Judge H.W.H Botting threw out the claims in the Civil Court
The civil "trial" seeking compensation was occasioned by the conviction. Despite the conviction, no compensation was paid. The woman who claimed rape in May 1966 and another woman who claimed sexual assault sued Bill D’Arcy and the Queensland Education Department for $250,000 each in these civil proceedings. The court sat in June 2002. Judge H.W.H. Botting presided.
In his ruling Judge Botting stated that he was aware that D’Arcy had been convicted of 18 offences in the criminal court. Nevertheless, he detailed a range of serious inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainants. He denied their claim and awarded legal costs to D’Arcy.
“The applicants have not discharged the onus of persuading me that a fair trial is now possible. In fact, in my view, the time that has now elapsed since the events complained of took place make the chances of a fair trial unlikely.”
Judge Botting also observed that “having watched him closely” that “the Defendant [Bill D’Arcy] ... [was] an "honest and reliable witness on those factual issues which emerged...”
An expert witness produced by the complainants admitted that anyone “can misremember or misinterpet the past.” Judge Botting also noted that given the “numerous health problems” of the first woman i.e. the one who accused Bill D'Arcy of rape, she never divulged her accusations against Bill D’Arcy to her various doctors, even when it was quite relevant to do so, but after many years she readily divulged her accusations to a police officer. Judge found this fact “not reasonable”.
Judge H.W.H. Botting got it right.
But why did not this vindication of the D'Arcy's not get any real publicity ?
Who financed the accusers case in the Civil Court?
Why weren't the costs awarded to the D'Arcys ever paid?
This Media Release, issued on Aug 4, 2002 received no real attention from any media outlet.
MEDIA RELEASE: Bill D'Arcy
JUDGE H.W.H. BOTTING
Rules against "Victims' Compensation" in Bill D'Arcy Case
Awards Costs to Bill D'Arcy. Says: Fair trial is not possible.
The complainants against Bill D'Arcy will receive no victim compensation or any right to sue the D'Arcy family, in a careful and detailed ruling by Judge Botting in the District Court of Queensland delivered on the June 21, 2002.
D'Arcy, who has been under constant and sustained attacks in the media, has steadfastly maintained his innocence. He has bitterly criticized the conduct of the criminal trial, which found him guilty of raping an 8 year old girl in front of class of 20 pupils, none of whom heard or saw anything, over forty years ago. Furthermore he was not even a teacher at the school at the time of the alleged offence!
The unsupported accusation of woman who experienced "recovered memory" after thirty seven years secured a guilty verdict, which is still a source of indignant astonishment to D'Arcy, his family who fully support him, and to a growing group of supporters and friends.
This kind of evidence did not impress Judge Botting either who detailed a range of serious inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainants. He awarded costs to D'Arcy and stated that which has been obvious to many viz that a fair trial of these matters was not possible.
"The applicants have not discharged the onus of persuading me that a fair trial is now possible. In fact, in my view, the time that has now elapsed since the events complained of took place make the chances of a fair trial unlikely."
Judge Botting also observed "having watched him closely" that "the Defendant [Bill D'Arcy] ... [was] an honest and reliable witness on those factual issues which emerged…"
Even the expert witness produced by the complainants had to admit that anyone "can misremember or misinterpet the past.". Judge Botting also noted that given the "numerous health problems" of (the first Complainant) she never divulged her accusations against Bill D'Arcy to the various doctors, even when it was quite revalent to do so, but she readily divulged them to a police officer! He found this fact "not reasonable".
Mrs D'Arcy 07 3821 0400
Full Transcript of Botting judgment in pdf
Botting Civil Court judgment (link above)
Media Release - Aug 2002 (quoted above)
Courier Mail: "D'Arcy's victims denied compensation" ca. June 22, 2002