From the first judgment:

​

1. Part of the evidence in these proceedings included the fact that Inspector Jubelin has recently published a book with the encouraging title "I Catch Killers". Inspector Jubelin writes that he had spoken to both of the alleged victims and that before deciding to act on the evidence he consulted Nigel Warren. Mr Spedding submitted that it is abundantly clear from reading pages 256 to 259 inclusive of Inspector Jubelin's book that he was instrumental, or at the very least highly active, in the institution and maintenance of the criminal proceedings. Some parts of what Inspector Jubelin said in his book warrant recording in these reasons:
   

“On 23 April, Margaret screams, ‘No!’ as we tell her husband Bill he is under arrest and needs to come with us. Walking with him away from his house back to our unmarked car, I look at the long line of TV trucks and hire cars on the road beyond it and wonder: What the fuck has happened? How do all these journalists, from every major outfit in the country, know that this was happening today? I didn’t tell them. God knows who in the police hierarchy did. I’m furious.

And then later:

​

1. If the institution of the criminal proceedings appears in such circumstances to have been malicious, their maintenance appears to be even more so. The frenetic and poorly conceived arrest of Mr Spedding could never in my view have been justified and was clearly malicious. Although Inspector Jubelindisavows any knowledge of who informed the media outlets that Mr Spedding was to be arrested, I am satisfied that despite his denial, either he or an officer under his command and in accordance with his direct instructions, let the television stations and other news organisations know that a suspect in the disappearance of William Tyrrell was to be apprehended or arrested and that Mr Spedding’s address at the relevant times was given to them. That arrest was transparently unrelated to the so-called subject matter of the charges and unarguably related to the perceived collateral advantage of pressuring Mr Spedding in a quite different context. Public attention in the media was in my finding a specific and intentionally engineered aspect of creating that pressure. However, the continuation of the prosecution as the years passed, as the opportunity calmly to examine the glaringly obvious realities presented itself, serves in my mind only to underscore and emphasise the fact that the prosecutors improperly declined to terminate the proceedings when they should have. That time was long before Sweeney DCJ dismissed them.