← Back to Stories

Former childcare worker convicted of indecent treatment of child, acquitted of rape, sentenced to 20 months jail

Just now3 articles from 2 sources

Consensus Summary

A former childcare worker named Arvind Ajay Singh was found guilty of indecent treatment of a child but acquitted of digital rape charges after a three-day trial in Queensland’s Maroochydore District Court. Singh, 43, was sentenced to 20 months in prison, with 10 months suspended, before deportation to Fiji. The jury heard testimony from 10 witnesses, including the victim, and deliberated extensively before reaching the verdict. Singh’s visa was cancelled after the rape charge in 2022, but he remained in Australia until deported in July 2025 before voluntarily returning for trial in February 2026. The case highlighted the emotional toll on the victim’s family, who described the abuse as a betrayal of trust in a childcare setting. While the prosecution argued the child lacked awareness of the sexual nature of the incident, the defence disputed the evidence as vague and weak. The family expressed devastation over the outcome, emphasizing the prolonged legal process and the need to prevent Singh from working with children again.

✓ Verified by 2+ sources

Key details reported by multiple sources:

  • Arvind Ajay Singh, 43, was found guilty of indecent treatment of a child under 16 years (under 12 years) in his care but not guilty of digital rape
  • Singh was sentenced to 20 months imprisonment, with 10 months suspended and the remainder to be served before deportation to Fiji
  • The trial lasted three days with 10 witnesses, including the victim, and the jury deliberated for hours before reaching a verdict
  • Singh worked at a childcare centre on the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, and was accused of abusing a child in 2022
  • Singh’s visa was cancelled after being charged with rape in 2022, but he remained in Australia until deported to Fiji in July 2025 before voluntarily returning for trial in February 2026
  • Singh is a Fiji citizen and was remanded in custody during the trial

Points of Difference

Details reported by only one source:

ABC News
  • Crown prosecutor Alex Stark described the victim as having no awareness of the sexual nature of the incident, stating '[they] don’t like it' and it 'tickled'
  • Defence barrister Lachlan Ygoa-McKeown called the child’s evidence 'vague' and 'weak' and claimed Singh never touched the child’s underwear or genitals
  • DNA testing results were neutral and did not support either case
  • The court heard Singh’s request for a criminal justice visa was declined, and he spent a month in immigration detention before deportation
  • The victim’s parent described Singh’s actions as a 'deliberate exploitation of a position of trust' and a 'profound betrayal of trust'
  • Judge Glen Cash called the offense 'brazen' and a 'betrayal of trust'
NEWSCOMAAU
  • The victim’s father stated the family had been in 'limbo land' for four years due to the prolonged legal process
  • The father criticized immigration authorities for allowing Singh to leave the country despite being an accused rapist, saying 'someone stamped his paperwork and let an accused rapist go out the front door'
  • The mother praised the child as 'incredible' and 'the bravest little girl' and said the family had to fight to prevent Singh from working with children again
  • The family described Singh as a 'monster' who preyed on their daughter and expressed devastation over the sentence

Contradictions

Conflicting information between sources:

  • Article 1 (ABC) states Singh was remanded in custody during the trial, but Article 3 (ABC) does not explicitly mention this detail in the same way
  • Article 2 (NEWSCOMAU) claims the family was 'devastated' by the sentence, while Article 3 (ABC) does not explicitly state this emotional reaction from the family
  • Article 1 (ABC) mentions the jury requested to watch the child’s video evidence a second time, but this detail is not repeated in Articles 2 or 3
  • Article 2 (NEWSCOMAU) states the family had to fight to prevent Singh from working with children again, but this is not explicitly mentioned in Articles 1 or 3
  • Article 3 (ABC) describes Singh as maintaining 'eye contact' with the victim’s parent during sentencing, which is not mentioned in Articles 1 or 2

Source Articles

ABC

Childcare worker guilty of indecent treatment of child, not guilty of rape

A former childcare worker has been found not guilty of raping a child in his care after a three-day trial on the Sunshine Coast....

NEWSCOMAU

Inside fight for child abuser to face justice

The family of a young girl abused by a childcare worker said they are “devastated” to learn of his 10-month jail sentence after he was found guilty....

ABC

Former childcare worker jailed for indecent treatment of child

A former childcare worker from Fiji is sentenced to jail for the indecent treatment of a child at a daycare centre in Queensland, and will be deported afterwards....