False accusation at Logan Village State School

B i l l D 'A r c y S u p p o r t G r o u p

Woman gives evidence against D'Arcy who was not at the School when Bill was there!

School records (in the hands of the police) turned up after the trial, wherein he was found guilty.

	OUR REF: 20050017 CONTACT: Steve Quadrio/Lia E-MAIL: quadrio@mqlaw.com.au 19th February 2007 Mr Paul Bini Senior Policy Advisor Attorney General Department of Justice GPO Box 149 Brisbane, QLD 4001 Sir, RE: WILLIAM THEORDORE D'ARCY On behalf of our client, Mr William Darcy, we seek a meeting with the Attorney-General. We have instructed Mr Ken Fleming QC and Mr Anton Maher of Counsel to attend, along with Mr Steve Quadrio of this firm. We estimate that the meeting would take about 20 – 30 minutes at the longest. Our client has been pressing for such a meeting for some time. We wish to discuss with the Honourable Minister the prospect of referring our client’s case in relation to his conviction in the District Court (complainant NAME WITHELD) back to the Court of Appeal for determination. Our client was convicted of indecent dealing with Miss NAME WITHELD at the Logan Village State School. Essentially, a key prosecution witness was not at the school at the relevant time, and an Admission Register confirming this was not made available to the Defence until the trial was concluded (although it was always in the custody of the Police). Our client is of the view that he would not have been convicted if this information was to hand, as it should have been. As you are aware, a second appeal to the Court of Appeal is incompetent and therefore the only way that this “new” information can be considered is by a reference back to the Court by the Attorney. This matter was raised with the Ministers’s predecessor in office, but the response received was factually wrong and due to the erstwhile Minister’s ill health no meeting was possible. We have all the facts to put before the Attorney. This is not a request for any “favour” or indulgence. We are firmly of the view that once the Attorney is aware of the facts of the case, he will concur that the proper course is to let the Court of Appeal decide the significance of them. We are of the view that a meeting would be more productive than the cumbersome process of judicial review. Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to arranging a suitable time to meet. Yours Faithfully, MARTINEZ QUADRIO LAWYERS per. Steve Quadrio

OUR REF: 20050017

CONTACT: Steve Quadrio/Lia

E-MAIL: quadrio@mqlaw.com.au

19th February 2007

Mr Paul Bini

Senior Policy Advisor

Attorney General

Department of Justice

GPO Box 149

Brisbane, QLD 4001

Sir,

RE: WILLIAM THEORDORE D'ARCY

On behalf of our client, Mr William Darcy, we seek a meeting with the Attorney-General.

We have instructed Mr Ken Fleming QC and Mr Anton Maher of Counsel to attend, along with Mr Steve Quadrio of this firm.

We estimate that the meeting would take about 20 – 30 minutes at the longest.

Our client has been pressing for such a meeting for some time. We wish to discuss with the Honourable Minister the prospect of referring our client’s case in relation to his conviction in the District Court (complainant NAME WITHELD) back to the Court of Appeal for determination. Our client was convicted of indecent dealing with Miss NAME WITHELD at the Logan Village State School. Essentially, a key prosecution witness was not at the school at the relevant time, and an Admission Register confirming this was not made available to the Defence until the trial was concluded (although it was always in the custody of the Police). Our client is of the view that he would not have been convicted if this information was to hand, as it should have been.

As you are aware, a second appeal to the Court of Appeal is incompetent and therefore the only way that this “new” information can be considered is by a reference back to the Court by the Attorney. This matter was raised with the Ministers’s predecessor in office, but the response received was factually wrong and due to the erstwhile Minister’s ill health no meeting was possible. We have all the facts to put before the Attorney. This is not a request for any “favour” or indulgence. We are firmly of the view that once the Attorney is aware of the facts of the case, he will concur that the proper course is to let the Court of Appeal decide the significance of them.

We are of the view that a meeting would be more productive than the cumbersome process of judicial review.

Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to arranging a suitable time to meet.

Yours Faithfully,

MARTINEZ QUADRIO LAWYERS

per. Steve Quadrio