A landmark investigation by the BBC has uncovered serious safety and duty of care failures on the hit reality dating series *Married At First Sight Australia*, revealing that multiple female contestants were matched with male co-stars who had undisclosed criminal convictions, leaving them feeling unprotected and at risk. The revelations come on the heels of a separate scandal involving the UK adaptation of the format, MAFS UK, which was thrown into crisis after BBC Panorama published rape accusations from two female participants — claims that all men named have denied.\n\nNine former cast members from the Australian iteration of the show, which is produced by Endemol Shine Australia and broadcast domestically on the Nine Network (Channel 9), have spoken out to the BBC, calling for sweeping overhauls of the series’ background vetting protocols and a ban on casting individuals with prior criminal convictions or formal allegations of harm. Unlike MAFS UK, the Australian production is operated by an entirely separate production team.\n\nThe format of MAFS sees consenting single people agree to a ceremonial, non-legal “marriage” to a complete stranger, who they meet for the first time only at their on-screen wedding. After the ceremony, couples go on honeymoons, move into shared accommodation, and have their daily relationship interactions filmed almost 24/7 for broadcast.\n\nOne of the contestants speaking out is Sierah Swepstone, who appeared on the 2025 season of the show. Swepstone told the BBC she was never informed that her on-screen match, Billy Belcher, had a 2014 conviction for multiple drug-related offenses in Perth, Australia, and only discovered the details after filming wrapped. \”There should be informed consent,\” Swepstone said in an interview. \”You shouldn’t be left alone with a stranger with a criminal record. At the very least, there should be informed consent. They should let us know. Why is the show accepting that risk on our behalf? We should have the choice.\” Swepstone added that she now believes the production failed its duty of care, saying plainly: \”Brides are not safe on MAFS Australia.\”\n\nIn response to queries about Belcher’s casting, Channel 9 and Endemol Shine Australia said Belcher had been fully transparent with production about his conviction, which he received as an 18-year-old and resulted in a suspended sentence with a good behavior bond. They also noted Belcher has never been convicted or accused of any form of violence or abuse. Belcher himself did not respond to the BBC’s request for comment.\n\nA second female contestant, speaking to the BBC on condition of anonymity under the pseudonym Anna, shared a far more alarming account. Anna said her on-screen partner disclosed to her during filming that he had a history of aggressive behavior — information that she says producers already knew about when they matched them. \”I was terrified the whole time,\” Anna said. \”I thought I’d be safe, that’s why I signed up to the show.\” She described multiple angry outbursts from her co-star, including an incident where he threw a microphone pack into a wall, smashing it, and another where he threw an object at production staff. The BBC has verified a photograph of a bruise Anna sent to her co-star during filming, to which he responded, \”Shit! I’m so sorry.\” Anna says the experience left her traumatized.\n\nChannel 9 and Endemol Shine Australia countered that the male contestant only had one isolated reported incident in his background from several years before filming, that he has no criminal record, and that the production has no documentation of the outbursts Anna described. The contestant has \”categorically denied every allegation\” made by Anna, calling the claims entirely false, malicious, and a distortion of reality. Anna said her primary criticism is directed at the production, not just her co-star: \”Channel 9 are making money off people who are vulnerable. They did the checks and they knew about his background, and they cast him anyway as it makes ‘good TV.’\”\n\nThe BBC’s investigation also uncovered three other male cast members with criminal convictions that were not disclosed to their on-screen matches: 2025 groom Adrian Araouzou, who was convicted of affray in 2017; 2024 contestant Timothy Smith, who served one year in a U.S. prison for drug trafficking; and 2026 series contestant Chris Nield, who was found guilty of common assault more than a decade prior.\n\nAraouzou called the BBC’s reporting on his conviction false and said the details of his past were none of the outlet’s business. The BBC confirmed the affray conviction through publicly accessible Australian court records, and understands Araouzou’s on-screen bride was never told about the conviction. In response, production said all contestants complete extensive background checks including police screenings, and noted Araouzou’s conviction was nine years old, resulted in a $400 Australian fine (around £210), and fell on the lowest end of the court’s sentencing spectrum for the offense.\n\nSmith, who describes himself on his personal website as a \”cartel pilot to corporate leader,\” confirmed his drug trafficking conviction to the BBC. Production said Smith did not disclose his U.S. criminal conviction until after the 2024 series finished airing. Nield did not respond to the BBC’s request for comment, and production noted his 11-year-old assault conviction stemmed from a one-off altercation with no repeated offenses since.\n\nMultiple other former cast members told the BBC they have deep concerns about the speed and thoroughness of the show’s casting vetting process. One anonymous male groom said only two weeks passed between his application and the start of filming, leading to what he described as \”rushed\” checks. When he was unable to locate official documentation confirming he had no criminal record, he said producers told him they would \”just take his word for it\” to keep production on schedule. \”I didn’t have a criminal record, but it raises the question over what happens if they put someone on the show who does have a history,\” he said.\n\nOther former contestants who were not personally matched with convicted individuals say they have been aware of the gaps in vetting for years. Katie Johnstone, a 2025 cast member, said: \”If you’re with someone who has a sketchy background, then you should be made aware of that. Especially considering you’re expected to be alone and share a room with this person. You need to know and it’s not fair that women are being placed in these positions.\” Tahnee Cook, who appeared on the 2023 series, added: \”These checks can’t just be a tick box. I don’t think you should be allowed on with any previous offense. I think it’s unsafe.\”\n\nAustralia’s Our Watch, a leading non-profit organization focused on preventing violence against women, told the BBC that reality TV productions must treat prior convictions or allegations of harm \”as a serious safeguarding issue, and not withhold from the people most at risk.\”\n\nIn its official response to the investigation, Channel 9 and Endemol Shine Australia say they take participant safety, health, and wellbeing \”extremely seriously,\” and maintain they have \”strong protocols\” in place, including a multi-stage vetting process that covers police and criminal background checks across all countries a contestant has lived, independent psychological assessments, medical screenings, legally binding disclosure statements, and digital and legal due diligence. The production also confirmed that their current protocols do not require sharing personal background information between matched participants, a policy the BBC specifically asked about and did not receive a revised answer on.\n\nWhile the series is a ratings juggernaut in its native Australia, it also boasts a large international fanbase, particularly in the UK, where it airs on Channel 4. After the MAFS UK scandal broke, Channel 4 pulled all episodes of the UK adaptation from its streaming service All 4, but the Australian version remains available to stream. Channel 4 said it does not participate in production of the Australian series and holds no editorial control over its content, but that it ensures all acquired programming aired on its networks adheres to the Ofcom Broadcasting Code.
