTube video, but Mr O’Brien said the impact of being named had been devastating.

His appeal for greater transparency was backed by Michelle Swift, who acts for William’s biological father. She asked why no statement was taken from the male foster carer at the time of the disappearance. He told police he was not there when William went missing, having travelled to a nearby town to make a Skype call.

Mr O’Brien said police had used the media to put pressure on “certain people” and their procedures should be examined.

Ms Swift suggested calling ­retired detective Hans Rupp, first head of the investi­gation, “to ­explain decisions that were made along the way”.

“Why there was not a forensic search until 2018?” she asked. “Why didn’t that happen earlier?”

Attempts to have new witnesses added to the list failed.

Counsel assisting the coroner, Gerard Craddock, said: “The focus of the inquest is on finding William. It is very much ongoing, it is a live police investigation.”

Deputy State Coroner Harriet Grahame said she understood why Mr Spedding might want to “cross-examine police officers who have been involved in investigating” him “but my focus … must remain finding out what happened to William”.

INQUIRER P17