Gregory John Couch, doctor accused of possessing over 5000 child abuse files, no longer employed at hospital
Gregory John Couch, 37, was arrested after detectives executed a search warrant at an Albury home, on the NSW-Victorian border, at 6am on Tuesday.
Albury Wodonga Health (AWH) on Wednesday confirmed the married doctor is no longer working at the service.
'AWH is aware of media reporting yesterday afternoon that a doctor recently engaged by our service as a locum orthopaedic registrar, through a third-party medical workforce agency, has been charged by police with offences involving child abuse material,' the statement read.
'The individual is no longer working at AWH.
'We understand the seriousness of the charges and the matter is now before the courts.'
The service said there is no indication at this stage that any alleged misconduct occurred at AWH facilities or involved its patients or staff.
Couch passed all standard background checks before starting work, including Working with Children and police checks.
'These requirements were also reviewed and confirmed by AWH prior to his commencement,' the statement added.
AWH said it takes the responsibility of safeguarding vulnerable people seriously.
'We want to reassure the community that AWH remains steadfast in its commitment to the safety and wellbeing of our patients, families, and staff.'
Police will allege Australia Border Force officers seized Couch's phone at Melbourne Airport in May this year.
His phone was then referred to the State Crime Command's Sex Crime Squad, where detectives allegedly located thousands of files — both videos and photos — of child abuse material.
Footage shows Strike Force detectives escorting Couch — dressed in track pants, a jacket and ugg boots — out of a home and into the back of a police vehicle.
He was then taken to Albury Police Station, where he was charged with possess child abuse material, use carriage etc to access child abuse material, and intentionally import prohibited tier two goods.
Police will not allege Couch offended against any of his patients.
According to social media, Couch previously worked at Liverpool Hospital in Sydney before moving to the Gold Coast earlier this year.
Photos posted online show him posing alongside his wife after the couple married in early 2021.
7NEWS.com.au can reveal Couch's late twin brother, Andrew, who passed away in his sleep in May 2017, was also a doctor.
A photo posted online shows Couch, dressed in a mortarboard and graduation gown, accepting his brother's posthumously awarded Master of Medicine (Critical Care) from the University of Sydney later that year, as his parents and sister beamed beside him.
University of Sydney and the Australian & New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) have since made memorial awards in Andrew's honour.
Couch appeared in Albury Local Court on Tuesday, where he was refused bail.
He is next due to appear in court on August 19.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
‘Nobody is above the law': Royal author Andrew Lownie reveals explosive new Prince Andrew claims
Andrew Lownie has revealed the genesis of Prince Andrew's disastrous relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and why Buckingham Palace needs to 'cut loose' the Duke and Duchess of York. The veteran royal biographer is the author of the new book 'Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York', a warts-and-all account of the Yorks' marriage and three decade partnership. The bombshell book includes embarrassing revelations about the Duke of York's sex life, as well as unprecedented new information about his business dealings while working as a British trade envoy. Meanwhile, the Duke of York's ex-wife and current housemate Fergie is painted as not only financially reckless, but so dangerous to the monarchy that the royal family keep her in the fold to protect themselves. In an exclusive interview with the Sky News Australia digital series Power Hour, Mr Lownie opened up about the bizarre symbiotic relationship between Epstein and the Duke of York. Their friendship, which ended in Prince Andrew's public downfall, was equally transactional for both parties. 'Andrew was a useful piece of respectability for Epstein,' he told host Gabriella Power. 'Epstein provided useful contacts, someone who paid off debts for the couple and supplied women to Andrew.' Andrew's ability to provide 'respectability' and connections for shadowy businessmen was a tool the Duke of York has exploited throughout his public life. From 2001 until July 2011, Andrew worked as the United Kingdom's Special Representative for International Trade and Investment. The role saw the bombastic Duke serve as roving ambassador for British trade around the globe, and Lownie alleges it was in this role that Andrew benefitted financially on the side. According to Mr Lownie, Buckingham Palace were well-aware of Andrew's links to possibly dodgy business figures but ignored the Duke's reckless and brazen behaviour. 'MPs twenty years ago were asking our national crime agency to investigate him, nothing was done,' he said. 'I think (the book) is very damaging to Andrew and indeed to the monarchy who was very much aware what was going on and colluded with him.' Ironically, diplomats also complained that instead of helping British trade, Andrew was a liability on important trade trips. Mr Lownie called on King Charles to cut off his rogue brother once and for all to restore public trust in the monarchy's integrity. 'There's not sufficient transparency about royal finances, and royal activity full stop,' he said. 'We're prepared to support our royal family but not if they're on the take themselves. 'I think they need to look carefully and cut him loose. 'Nobody is above the law, including members of the royal family.' 'Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York' will be published by HarperCollins on 14 August 2025.
Sky News AU
4 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Victoria and WA's surging crime stats expose The Conversation expert's claim that Australia is becoming less violent
The term 'gaslighting' was born in the arts, but it found its true home in academia. And today, nowhere is the practice more pervasive than in Australia's universities. As readers know all too well, these institutions have become safe havens for left-leaning gaslighters, skilled at persuading the public that what they see and hear can't be trusted. It's a culture built on denial, where tidy theories and carefully scrubbed statistics are paraded out to wash away the fears, frustrations, and daily struggles of ordinary Australians. The latest example comes courtesy of Griffith University's Samara McPhedran, who confidently informs the nation that violent crime isn't rising. Such a claim presents a very narrow-minded version of reality. It's the kind of contrived intellectual thought that can only survive in the stale, insulated air of a lecture theatre, far from the streets where the damage is actually done. Perhaps Dr. McPhedran should speak with the families in Victoria watching their state's crime rate surge by 15 percent in a single year, each percentage point measured in stolen cars, broken bones, and lives violently knocked off course. Or she should consider the lengths the Victorian Allan government have gone to recently in an attempt to reduce violent crime, including the bizarre move to place more than 40 bins at police stations across the state so machete-wielding gangsters can safely dispose of their weaponry. She might then visit the residents of Perth's suburbs, where more than 25 suburbs have endured crime surges topping 30 percent in just 12 months. Perhaps she should speak with the parents who bolt their doors before the sun slips behind the rooftops, with the shopkeepers sweeping glass from their doorways for the twentieth time this year, with the pensioners who have abandoned the short walk to the corner shop because the risk now outweighs the reward. Instead, she remains sealed inside a bubble, an elitist echo chamber utterly detached from the realities and hardships of the people whose lives her theories claim to explain. If McPhedran's analysis reads like a masterclass in sidestepping the obvious, that's because it is. She leans on decades-old datasets, sanding down the jagged spikes of recent surges with long-term averages that bury the scale of the problem and don't engage with other aspects, such as recent rises in crime rates generally. In Victoria alone, police logged 627,268 criminal offences over a single twelve-month stretch (a shocking 17.1 per cent jump). Youth offenders now dominate robbery figures. In the 12 months to March 2025, according to the Crime Statistics Agency a range of theft offences were up significantly: motor vehicle theft was up 39.3 per cent, theft of number plates up 49.6 per cent and retail theft up 38.6 per cent. Cost-of-living pressures have driven this type of crime to levels that are breaking small businesses. Knife attacks have cut through once-secure communities, turning quiet shopping strips into places where tension lingers with every step. Yet McPhedran waves it away, insisting that reliable statistics aren't always available and that violent crime rates have fallen when compared to decades ago. When the evidence refuses to fit, she doesn't grapple with it. Unlike the principal research fellow, the public doesn't have the luxury of retreating into a spreadsheet. They live with the fallout of policy failure every day. They watch as the Albanese government's soft-on-crime stance emboldens offenders who know that the most likely consequence of repeat theft or assault is a token caution, not a meaningful sentence. They see state governments trial diversion programs that sound virtuous in a seminar room but collapse in the chaos of real streets with real victims. And while those failures multiply, academics step forward to supply the intellectual alibi for political leaders more intent on shielding their ideology than shielding their citizens. This is the point where the insulated arrogance of modern academia ceases to be an oddity and becomes a political weapon. Theories that clash with lived experience might remain harmless curiosities if they stayed buried in dusty journals, but they never do. They seep into ministerial speeches and bureaucratic talking points; they harden into legislative proposals. They turn genuine public concern into a 'perception problem' to be managed, not solved. Once that narrative takes root, the facts are bent until they break. The modern university system is built to protect that narrative. Scholars who dare to challenge progressive orthodoxy on crime, immigration, or public order find themselves quietly cut off from funding, promotions, and platforms. Those who repeat it are crowned as 'independent experts,' their words treated as gospel by journalists eager to paint public dissent as nothing more than hysteria. The result is a closed loop in which those most insulated from the damage their ideas cause are the very ones most empowered to write the laws everyone else must live under. Over time, this drip-feed of denial trains the public to second-guess themselves—until eventually, we begin to gaslight ourselves. Mention the knife-wielding teenagers roaming your streets, and you'll be branded a paranoid provocateur. Point to the boarded-up shopfronts in your town, and you'll be told you're cherry-picking. Describe a loved one's assault on public transport, and you'll get a lecture about 'isolated incidents.' The aim is not to convince you you're wrong; it's to make you doubt you were ever right. This gaslighting reaches far beyond crime statistics; it's now woven into the reflexes of Australia's academic and political class. The unspoken assumption is always that ordinary people misread reality, while they alone hold a higher, purer truth. In a university setting, that arrogance is tedious – but in the halls of power, it's lethal. Crime policy leaves no margin for theoretical blunders; every wrong assumption is paid for in screaming sirens, scared citizens, and suburbs drained of trust. Australians deserve far more than ivory-tower ignorance. They deserve leaders willing to face brutal truths—men and women prepared to say plainly that crime is climbing and the nation is hurting. They also deserve to know that the truth on their streets outweighs the fairy tales pushed by officials whose paychecks depend on avoiding inconvenient facts. And they deserve academics who leave the seminar room for the suburbs, who speak with business owners, walk with police, and listen—really listen—to victims. Because only then can their theories carry the weight of the world they claim to explain. John Mac Ghlionn is a researcher and essayist who writes on psychology and social relations. He has a keen interest in social dysfunction and media manipulation.
7NEWS
9 hours ago
- 7NEWS
Almost 70 per cent of Britons want Andrew stripped of titles
Two thirds of Britons believe Prince Andrew should be stripped of his remaining royal titles, according to a new poll. Research by YouGov found that 67 per cent of the public would back the removal of Prince Andrew's York dukedom, as well as his princely title. An unflattering biography of the disgraced duke by Andrew Lownie in August delved into the private life of the late Queen's son, depicting him as sex-obsessed, a 'useful idiot' and easy prey for Jeffrey Epstein. Some 13 per cent opposed the removal of his titles and 21 per cent were unsure, the survey suggested. Three years ago, 62 per cent believed Andrew should have his York title removed, with the current 67 per cent in-favour figure seeing a jump of five percentage points. Another YouGov survey found that just five per cent have a positive view of the King's brother, with Andrew languishing at the bottom of the royal favourability tables, beneath the Duchess of Sussex Meghan Markle who has a 20 per cent positive rating and Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, at 28 per cent. Legislation would be required for Parliament to prevent Andrew continuing as the Duke of York, while his birthright to be a prince, as the son of a monarch, could be changed if a Letters Patent were issued by the King. The duke stopped using his style of his royal highness following his disastrous Newsnight interview, but it could be removed entirely by a Letters Patent. Andrew stepped away from his public role in 2019 amid the furore over his friendship with convicted billionaire paedophile Epstein. He later paid millions to settle a civil sexual assault case with Virginia Giuffre, who was trafficked by Epstein as a teenager and who Andrew claimed never to have met.
