Former William Tyrrell suspect Bill Spedding sues for malicious prosecution

Bill Spedding revealed the ‘frightening’ details of his ‘wrongful’ 2015 arrest for historical sexual assault charges, which police knew he had been cleared of.

Bill Spedding leaves the Supreme Court in Sydney on Tuesday. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Damian Shaw

A former person of interest in the disappearance of toddler William Tyrrell is suing the state of NSW, revealing the “frightening” details of his arrest for historical sexual assault charges of which police knew he had been cleared.

Washing machine repairman Bill Spedding was arrested by Port Macquarie police in 2015 over allegations of sexual assault against two girls in the 1980s, and was held in solitary confinement for over a week before his transfer to Cessnock Maximum Security Prison. He was “wrongfully imprisoned” for 58 days before being given bail.

On the first day of the Supreme Court trial, Mr Spedding’s barrister Adrian Canceri detailed his ­client’s treatment in the prison.

“NSW Corrective Services officers in body armour stripsearched him and during the strip search, one of the officers put a nightstick against the plaintiff’s neck,” Mr Canceri said. “(The officer) said to him words to the effect of ‘I’d shove this up your arse except I’d have to clean it afterwards … just remember we want you to talk’.”

Mr Canceri said the ordeal had been “devastating” for Mr Spedding and that the non-economic damages to his mental health and wellbeing were compounded by his association with William’s disappearance.

“Inmates had yelled words to the effect of ‘where’s William? What have you done to William?’ and he was threatened and abused by inmates,” Mr Canceri added.

Mr Spedding became a primary person of interest after it was revealed that he had visited the home of William’s former foster grandmother to fix their washing machine three days before the three-year-old’s disappearance, prompting police to raid his home and business in search of clues.

Mr Canceri said Mr Spedding believed police should never have commenced proceedings against him in relation to the historical ­allegations.

“Part of the strategy to inculpate the plaintiff was to arrest and charge him for old sexual assault allegations, which had previously been investigated by police and no action taken,” Mr Canceri said.

“At the time of the trial, when it came to give evidence in respect of those allegations, there was no evidence. The criminal proceedings were used as a vehicle to further the investigation of the plaintiff as a suspect in the disappearance of William Tyrrell and to punish him for his suspected involvement.”

The court heard that detectives involved in Mr Spedding’s arrest, including Gary Jubelin and Justin Moynihan, verbally abused him.

“We know you did it, we’re going to get you, I’m going to come and arrest you,” Mr Moynihan allegedly told him.

Mr Spedding argued that Mr Jubelin “had it in for him”, claiming that in an unrecorded interview between them and two other officers, Mr Jubelin had leaned ­towards him and threatened him.

“Mr nice washing-machine man, I’m going to ruin you,” Mr Jubelin allegedly said.

Mr Canceri said the Department of Public Prosecutions was at fault for pursuing the prosecution despite it being “doomed to fail”.

However, when cross-examined, Mr Spedding acknowledged that he had not been induced or threatened to give interviews to the police and that he had failed to recall aspects of statements he had previously given in his affidavit.

When asked how anyone would have know he was unwilling to do the interviews, Mr Spedding said: “I don’t know.”