Former childcare worker convicted of indecent treatment of child, not guilty of rape, sentenced to 20 months with deportation
Consensus Summary
A former childcare worker named Arvind Ajay Singh, a 43-year-old Fiji citizen, was convicted of indecent treatment of a child under his care on the Sunshine Coast in 2022 but acquitted of digital rape charges. After a three-day trial with testimony from 10 witnessesâincluding the victimâand neutral DNA results, Singh was sentenced to 20 months in prison, with 10 months suspended before deportation to Fiji. The case involved a prolonged legal battle, as Singhâs visa was cancelled after initial rape charges in 2022, but he remained in Australia until deported in July 2025 before voluntarily returning in February 2026 to face trial. The victimâs parents described the abuse as a betrayal of trust, with the childcare centre meant to be a safe environment. While the jury found insufficient evidence for rape, the indecent treatment conviction highlighted systemic failures in child protection, as Singh had worked with vulnerable children despite his legal status. Families affected expressed frustration over the delayed justice and lenient sentence, arguing the offence was severe given its locationâa daycare centreâwhere trust was deliberately exploited.
â Verified by 2+ sources
Key details reported by multiple sources:
- Arvind Ajay Singh, a 43-year-old Fiji citizen, was found guilty of indecent treatment of a child under his care in Queensland in 2022
- Singh was not guilty of the charge of digitally raping the child, as determined by a jury after a three-day trial
- The victim was a child in Singhâs care at a Sunshine Coast childcare centre in 2022
- Singh was sentenced to 20 monthsâ imprisonment, with 10 months suspended before deportation to Fiji
- Singh worked at the childcare centre on a visa, which was cancelled after he was charged with rape in 2022
- Singh voluntarily returned to Australia in February 2026 to face trial after being deported in July 2025
- The trial included testimony from 10 witnesses, including the victim, and DNA testing results were neutral
- Judge Glen Cash described the offence as a 'betrayal of trust' and 'brazen offending'
- Singhâs defence barrister Lachlan Ygoa-McKeown argued he was not guilty of either charge
Points of Difference
Details reported by only one source:
- The parent of the victim described Singhâs actions as a 'profound betrayal of trust' and spoke of their 'heartbroken' state in court
- The court heard Singh spent a month in immigration detention in May 2025 before being deported to Fiji in July 2025
- The court did not determine how Singhâs deportation costs would be funded
- The victimâs parentsâ joint impact statement described the childcare centre as a place that 'promised protection' but 'trust was broken'
- Singhâs criminal justice visa was sponsored by Queensland after his deportation, allowing him to return voluntarily
- The victimâs father stated on *A Current Affair* that the family had been in 'limbo land' for four years due to the prolonged legal process
- The father called Singh a 'monster' and criticized the system for allowing an accused rapist to leave Australia before trial
- The mother praised the childâs 'bravery' and said the family fought to ensure Singh could no longer work with children
- The father expressed devastation, saying he would be 'lower if I didnât pay my taxes' as a reaction to the sentence
Contradictions
Conflicting information between sources:
- Article 1 (ABC) states Singh was deported in July 2025 and voluntarily returned in February 2026, while Article 2 (ABC) does not specify the deportation date but confirms his voluntary return in February 2026âno direct contradiction but Article 2 omits the deportation timeline
- Article 1 mentions Singh incurred a debt for deportation costs, but Article 2 does not address this detail
- Article 1 describes Singh as an 'unlawful citizen' after his visa was cancelled, while Article 2 does not explicitly use this term
- Article 3 (NEWSCOMAU) implies Singh was deported before his court date, but Article 1 clarifies he was deported after sentencing and then voluntarily returned
- Article 2 states the jury requested to watch the childâs video evidence a second time, while Article 1 does not mention this detail
Source Articles
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....
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....
Inside fight for child abuser to face justice
The family of a young girl abused by a childcare worker said they are âdevastatedâ to learn of his 10-month jail sentence after he was found guilty....