The Support Group

Bill D'Arcy supporters consist of :-

1. Those who believe that because of the extensive pre-trial publicity, Bill D'Arcy had no chance of a fair trial.


2. Those who believe that because of a plethora of uncorroborated evidence, contradictory allegations, and conflicting accounts, he should never have been found guilty.


3. Those who believe that because of evidence given at the trials, evidence suppressed by the police, and evidence which has been clarified or uncovered since, he was not guilty of any charges.


4, Those who believe that because of the consistent refusal of all government and legal authorities to accept Bill D'Arcy's request for an independent enquiry into his case, especially in the light of evidence which has emerged since the trials, he is suffering a further injustice.

Important Dates:
Trials and Legal Events

May 1998. Queensland Police received the first complaint against Bill D’Arcy.

August 1998. The Courier Mail published an unsubstantiated story of assault by Bill.

September 1, 1998:
The Australian Newspaper in its editorial took Premier Beattie to task for cyncism and branding Bill D'Arcy as guilty by implication.

September 1998. The Argos Police Task Force began an investigation of D'Arcy's behaviour at the Yalleroi School.

The First and Main Trial: November 2000.
Yalleroi School
The first trial began in the Brisbane Supreme Court when Bill, then aged 62, was charged with eighteen offences by four accusers. Despite the misinformation given by the DPP to Chief Justice Jersey only one woman accused him of rape.The period mainly centred on May 1966 at the Yalleroi School when he was a 23 year old sole teacher. He pleaded Not Guilty.

Subsequent analysis of the transcripts and the evidence makes it clear,, on at least ten grounds, that the alleged rape took place in May 1966. Crucially, Bill D'Arcy had left the Yalleroi school in June 1965! Several items of evidence described the appearance of the teacher who followed Bill D'Arcy.

Bill D'Arcy was very ill with serious heart trouble leading up to the trial and at the time of the trial, and thus had difficulty in adequately defending himself. The trial was full of anomalies and contradictions. See, for example, Dr O'Connor's analysis, and the "Hole in the Wall" analysis. He was convicted of all offences and sentenced to 14 years gaol, 10 of which were for the serious conviction of rape.

Appeal to Supreme Court: August 2001.
Bill appealed his conviction and his sentence to the Supreme Court of Queensland sitting as the Court of Appeal. His sentence was reduced by three years because of his "good behaviour" over the previous 40 years. For reducing the sentence the judges were mercilessly attacked in the media as "being out of touch with community concerns". His appeal lacked important evidence that became available only later.

The Civil Action - similar to a "Trial": June 2002.
Yalleroi School
A civil action was brought in the District Court of Queensland by two women who had been pupils at Yalleroi School and were seeking $250,000 each as compensation for injuries suffered in consequence of the alleged abuse.

Judge H.W.H.Botting found the accusers’ evidence, and, by implication, the evidence given at the criminal trial, to be inconsistent and contradictory. He detailed a range of serious inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainants. He judged Bill D'Arcy to be a reliable witness. He disallowed the compensation application and awarded costs to Bill D'Arcy. These costs have never been paid. This significant judgment of the court received almost no publicity. There are serious questions about who bankrolled the legal case for the accusing women.

Said Judge Botting:
“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.” (Court Judgment)

The Second Trial: November 2002.
Logan Village School
In the District Court of Queensland. Bill was charged with three further offences in 1969 against one student at the Logan Village School. He pleaded Not Guilty. The accusing woman's evidence was not believed by the jury and D'Arcy was found not guilty of those two charges.

A third charge. Even though the accusing woman's two charges were not accepted by the jury, an outside observer, not a victim - but a cousin of the accusing woman, gave evidence that, while a temporary student at the school, she saw Bill D'Arcy sexually assault the woman in question. Specifically, this person claimed that on one occasion she saw Bill D'Arcy touch the accusing woman's breasts. On this testimony only he was found guilty and sentenced to a further six months jail - which was added to his existing sentence.

It was established later that this witness had given false testimony. The Admissions Register of the Logan Village School, which is an official record distinct from the daily Attendance Book, apparently had been hidden by police. It came to light at a later trial. It was produced by the police to support other evidence, but it thus proved conclusively that this person was not at the school in 1969 when Bill D'Arcy was there. The record showed that she first became a pupil in 1971 after Bill D'Arcy had left the school.

Under questioning from Barrister Anton Maher, she confirmed she had given different dates for her birthday in two legal documents. On the basis that this conviction must have been wrong, Martinez, Quadrio Lawyers, prepared a Pardon Petition to the Governor signed by their barristers Ken Fleming QC and Anton F. Maher. In the end it went nowhere. The story of this Petition is discussed elsewhere on this website.

The Third Trial: late 2003.
Tomewin and Corrumbin Valley Schools
In the District Court of Brisbane. There were four complainants from two schools with accusations of sexual misconduct some forty plus years old. They were "recovered memory" like charges. The trial was aborted after one complainant did not come up to proof on either of her two charges, and another on one similarly. In short, the accusers could not remember what they said in their police-assisted statements.

Due to the unsatisfactory state of the evidence, the Crown elected not to proceed any further. The strange thing here is that the allegations of these complainants were little different from the earlier ones that Bill had been convicted of from Yalleroi and Logan Village Schools. It poses the question why? Was it because, unlike the first trial involving Yalleroi School, Bill’s new defence team had subpoenaed a large number of former students from these two schools whose evidence contradicted the evidence of the complainants? (Never Mind the Facts)

Court Order: May 2004.
A Court Order brought by Bill uncovered the Logan Village School Admissions Register for the 1969 to 1971 period. (see above - Second Trial)

The Fourth Trial: May 24, 2004.
Logan Village School
The fourth trial began in May 2004 in the District Court of Brisbane when Bill was charged with three sexual offences against one woman in the period January to August 1971 at the Logan Village School. He pleaded Not Guilty. He was convicted of all three charges. A fellow teacher at the school, Marie Doyle, on video and in a recent affidavit describes all the accusations as impossible.

The prosecution’s case was compromised from the beginning. The accusing woman, in her original statement, identified Marie Doyle as a witness to the alleged assault, believing her to be dead. A police constable checked this and found that Marie Doyle was still very much alive. She rang Marie Doyle who advised her she had no knowledge of any assault. Former police advised the D'Arcys that the prosecution should have dropped the case at this point.

But what happened? The police concerned did not then take a statement from Marie Doyle to this effect, but went back and took a new statement from the accusing woman leaving Doyle out of the picture!

Appeal to Queensland Court of Appeal: Mid 2004
All remaining charges were ruled Nolle Prosequi - never to proceed. This meant no more trials against Bill D'Arcy were possible. (In the words of a former senior policeman, they had "carpet bombed" him anyway.)

FOI: March 2005.
Bill received new evidence under Freedom of Information (FOI) from the Queensland Justice Department. These official documents revealed that misleading evidence and important omissions permeated Bill’s trials and subsequent convictions.

Submission of Pardon Petition: May 2005.
On the basis of the newly discovered information regrading the Second Trial, the prepared Pardon Petition referred to above in relation to the second trial, was submitted to the Queensland Governor’s Office under s672 A of the Criminal Code.

Governor's Endorsement: September 2005.
The Governor’s Office endorsed the Pardon Petition application on the grounds of the newly found evidence. The application was further refined by the lawyers and submitted to the Queensland Attorney-General’s Office for referral to the Court of Appeal.
Attorney-General Linda Lavarch refused to endorse the petition and refused to refer the Application to the Court of Appeal. Within days she resigned as Attorney-General citing illness, including depression.

Official Complaint: December 2007.
Bill D'Arcy lodged an official complaint to the Police Commissioner asking that on the basis of evidence now available, perjury charges be investigated against the rape complainant at the first trial. His complaint was rejected.

Legal briefing to Charles Waterstreet QC, news reports and other documents.
Never mind the Facts (unpublished book) ca p.71
external website -
SSC&S Investigators 88 page report.