logo
Queensland review into responses to child sexual abuse hears complaints against Ashley Paul Griffith made 'more than once'

Queensland review into responses to child sexual abuse hears complaints against Ashley Paul Griffith made 'more than once'

Defamation fears and a focus on an organisation's "reputation" may act as a deterrent to raising concerns about childcare staff, a Queensland review into child sexual abuse responses has heard.
Paedophile Ashley Paul Griffith is appealing his life sentence after last year pleading guilty to abusing dozens of children over almost 20 years at childcare centres in Brisbane.
The Child Death Review Board (CDRB) is currently reviewing system responses to child sexual abuse in Queensland — using Griffith's offending as a case study.
The latest progress report, published late last week, detailed what the review has heard so far, including that the early childhood education and care workforce is large and highly casualised, and pressures may impact the quality of recruitment processes, including the "robustness" of referee checks.
"[In addition] the prioritisation of an organisation's reputation, a fear of defamation and legal risks to organisations and individuals may act as a deterrent to raising or sharing concerns about a person, particularly where complaints have not been substantiated," the progress report said.
"Unclear information sharing processes and a fear of privacy breaches may also create an environment where early indicators of potential harm are minimised. This impacts the system's capacity to detect child sexual abuse, including by identifying patterns over time and across services."
Queensland police have previously said Griffith was subject to two reports about his behaviour in the two years leading up to his arrest, however there was "insufficient evidence to take action" at the time.
An internal inquiry found police investigated the claims appropriately.
The progress report said initial findings from the CDRB review show 'more than one complaint' was made about Griffith to his employers, the Early Childhood Regulatory Authority and QPS.
"Of these complaints, the available information suggests they were not always progressed, and information was not shared between agencies," the report said.
"Prior complaints made to QPS did not proceed to prosecution. This meant that up until the offender's arrest in 2022, there were no pending investigations, charges or convictions against him, and he met all requirements to obtain and maintain a Blue Card."
Queensland's working with children check — the Blue Card screening process — looks for a charge or conviction for any offence in Australia, child protection prohibition orders, and domestic violence information.
The CDRB review has heard a "lack of understanding" of the limitations of the Blue Card system "may result in a false sense of security" in organisations where workers hold the card.
"The Blue Card system is not designed to collect information on early indicators of harm or to identify patterns over time and across organisations, particularly where complaints about a person have been investigated and found to be unsubstantiated due to a lack of evidence," the progress report said.
"The implementation of a reportable conduct scheme in Queensland, which will commence in 2026, will improve the collation and sharing of this type of information."
The review also heard police face "continued challenges" in investigating child sexual abuse offences, including "the high evidentiary threshold" for prosecution.
"Officers must be satisfied there is sufficient evidence to prove a matter beyond reasonable doubt. This is especially difficult for young children who may not be able to talk or have a limited vocabulary," the progress report said.
"[The review has also heard] an investigation into a report of abuse that does not reach the necessary threshold to pursue criminal charges does not mean the abuse did not happen.
"Further action is needed to proactively identify and respond to any potential risks posed by individuals where criminal proceedings were not undertaken due to insufficient evidence."
The report said the review team had held its first "expert roundtable" to examine the timeline of Griffiths' offending and share insights, engaged with people impacted by his offending and supported them to make submissions to the review, and issued information requests.
It has also received more than 17,000 pages of material and 36 hours of video footage and audio recordings from investigations after Griffith's offending came to light.
The team has also spoken with regulators, ombudsmen and children's commissioners in other jurisdictions to "gain national and cross-jurisdictional perspectives".
The inadequate supervision of children was the top breach of the national law identified by the early childhood regulator in Queensland in 2023-24.
The CDRB's final report is expected to be delivered this year.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Australians warned against renting bank details to crime networks
Australians warned against renting bank details to crime networks

News.com.au

time2 hours ago

  • News.com.au

Australians warned against renting bank details to crime networks

Australians have been warned against some think is a 'harmless crime', by becoming 'money mules' and renting out their bank details to criminals. In its latest warning the Australian Federal Police said many Australians were knowingly or unknowingly becoming money mules for criminals who used their bank accounts to move illicit money into a personal account to make the funds appear legitimate. According to the Australian Banking Association, the major banks made moves to shut down almost 13,000 suspected accounts in the 2024 financial year, up from the 9000 accounts they had discovered in the previous year. The big increase was largely due to an increase in detection capabilities and greater intelligence sharing between the banks and law enforcement. These mules are paid anywhere between $200 to $500 plus a commission, which is usually 10 per cent on any money moved through the account. ABA chief executive Anna Bligh said mule accounts were a key part of a scammer's business model and banks were focused on identifying, investigating and shutting them down. 'Renting or selling your bank account may seem harmless, but you may be unwittingly helping a scammer to rip-off a family member or someone else you know,' she said. 'Don't let criminals cash in on your bank account. 'There's a good chance you're being recruited to hide the profits of criminal activity.' According to the AFP, criminals are targeting Australians through social media, messaging or gaming platforms, chat forums, online advertisements and even in face-to-face meetings. These individuals will then be recruited by money laundered in three main ways. •Employment scams – these are designed to exploit job seekers by offering what seems like quick and easy money for little work. Applicants are asked to have an Australian bank account to transfer funds and are promised a commission for their work. •Threat scams – scammers contact victims threatening criminal charges and arrest unless they transfer and receive funds. •Romance scams – scammers build a relationship online and then request the victim to transfer money to other accounts, typically overseas, using their personal bank account. From here the criminal networks are increasingly telling these money mules to move the funds into a cryptocurrency exchange or ATM and global money transfer apps to make it harder to detect. AFP Detective Superintendent Marie Andersson said it was illegal to rent, buy or sell bank account details. 'Your account may be housing money derived from scams, extortion, drug trafficking and terrorism,' Ms Andersson said 'If a criminal has access to your bank accounts and personal details, they may use this information to commit other crimes, potentially implicating you in their illegal activities.'

Motorcyclist dead, traffic chaos after horror crash on M4 in Sydney
Motorcyclist dead, traffic chaos after horror crash on M4 in Sydney

News.com.au

time2 hours ago

  • News.com.au

Motorcyclist dead, traffic chaos after horror crash on M4 in Sydney

A man has died after being thrown from his motorcycle and then struck by a police car on Sydney's M4. The horror collision has sparked traffic chaos on the motorway on Wednesday morning. Police say the motorcycle collided with a white sedan on the M4 near Church St at Parramatta shortly before 2am, with the impact throwing the rider to the road. The man was then struck by a marked police vehicle. Police officers performed CPR before paramedics arrived on the scene, with the man rushed to Westmead Hospital. He could not be revived and is yet to be formally identified. The driver of sedan – a man whose age is yet to be identified – and a male senior constable were taken to the same hospital for mandatory testing.

Legal experts cast doubt on Donald Trump's defamation case against Rupert Murdoch over alleged Epstein letter
Legal experts cast doubt on Donald Trump's defamation case against Rupert Murdoch over alleged Epstein letter

ABC News

time3 hours ago

  • ABC News

Legal experts cast doubt on Donald Trump's defamation case against Rupert Murdoch over alleged Epstein letter

US law experts say Donald Trump faces significant hurdles in his $10 billion case against Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal over reports he sent a birthday message to Jeffrey Epstein with a sexually suggestive drawing. The lawsuit, filed in the Florida Supreme Court, claims the Wall Street Journal "failed to show proof that President Trump authored or signed any such letter and failed to explain how this letter was obtained". But experts say defamation cases, brought forward by public figures, are notoriously hard to prove in the US, and they rarely make it to a jury. The paper has said it was prepared to "vigorously" defend its journalism. If the case does go to trial, Mr Trump may be forced to provide information about the nature of his relationship with the convicted paedophile and billionaire, and the Journal may be asked to show how it obtained the letter or proved its existence. So, how likely is it Mr Trump will get his day in court? Winning or settling a defamation case in the US can be difficult, mostly due to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment in the US Constitution. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. It is even more difficult for a public figure like Donald Trump to win a defamation lawsuit, said Harry Melkonian, a media lawyer and honorary associate at the United States Studies Centre. "It is extremely difficult and intentionally made so for public figures to bring defamation claims in the US," he said. "By definition, the US president is the most public of public figures." Shawn Trier, a constitutional law expert at Australian National University, agreed. "A case in the early 1960s during the civil rights movement found that even if you have factual information that's incorrect, unless you prove a term called actual malice — that you knew it was wrong or didn't care — it would be really hard for that to be proven," he said. Actual malice is knowledge that the material published was false, or reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. "In the case of the Wall Street Journal, it would literally have to be the case that they knew the letter was false or knew it didn't exist or they had a really good reason to suspect it was forged but ignored it," Dr Tier said. Dr Melkonian said the Supreme Court set this standard for public figures to prevent self-censorship by the media. "They also felt that public figures are pretty well equipped to respond publicly to undo any harm, and Trump can get on TV any night and say this story is false, they made it up," he said. "So when you combine all those things, it makes for an extremely difficult case, and quite honestly, I've read the complaint and I think they will have difficulties even getting this complaint to court." In Australia, defamation law is "relatively straightforward", Dr Melkonian said. If a publisher prints something that a person says isn't true, the publisher must prove on the balance of probabilities that it is. But American law is the opposite, Dr Melkonian said; the public figure has to prove the story is false. "Trump has to prove they either knew it was false or they harboured serious doubts and did it anyway," Dr Melkonian said. "And he has to prove that by an exaggerated standard of proof." But US courts rarely find that actual malice exists, and there has only been one case, which was between Time Magazine and the Israeli defence minister in 1984. Court documents show that Mr Trump will argue that such a letter did not exist and the two journalists who wrote the story "possessed information and had access to information that showed their statements were false." It does not say, however, what that information was. "The mere fact that he told them 'it's false' before they printed it isn't enough because if that was, you could stop anything from being printed," Dr Melkonian said. From the legal documents, it appears Mr Trump will also argue that the circulation of the story created further damage to his reputation. "And given the timing of the defendants' article, which shows their malicious intent behind it, the overwhelming financial and reputational harm suffered by President Trump will continue to multiply," the court documents said. But Dr Melkonian said, "he's already said it's false, and he certainly has made more publicity saying it's false than the Wall Street Journal got with the article." Dr Melkonian said public figures sometimes took steps like Mr Trump's to "make it clear to the public that they believe the article is a falsehood". "Donald Trump has gotten a lot of publicity out of filing this case, and that may be the vindication that he wants now the public knows he is taking it to court to prove he didn't do it," he said. A $10 billion award would be the largest finding of defamation damages in history, dwarfing already-massive cases in recent US proceedings. These include a $1.5 billion judgement against conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, and Fox News's settlement with Dominion Voting Systems for $787.5 million. "It's unlikely he has a legal case against the Wall Street Journal, but it probably helped him politically," Dr Trier said. "He likes to do this a lot, to say 'look how I've been treated, it's so bad I'm suing.'" The Wall Street Journal has indicated it will defend itself. "We have full confidence in the rigour and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit," a spokesperson for publisher Dow Jones said in a statement. Yesterday, the White House removed the Wall Street Journal from the pool of reporters covering Trump's upcoming weekend trip to Scotland. "As the appeals court confirmed, the Wall Street Journal or any other news outlet are not guaranteed special access to cover President Trump in the Oval Office, aboard Air Force One, and in his private workspaces," White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to various US media outlets. "Due to the Wall Street Journal's fake and defamatory conduct, they will not be one of the 13 outlets on board. Every news organisation in the entire world wishes to cover President Trump, and the White House has taken significant steps to include as many voices as possible." While the Murdoch-owned media company has the power to fight such a case, many do not. "It could have an insidious effect on journalism and free speech," Dr Trier said. "There should be early dismissals [in defamation cases like these], but there are still costs, and smaller organisations that get threats like this are more likely to back down. "It raises a lot of concerns, and Trump has been very unique in using his office to carry out these retributions against the media."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store