The 13 defining moments that could have stopped our worst paedophile

WARNING: This story contains details of child sexual abuse.

It was rightly described as a harrowing read.

A 516-page report examining the systematic failures that allowed one of Australia’s worst paedophiles, Ashley Paul Griffith, to commit hundreds of acts of child sexual abuse across dozens of Queensland childcare centres over a 20-year period.

Nearly as shocking as the abuse itself, inflicted upon children aged between one and nine, were the instances, detailed throughout the report by the Child Death Review Board, where parents and educators disclosed their concerns to employers, police and government agencies as far back as 2009.

Queensland Family and Child Commission chief executive and chair of the Child Death Review Board Luke Twyford said they were shocked to find 18 points where the offending could have been detected or disrupted earlier, including 13 outcome-defining events that enabled him to remain undetected.

These are just some of those defining moments.

2009: The ‘mean man’

The first known formal complaint about Griffith dates back to October 2009, when the parent of a child, aged between two and three, reported to the Queensland Police Service and the Office for Early Childhood Education and Care, the predecessor of the Early Childhood Regulatory Authority (ECRA), that their child had complained that a “mean man” named “Ashley” hurt them during nappy changes.

The child told their parent that Griffith changed their nappy when he didn’t need to and when other staff were outside, and described being held close to Griffith’s hips, causing a pain that “felt like a nail being hammered into [their] back”.

The parent told police they had previously notified the centre’s director that their child did not like the man changing their nappy or pants, and detailed behaviour changes including separation anxiety, bed-wetting and refusing to go to the toilet – prevalent indicators of child abuse.

The report found the police delayed interviewing the child, did not identify Griffith as the suspect, and recorded his name in the QPS’s management system as “Ashleigh” despite being written in the statement as “Ashley”.

2015: Access denied

The AFP first attempted to identify Griffith in 2015 by linking the then-unknown predator to bedsheets spotted in abuse material that had appeared on the dark web.

Investigators asked the bedding supplier to help track down where these images were taken, but they were “not forthcoming” with the information.

Seven years later, in 2022, that same bit of crucial evidence – the bedsheets – was ultimately how a specialist taskforce of Queensland and Australian Federal Police were able to identify the childcare centre Griffith worked and he was arrested at his home on the Gold Coast within 24 hours of the link being made.

2018: “I’m going to smack your bottom”

A parent interviewed by the board spoke about a complaint lodged with a centre that employed Griffith for four weeks between July and August 2018, after witnessing him threaten to smack a child.

When Griffith noticed the parent had heard his comments – recorded as “you better bring your bag back here or I’m going to smack your bottom” – he reportedly looked wide-eyed and guilty, and said he wouldn’t have actually smacked the child.

The parent said their initial attempts to make a complaint were met “aggressively” by the centre’s director/owner, and they later learned the child’s parents were never informed of the incident. No further action was taken by the centre, despite legislation requiring them to notify ECRA of the complaint.

Griffith’s employment was terminated during his four-week probation period.

2018: A change of clothes

In September of the same year, Griffith was employed at a centre for three weeks and again had his employment terminated during his probation period, though the reasons were not recorded.

During interviews with ECRA in 2025, the centre’s management said his employment was terminated because he was a poor fit with the centre, lacked engagement with staff and children, and failed to follow best practice by having children sit on his lap. These concerns were not available in documents requested by the Child Death Review Board.

A parent reportedly told the centre during Griffith’s brief employment that “something about [the offender] made her feel uneasy” and requested that her concerns were recorded and investigated.

They also shared two incidents, discussed with centre staff, including one occasion where their daughter could not be located during pick-up, and another when their daughter had been changed into spare clothes.

The child was later identified as a victim-survivor of Griffith. No records relating to any of the parent’s concerns were located. During the making of the report, the centre told the review that the comments did not meet the threshold for a reportable complaint under national law.

2019: ‘Yesterday was a tough day’

Records show numerous issues identified during Griffith’s employment at a centre between February and December 2019, including that he filed late or incomplete documentation, showed favouritism towards certain children, and used his personal camera to take photos and videos of children.

In a report filed to the centre by a parent in August, details emerged of an incident where Griffith grabbed a boy’s arm and squeezed it hard, with the child telling their parent “yesterday was a tough day”. Management gave Griffith the option to resign, take leave or complete behaviour training. He opted for the latter.

The incident of physical harm was never reported to ECRA.

2021: ‘I saw something’

At a centre where Griffith was employed between December 2019 and April 2022, enrolments dropped drastically, with the centre operating at between 24 and 47 per cent capacity. Feedback from potential families indicated interactions with Griffith were the reason they did not continue with enrolment.

The report considered that Griffith strategically kept enrolment numbers low to reduce supervision and create opportunities for abuse.

In October 2021, another educator complained they saw Griffith kiss a five-year-old child during rest time. The incident was reported to ECRA and the QPS and the centre launched an investigation. It found evidence of grooming behaviours such as lying down with children, tickling and touching, and being “extremely affectionate”.

Despite this, police did not pursue the complaint and Griffith returned to work, where he was reportedly hostile to the staff member who reported his behaviour. They later resigned over his continued employment.

Griffith eventually pleaded guilty to offences against the child he had been seen kissing.

2021: ‘...Over or under your undies?’

In December 2021, a parent complained to a centre where Griffith worked that their child had disclosed being touched under her underwear during rest time by a female teacher.

Griffith handled the complaint and reported it to ECRA, who subsequently reported it to QPS. Following a QPS interview with the child, it was determined that the teacher had patted her “front bottom” as an accident. The parents were satisfied with the investigation’s findings and did not pursue the matter further.

After Griffith was arrested, he confessed that the child may have confused the female teacher with him. He was later convicted of offences against the child.

2021: It’s a match

In 2021, six years after detectives first tried to locate Griffith through bedsheets viewed in abuse materials, the AFP was provided with detailed customer records from the previous owners of a bedding supplier. The list included individuals and childcare centres who had purchased the sheets, but did not include sales made to the centre where the abuse occurred.

The centre was identified the following year during a review of a customer list previously provided to the AFP in 2018. It was a visit to one of the childcare centres on that list that led to Griffith’s arrest.

2022: ‘He touched my private parts’

Griffith worked two relief shifts at a centre in April 2022. The centre later asked the agency not to send Griffith back after a supervisor reported feeling uncomfortable with him. She was allegedly accused of “being sexist”.

Griffith was sent back to the same centre, a move questioned by the supervisor. Despite the briefness of his shifts, he reportedly developed a “quick relationship” with one of the children, who wanted to sit next to him during lunchtime.

The parent of this child later informed the centre that, after Griffith’s second shift, their child had disclosed being touched on the private parts by Griffith during rest time. The parents reported the incident to police, and the supervisor reported to ECRA.

Despite the child telling police Griffith had touched her bottom, and police receiving a more detailed video account of the incident from the parent, Griffith was never interviewed. It was later determined there was not enough evidence to meet the threshold for proving an offence.

ECRA did not conduct an investigation into the report and the employment agency continued to place Griffith in centres despite their knowledge of the complaint.

Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.