On Monday 5 July 2017 The Australian newspaper published a story on its front page alleging that a prominent anti-child sex abuse activist had concocted a fictitious tale about his rape at the hands of a teacher from the ‘christian’ brothers order known as the mennaisans.

The man who is the subject of the newspaper’s vitriolic attacks was convicted of a serious crime in the 1980’s for which he served 15 years imprisonment. Since his release the man has rebuilt his life, marrying and raising a family and achieving success in the property industry. For the past 20 plus years the man has been a model citizen.

He remains however on lifetime parole, and is thus legally defined as a prisoner under the terms of the Corrective Services Act (QLD) 2006.

As such it is a criminal offence prescribed by section 132 of that Act for any person or media outlet to interview or attempt to interview the man, or to obtain or attempt to obtain any written or recorded statement from him without authorisation from the Queensland Corrective Services department.

Any person found guilty of a breach of section 132 is liable for a penalty of imprisonment for up to 2 years or a fine of $12 615.


The authors of the front page story in The Australian are both vastly experienced, if not particularly skilled, journalists; Ean Higgins (pictured above) is a senior reporter directly employed by the newspaper and Geoffrey Luck (pictured below) is a freelance writer with more than 50 years experience as a media professional. Although many question the men’s ability, no-one can say that they are unaware of their professional obligations.


This fact will result in a major headache for the men’s legal defence teams if charges are laid against them for their actions in relation to the front page story they published about the paroled man earlier this week, for without any authorisation being sought or provided by Queensland Corrective Services both journalists have repeatedly contacted the paroled man seeking to interview him in relation to the spurious allegations they have made in the jointly written feature story.


Through my publicly disclosed friendship with the paroled man I have gained exclusive access to evidence of the pair’s attempts to gain an interview with him, and have listened to a series of voicemail messages the journalists have left on the man’s phone and viewed a number of emails and text messages that Luck and Higgins have sent to him for this express purpose, including that reproduced below with the man’s identity redacted.


The actions of the men are in this writer’s view a quite deliberate flaunting of the laws of Queensland, and are a serious criminal offence or series of offences that have potentially far-reaching consequences, both for the welfare and safety of the paroled man and, more particularly, that of his wife and child.

A message I have viewed in the past 24 hours that was sent to the man from journalist Geoffrey Luck clearly indicates that he and Higgins have identified the residential address of he and his family, and the precise details about the man’s home described in the message lead the reasonable reader to draw a clear inference that he and his family are under some form of surveillance by staff or contractors of The Australian.

This form of harassment and psychological abuse wrought against a man who has served his time for an offence committed three decades ago and is entitled to the same degree of privacy and protection as any other citizen is simply abhorrent, and is gutter journalism of the lowest possible kind, and is made worse by the fact that there is a child living in the home that this pair of disgraces to their profession appear for all intents and purposes to be stalking.

Furthermore, if I am correct in my deduction that The Australian are surveilling the man – and I am quite confident that is the case – then responsibility stretches upward to the Editor of the once august publication Paul Whittaker, for under the newspaper’s published Editorial Code of Conduct he is the only person vested with the authority to approve such activities.


This whole affair is a scandal with the potential to end careers, and the great tragedy is that the much-vaunted investigative exercise is simply a grotesque dichotomy, a perverse attempted cover-up by abusive institutions who have pulled the wool over the eyes of supposed expert media men – and they are all men, this is not an anti-feminist rant – in order to serve their own purposes.

Those exact purposes will be revealed on this site in the fullness of time, don’t you worry about that, and the undeclared conflicts of interest of the authors of the feature story in The Australian will be exposed, but for now the focus is on the criminality of the the despicable duo who claim to be the representatives of the public interest and the heirs of the fourth estate.

They lie the men who tell us, for reasons of their own ……