1
What happened?
▼

I reported online impersonation, identity theft and harassment to NSW Police from January 2021, with account links, screenshots and financial traces. The reports were not investigated. I was prosecuted three times instead.

I acted as a private whistleblower — documenting conduct I was experiencing, reporting it with evidence to the authority responsible for investigating it, and following up across multiple agencies when those reports produced nothing. This brief is for journalists and oversight bodies.

Key fact: The person I reported has never been charged by Kings Cross PAC. I was prosecuted three times. Two of those prosecutions were dismissed or withdrawn.

In late 2020, before I had filed any formal reports, Surry Hills Police contacted me to say I was attempting to access another person's Windows account. The account was my own — a Windows installation on my own computer that had been renamed to someone else's name and had its password changed. My attempt to recover access triggered a notification that was taken to police. The officer dismissed my explanation, described it as a civil matter, and warned me that attempting to access what he described as the other person's account was a serious offence. That was my first contact with police about the conduct I was experiencing — before I had reported anything.

2
What were the three prosecutions?
▼

From January 2021 I formally reported impersonation and identity theft to NSW Police (Kings Cross PAC). The person I reported has never been charged by that command.

Prosecution 1 (H85611724, charged January 2022) — Six image charges, heard together with the Prosecution 2 AVO charge on 15 August 2022. Four recording charges dismissed not guilty. Two distributing charges: findings of guilt, $500 each. The convictions were for sending images to the person I had reported — in correspondence in which I told him I had footage of him using drugs and taking property from my room.
Prosecution 2 (H91613788, June 2022) — Dismissed not guilty — Contravene AVO; alleged Signal call on 19 June 2022. A friend answered the alleged call but declined to provide police with details or a statement. Rushton gave sworn evidence at the hearing; however, Magistrate Reiss found there was no specific evidence identifying my voice and the evidence did not exclude the reasonable possibility that somebody else used the phone. The charge was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and was dismissed. Sources: COPS event E89340266 and transcript TR0158859. I separately obtained an Optus raw-usage extract for the prepaid service alleged to have made the call. It lists no ordinary voice call on the alleged date and warns that not all details may have been available. The officer in charge stated in writing eight days before the hearing that a Signal call would not appear in Optus call logs.
Prosecution 3 (H81615839, May 2024 – June 2025) — Withdrawn and dismissed — Use carriage service to menace/harass. Withdrawn and dismissed on 10 June 2025 before Magistrate Milledge at Downing Centre Local Court. Rushton attended but left without giving evidence. The prosecution sought an adjournment; it was refused. A police iASK communication-record search covering 1–7 September 2023 returned a total result count of zero and had been held for 99 days before charging was initiated. Item 7 of the brief index — described as "Documents provided by Victim" — was absent from the brief served on me. Constable Dellenty advised that "upon finalisation of the local court matter some information she had received that was not saved on ViewIMS had been deleted." GIPA 909690 returned "not held" across 13 decision points.

Sources: COPS event E89340266; Optus letter, 12 July 2022; iMessage from Con Marcel Hammer, 7 August 2022; Brief of Evidence H81615839, Item 9; GIPA 909690; GIPA Internal Review REV-2025-0858525; Wilson Tighe, O'Brien Criminal and Civil Solicitors, 16 June 2025 — all held by Anthony Smith.

3
Who was involved?
▼
  • Anthony Smith — reported the conduct, was prosecuted. Train driver 20+ years (Queensland Rail, later Sydney Trains).
  • @kandykingX — the person reported; subject of the impersonation and identity-theft reports.
  • The Hon Yasmin Catley MP — NSW Minister for Police; office issued response F/2026/10870.
  • Cybertrace — forensic provider; report Ref 2025-4663.
  • LECC — independent police-oversight commission; the Inspector’s May 2026 decision reviewed six of my complaint files.
  • Inspector of the LECC — oversees the commission; closed C82-2526/A8579640, 19 May 2026.

Note: Police officers and officials are named on the main site only where they acted in official capacity and a documented fact or question attaches to the name.

4
What evidence exists?
▼

The records below support the documented events; my account identifies the conduct I reported. Unredacted originals are available for review on request.

RefItemWhat it shows
A1Cybertrace report (Ref 2025-4663) — selected-pages public extractLinked an email it attributed to the suspect to a Microsoft account created in my name; recommended further police enquiries; I say those recommendations were not acted upon. Complete report held offline.
A2iASK search (Prosecution 3)Total Result Count: 0 for the alleged week; held 99 days before charging; Item 9 in the brief
A3Optus material (Prosecution 2)Raw-usage extract with no listed voice call on the alleged date; OIC's written statement that Signal calls would not appear in Optus logs
A4GIPA returns (NSW Police)Including the "Not Held" finding on the communication ban and the record-destruction admission (REV-2025-0858525)
A5QLD Health RTI (JIAU25/13749)The cross-border welfare referral, clinical outcome recording "no rationale for MHA" and closure, and transmission of the referral PDF to Queensland Police
A6Court recordsOutcomes of all three prosecutions (H85611724, H91613788, H81615839)
A7Oversight correspondenceLECC, Inspector of the LECC, Ministerial and command closure letters
5
What did oversight do?
▼
I say the oversight responses did not address the records I supplied.

This includes:

  • The LECC — the Inspector’s decision of 19 May 2026 reviewed six of my complaint files (C82-2526/A8579640 · pp. 1, 4).
  • The Inspector of the LECC — closed C82-2526/A8579640, decision of Bruce McClintock SC, 19 May 2026.
  • The Minister for Police — whose office returned the correspondence to the police force it concerned (response F/2026/10870).

The AHRC complaint and IPC reviews remain open. Federal ministerial correspondence is pending.

This site does not ask you to assume motive. It asks whether the documented decisions warrant independent scrutiny.
6
What are the key dates?
▼
DateEvent
2021–2022Impersonation / identity-theft reports to Kings Cross PAC; not investigated
Jan 2022Prosecution 1 commenced (H85611724)
Aug 2022Prosecution 2 dismissed — not guilty after hearing (H91613788)
16 Nov 2022I relocated to Queensland; later reports handled cross-border
Feb 2024Zero-result iASK communication-record search completed (99 days before charging in Prosecution 3)
May 2024Prosecution 3 charged (H81615839)
7 Apr 2025I instructed Cybertrace to investigate impersonation, harassment and cyberstalking. (Ref 2025-4663 · original PDF p. 2 · 3 June 2025.)
3 Jun 2025Cybertrace issued report Ref 2025-4663. (Original PDF p. 2 · 3 June 2025.)
10 Jun 2025Prosecution 3 withdrawn and dismissed
Jun 2025Cross-border welfare check; no Triple Zero call recorded in GIPA returns
Jan–Feb 2026Ministerial correspondence; police self-response F/2026/10870
19 May 2026Inspector of the LECC closes complaint C82-2526/A8579640
7
What's being asked now, and how do I make contact?
▼

Unredacted originals of the records summarised here are available for review on request. The site publishes redacted versions only; private citizens' details are removed.

Contact: contact@kandykingxcase.com

Other individuals have contacted me describing comparable experiences with the same command and complaint pathways. With their consent, introductions can be made.

Resources for Journalists

📄 Media Pack 📧 Media Invitation Prosecution 1 Prosecution 2 Prosecution 3

The linked court and agency records are available for inspection.

Next steps for journalists