Seaside Eatery Shuttered in Disgrace After Owner's Pervert Conviction
A once-popular seaside restaurant has been permanently closed in disgrace after its owner was exposed as a serial pervert who showed obscene images of his genitals to young girls, sparking furious protests from disgusted locals in the community.
Shocking Offences Against Young Girls
Kenneth May, who had owned Silk Thai on Mandurah Terrace, south of Perth, for fourteen years, repeatedly displayed explicit images to young females between January 2023 and August 2024. The disgraced restaurateur was convicted earlier this month of two counts of committing an indecent act in public, after far more serious charges laid in 2024 were downgraded. Those initial charges had included possession of child exploitation material and indecently dealing with a child aged between 13 and 16.
In one particularly disturbing instance, May showed an 11-year-old girl a naked photograph of himself standing in front of a mirror, after discussing puberty with her at the restaurant. In another case, he showed a 13-year-old girl a picture of his penis in the bar area and laughed about the incident. May pleaded guilty to the lesser offences just weeks before he was due to face trial for the more serious allegations.
Criminal History and Community Backlash
It has also emerged that May migrated to Australia from New Zealand after serving time behind bars in 2007 for similar offending. After details of the court case were published on April 5, concerned community members began protesting outside May's Mandurah Terrace restaurant, expressing their outrage and demanding accountability.
Protest organiser Elizabeth Oxley emphasised that the demonstration was not merely about anger but about protection, awareness, and drawing a line as a community. 'We protested because our children deserve to feel safe. Silence helps no one, and we have a responsibility to speak up when something isn't right,' she told The West Australian. 'I couldn't imagine the trauma at 11 and 15... If I saw those photos at that age, I would have been terrified.'
Oxley added, 'We're here to show the children that we're here for them, but we're also here to show the others (predators) that we're awake, we're alert, and we're watching. We want them to be afraid.'
Restaurant Closure and Legal Proceedings
On Monday, a notice appeared on Google indicating that the Thai restaurant had permanently closed. A message to diners was posted on Silk Thai's website and Facebook page, thanking 'valued guests' for 14 years of support. 'It has been a privilege to share our passion for Thai food, hospitality, and community with you. Your loyalty and encouragement have meant the world to us,' the message read. 'A special thank you to those guests who continued to support us over the past 18 months. Your belief in us during challenging times has not gone unnoticed, and we are truly grateful.'
May was barred from stepping foot inside his restaurant after the initial charges were laid in 2024, but was allowed to return behind the counter just last month, working alongside his Thai-born wife, Aranya. This decision to permit his return further inflamed community tensions and contributed to the protests that ultimately led to the business closure.
Judge's Stern Warning and Sentencing
In court, Judge Craig Astill sentenced May to a 12-month community-based order, including mandatory supervision and rehabilitation programs. The judge noted that May's previous stint in prison should serve as a stark warning and a powerful incentive to reform his behaviour.
'I want to make clear this needs to be at the top of your list of priorities to deal with whatever issues are underlying this behaviour because I do share the State's concern that if you don't, then there is a risk of causing harm to other members of the community, whoever they might be,' Judge Astill said during sentencing at Perth's District Court.
The judge continued, 'You have a very inappropriate attitude when you are dealing with children and what might be the appropriate boundaries of behaviour, because it would be few people who would consider it to be an appropriate thing to be showing a 13-year-old child a penis, whatever the circumstances might be. But I accept it wasn't something that was sexually motivated, or what's referred to obviously often as grooming behaviour, but it was certainly inappropriate.'
Judge Astill also emphasised the impact on the victims, stating, 'There was an element of persistence, notwithstanding her discomfort, and perhaps as an 11-year-old girl, she didn't know how to really vocalise that discomfort or how uncomfortable she was feeling about what you were doing. She has then tried, as an 11-year-old would, to disassociate herself from it, but you have persisted by trying to show it to her. The fact that she was an 11-year-old that you were showing this picture that showed your penis, your stomach, your legs, it clearly would have made her uncomfortable.'
The case has highlighted serious concerns about community safety and the appropriate handling of offenders with histories of similar crimes, sparking broader discussions about protection measures and legal accountability in such sensitive matters.
