Alleged childcare paedophile Joshua Dale Brown likely to face more charges, court told
Brown's next court appearance of has now been pushed into 2026, with police requesting the magistrates court allow more time to compile evidence against him.
Magistrate Donna Bakos on Tuesday granted an application by police to extend the deadline to provide the hand up brief of evidence to Brown's lawyers to 4 December. The matter will then return to court for a committal mention on 10 February.
An extension was also provided in the matter of Brown's co-accused, Michael Simon Wilson, who will next appear in court for a committal mention on 15 November.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
The accused men, who are both remanded in custody, were not required to appear in court for the brief administrative hearing.
The court heard an affidavit in support of the extension argued the investigation into the duo was ongoing.
Brown's lawyer, Rishi Nathwani KC, said the affidavit also flagged the potential for 'additional charges'.
Nathwani said charges against his client 'are in flux', with police now following a 'vast number of other avenues that have now become apparent'.
He asked Bakos not to release the full list of charges to media in light of this, saying it would be 'premature' and 'hinder the realisation of natural justice'.
However, Bakos disagreed and said she would release the charges later today to ensure fair and accurate reporting of the matter.
Brown, 26, was charged in May with more than 70 offences relating to eight alleged victims aged between five months and two years old.
Sign up to Breaking News Australia
Get the most important news as it breaks
after newsletter promotion
They include sexual penetration of a child under 12, attempted sexual penetration of a child under 12, sexual assault of a child under 16 and producing child abuse material for use through a carriage service.
His case was only made public on 1 July after a suppression order was lifted.
Wilson, 46, meanwhile, faces 45 charges including possessing child abuse material and rape and bestiality. It is understood Wilson's alleged offending is not connected to childcare facilities or any of the children alleged to be victims in the Brown case.
Both cases are in their early stages and neither Brown nor Wilson are yet to enter a plea.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
43 minutes ago
- Reuters
Judge disqualifies three Butler Snow attorneys from case over AI citations
July 24 (Reuters) - A federal judge in Alabama disqualified three lawyers from U.S. law firm Butler Snow from a case after they inadvertently included made-up citations generated by artificial intelligence in court filings. U.S. District Judge Anna Manasco in a Wednesday order, opens new tab reprimanded the lawyers at the Mississippi-founded firm for making false statements in court and referred the issue to the Alabama State Bar, which handles attorney disciplinary matters. Manasco did not impose monetary sanctions, as some judges have done in other cases across the country involving AI use. Fabricating legal authority "demands substantially greater accountability than the reprimands and modest fines that have become common as courts confront this form of AI misuse," Manasco said. "As a practical matter, time is telling us – quickly and loudly – that those sanctions are insufficient deterrents." The case is the latest example of a judge sanctioning or admonishing lawyers as AI-generated "hallucinations" have continued to crop up in court filings ever since ChatGPT and other generative AI programs became widely available. Professional rules require lawyers to vet their work however it is produced. The three Butler Snow lawyers were part of a team defending former Alabama Department of Corrections Commissioner Jeff Dunn in an inmate's lawsuit alleging he was repeatedly attacked in prison. Dunn has denied wrongdoing. The judge said the three lawyers' conduct was "tantamount to bad faith." She sanctioned partner Matthew Reeves, who admitted to using AI to generate the citations and including them in the filings without verification. Reeves in a May filing apologized to the court and said he regretted his "lapse in diligence and judgment." She also disqualified partners William Cranford and William Lunsford, who each signed their names onto the filings. The lawyers said in May filings that they did not independently review the legal citations that were added. Reeves, Cranford and Lunsford did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Thursday. The judge declined to sanction Butler Snow, finding the firm "acted reasonably in its efforts to prevent this misconduct and doubled down on its precautionary and responsive measures when its nightmare scenario unfolded." The firm previously warned its attorneys about the risks of AI and escalated the issue after the court issued an order for the lawyers to explain what happened in the case. Butler Snow also mounted an internal investigation and retained another firm, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, for an independent review to verify citations in 40 other cases, the judge said. A Butler Snow spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Nor did one of the lawyers representing plaintiff Frankie Johnson, or a lawyer from the Alabama attorney general's office, which had appointed Lunsford to litigate on behalf of the state, according to the order. The judge ordered the three lawyers to share a copy of the order with their clients, opposing lawyers and judges in other pending state or federal cases in which they are involved, and also to every lawyer at Butler Snow.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Sri Lankan court orders owners of container ship to pay $1 billion in marine pollution compensation
Sri Lanka's top court on Thursday ordered the owners of a Singapore-flagged container ship that sank near its capital to pay $1 billion in compensation to the island nation's government for causing the most severe marine environment catastrophe in the country's history. The container ship MV X-Press Peal, which was carrying chemicals, sank off Colombo in June, 2021 after catching fire. The Supreme Court said the incident caused 'unprecedented devastation to the marine environment of Sri Lanka' and harmed the country's economy, especially the lives of the fishing communities. Judges said the disaster led to the death of 417 turtles, 48 dolphins, eight whales and a large number of fish species that washed ashore after the incident. Debris from the ship, including several tons of plastic pellets used to make plastic bags, caused severe pollution on beaches. 'This marine environmental disaster constitutes the largest recorded marine plastic spill in the world,' the judgement said. 'It resulted in the widespread release of toxic and hazardous substances into the marine environment, poisoning ocean waters, killing marine species, and destructing phytoplankton." Due to the severe marine pollution, the government imposed a fishing ban for well over a year, depriving fishermen of their income and livelihood. The incident "continues to cause destruction and harm to Sri Lanka's marine environment,' said the judgement, signed by five supreme court judges. The judgement was given against the X-Press Pearl group that included ship's registered owner, EOS Ro Pte. Limited, and other charterers. All are based in Singapore. An agent in Sri Lanka, Sea Consortium Lanka (Pvt.) Ltd., was also named. The court said it has sufficient reasons to hold that X-Press Pearl group 'should be held accountable and liable under the Polluter Pays Principle for the pollution caused by the MV X-Press Pearl vessel.' It said the owner, operators and local agent of the ship were all liable for the payment of compensation, which should be used to restore and protect the affected marine and coastal environment. There was no immediate comment on the judgement from the owner or agent of the vessel. The court ruling came after several parties, including environment campaigners and fisher rights groups, filed litigation seeking compensation.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Australians lost $1bn through collapsed investment funds. What happened and how can workers keep their super safe?
Thousands of Australians recently lost more than $1bn in retirement savings after the collapse of funds linked to their superannuation platforms, sparking warnings from the corporate regulator about risky investment schemes. While only a small share of the population has been affected, some investors have seen their entire super balances wiped. Here is how the collapses happened, and what Australian workers can do to avoid a similar situation. Over the past year or so, more than 12,000 Australians have been exposed to three major collapsed or frozen investment schemes: First Guardian, Shield Master Fund and Australian Fiduciaries. The failures have so far led to collective losses of up to $1.2bn. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Asic) blocked investment in Shield in February 2024 and froze the assets of First Guardian in February 2025 after its managers blocked most investors from accessing their funds in May the previous year. The corporate regulator is also investigating concerns about Australian Fiduciaries including alleged inadequate management of conflicts of interest. First Guardian, which held $505m for about 6,000 investors, described its investments as focused on shares, property, private equity and fixed income, according to federal court-appointed liquidators. The liquidators found the company had put nearly $70m into businesses connected to its directors while more than $240m was invested offshore. One director also allegedly bought a Lamborghini with nearly $550,000 of company money. Investors have been warned they will probably only get a portion of an outstanding $446m back, and not until 2027 at the earliest, after liquidators said they expected to conclude directors breached their duties, the value of investments may have been overstated and funds may not have been properly recorded. The fund's May 2024 balance sheet indicated it had grown that to $525m but more than half of that was in question and investors were not likely to recover their entire investment, receivers for Shield reported in November 2024. They found managers had overstated the value of investments in a real estate fund and nearly $7m had been spent on a former director's personal expenses. Some investments would not be recovered for more than two years, the receivers said in December. In these cases, investors switched to superannuation products that would let them invest in First Guardian or in Shield with financial advisers' help, after being cold-called by salespeople, Asic says. The corporate regulator has put the spotlight on salespeople pressuring customers to invest in specific products. Red flags for consumers include cold calling and high-pressure sales tactics, or offers of prizes, free superannuation health checks, or free consolidation of lost super, according to Asic's deputy chair, Sarah Court. 'These calls don't have the hallmarks of a typical scam. The caller will seemingly have your best interests at heart, and they say they want to help you find a better super product or locate lost super for free,' she says. 'If you are unsure or are feeling pressured, just hang up.' Customers and financial advisers reached the products through superannuation platforms, including one operated by an arm of Macquarie Group, that temporarily chose to offer one or both products, Asic says. Super funds are highly regulated and they are discouraged from investing in schemes that are risky or opaque, according to Xavier O'Halloran, the chief executive of advocacy group Super Consumers Australia. Nearly 15 million among the 18 million accounts in Australia are in MySuper products, default super funds that employers offer workers, which did not invest in the collapsed schemes, he says. While all investment carries risk, MySuper products are diversified, and so not reliant on a single investment or asset class. Some Australians invest in less scrutinised schemes, especially through self-managed super funds. Asic recently warned it had growing concerns that peoplewere being encouraged by salespeople and cold-callers to switch from safe investments into complex and risky schemes. Phil Anderson, the general manager of policy, advocacy and standards at the Financial Advice Association Australia, encourages people to research their investments and check details with their financial advisers if they're worried they might be in an inappropriate investment. 'It is quite evident that there's failings in the system,' Anderson says. 'Don't be rushed into doing something. Challenge the adviser: Why is this the right thing for me? … What track record do these investment options have?' Investors can also spread their superannuation between different investment options within or across funds to limit the chance of a single collapse knocking out their entire savings, Anderson says. Customers can check what assets their super is invested in and how it is performing when superannuation funds release their annual statements for 2024-25 in coming months. People who have been told to swap from a MySuper product can also ask their adviser if their prospective fund has been checked by the regulator, the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority. Asic has encouraged those who have lost money in a collapse to make a complaint about their adviser to the sector's independent ombudsman, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority. If a customer has lost money but their advice firm has gone into liquidation or insolvency, they may be able to appeal to the sector's compensation scheme of last resort. However, not all of the losses may be recompensed. Last resort compensation payouts are capped at $150,000 per individual and would only cover any clients who accessed the products under the guidance of an adviser, meaning any customer who made the decision without advice would not be eligible. The compensator is expecting claims against advisers linked to the funds but has received no claims for Shield and only one for First Guardian, according to the scheme's chief executive, David Berry. That has made it impossible to determine how many investors will be eligible, how much they might be paid or when they might be compensated, he said. This shortfall has led to calls for increased regulation of the products responsible for the losses, known as managed investment schemes, but also for reform of the compensation scheme of last resort so it covers those who invested without advice. Guardian Australia attempted to reach representatives of the funds Shield, First Guardian and Australian Fiduciaries, including through the firms' liquidators or administrators where applicable. Financial advice firm Interprac and superannuation platform trustees Macquarie, Equity Trustees, Diversa and Netwealth each declined to comment.
