Comment:
The Courier-Mail named D'Arcy on two occasions in prominent articles before he was charged - on 31st August 1998 and 2nd September 1998. Note the hypocrisy highlighted in the article below.
D'Arcy's lawyer, Terry O'Gorman, is quoted in the article on 31st August as saying, "the publicity underscored his view that it should be a criminal offence to publish the fact that someone was under investigation until a charge was laid".
One of the worst-kept secrets in Queensland political circles can finally be talked about openly. The senior political figure who has faced committal proceedings in relation to scores of charges ranging from indecent assault of children to rape is Bill D'Arcy, former MP for Woodridge and former deputy speaker of the Legislative Assembly. D'Arcy, who strenuously denies all the allegations, resigned his seat this month, prompting the by-election that will be held in a fortnight's time. He will answer the 49 charges on which he has been committed during the sittings of the District Court beginning next month.
The Courier-Mail and other media were unable to mention the charges brought against D'Arcy until he was committed for trial by a magistrate. This is the law, detailed in the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978. It prevents any publisher from giving the name, address or place of employment of anyone charged with sexual offences before committal for trial. It is based on the presumption of innocence and the fact that, in sexual cases in particular, it is unfair to name a person charged until a prima facie case has been made out against that person.
But the fact D'Arcy had been charged and the nature of those charges were well known in political circles, and Premier Peter Beattie was acutely aware of the political timebomb he was sitting on. It was why Mr Beattie tried to get D'Arcy to resign from Parliament more than a year ago -- before the charges were laid. It was why the Premier continued to press for his resignation "for the good of the government". But D'Arcy refused to resign or step aside as chairman of committees and deputy speaker. There was no way he could be forced out. The presumption of innocence is recognised constitutionally.
Despite D'Arcy's resignation from Parliament, his committal for trial on paedophile charges is damaging to the Beattie Government through the perception that a deal was done ensuring D'Arcy would receive his official $660,000 superannuation if he stood down when he did, and also in relation to the Net Bet affair. Last year The Courier-Mail revealed that Treasurer David Hamill had granted a casino gaming licence to a company in which D'Arcy and several Labor colleagues had an indirect financial interest. Mr Hamill stood down but was eventually reinstated because the Auditor-General found he had done nothing wrong. His mistake was political -- to give a licence to a group that included three Labor mates -- not criminal. After yesterday's committal of D'Arcy, it is obvious to all that Mr Hamill showed an extraordinary lack of judgement. Mr Hamill knew D'Arcy had been charged with serious offences that would cost him his place in Parliament if they were eventually proved. While the official probity checks cleared the company seeking the licence, Mr Hamill should, at the very least, have deferred the application until after D'Arcy's committal hearing had been completed. If Mr Beattie is not currently rethinking Mr Hamill's future, perhaps he should.